MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 23, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:00 a.m., on Friday, February 23, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development Commission on Economic Development
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 125.
SENATE BILL 125: Makes various changes to provisions relating to financial reporting of local governments. (BDR 31-898)
The chairman recounted that the committee had moved to do pass S.B. 125 during the Senate Government Affairs hearing on February 19, 2001, however, Legislative Counsel Bureau staff had noted that the language in the bill would not accomplish the aim of the interim study. The chairman asked the committee for a motion to rescind the previous motion.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 125.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell suggested that the proposed amendment be considered by the committee.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 125.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 125 and opened discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 75.
SENATE BILL 75: Clarifies provisions relating to classification of employees of state printing division of department of administration. (BDR 29-751)
Senator Amodei explained that this bill was the result of constituent contact during the interim. The Legislative Counsel Bureau determined that the only manner in which two positions at the State Printing Division could become classified positions was by statutory amendment. Senator Amodei said he had asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau for assistance in drafting the language to address the issue and the bill before the committee was the vehicle written to accomplish the change from a nonclassifed position to classified and was limited to two positions. Senator Amodei emphasized that the process had been coordinated with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Office of the Governor, the Department of Personnel and the State Printing Division, Department of Administration.
Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that the Legal Division had been asked for an opinion as to whether two positions at the State Printing Division could be placed into classified service based on the Nevada Revised Statutes(NRS) 344.080. Ms. Erdoes went on to explain why this could not be accomplished without a statutory change. She asserted that the language in the section was ambiguous, and there was no existing process within the Department of Personnel system to actually place someone in classified service. Ms. Erdoes elucidated that without the new language, one employee who had 18 years’ service would have to go through competitive examinations and reinterview for the position. Therefore, the bill was drafted to clarify this section and put into language that union craft workers and their assistants were identified in nonclassified state service, and the bill would also define other positions as classified state service. Section 2 of the bill clearly defined the procedure whereby employees maintaining that their position(s) should not be nonclassified service could file applications for classified service with the Department of Personnel. The Department of Personnel, within the guidelines of the bill, would provide a finding under this section of NRS, as amended, of whether those employees should be in classified state service and if so, determine a step and grade for the employee.
Ms. Erdoes called attention to the procedure and added that the Legislative Counsel Bureau, at the behest of the Department of Personnel, inserted language to address employee disputes. The added provisions state that there will be no retaliation on the basis of making such an application. The proposed amendment was the result of consultation with Jeanne Greene, Director, Department of Personnel, whose concern was that existing language did not provide for an appeal either for the employee or the State Printing Division regarding the step and grade that had been set for those employees. The amendment states that either the employee or the State Printing Division may appeal the decision of the Department of Personnel.
Senator Neal queried whether the positions noted in the language were statutory changes. Ms. Erdoes replied yes, but not substantive changes. The State Printing Division had confirmed that the proposed changes were indeed what had been meant in the existing language. Senator Neal asked if the employee was going to apply for an upgrade. Ms. Erdoes responded, reiterating that the request was to change two positions from nonclassified state service to classified state service. As part of the process of becoming a classified employee, the Department of Personnel would set the step and grade for that position which might give the employee a pay raise based upon the fact that the individual had been nonclassified for a period of time. This amendment provided appeal rights should the employee have a dispute with the classification or step and grade. Senator Neal questioned whether this was the usual manner in which a change of classification was made. Ms. Erdoes replied that yes, it was the usual manner, according to the procedure in chapter 284 of NRS, an employee could file form NDP 19 with the Department of Personnel with the job description and duties associated with the position.
The Department of Personnel would assess the information and then could fit the position into the regular classification system. Senator Neal then asked what would prevent these employees from doing this now without a change in statute. Ms. Erdoes answered, saying that the Department of Personnel regulations and NRS did not provide for the creation of new classified positions without competition. In other words, the employee could fill out form NDP 19, in fact, that had been done, and submit the form to the Department of Personnel. The new classified position would need to be filled pursuant to existing statutes and regulations which state that the position would be open to anyone based upon competitive examinations and interviews. The employee who currently holds that position would also have to go through the process. Senator Neal queried whether the new positions would require an audit to determine whether or not there should be a different classification. Ms. Erdoes responded, yes, and there was a potential for two audits of the position. The initial audit by the Department of Personnel to determine what they believed the step and grade should be. If the amendment was adopted, then if either the employee or the State Printing Division thought the grade was unacceptable, either one could appeal and a second audit would be done.
The chairman asked for further questions and testimony. There was none. Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 75.
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 10.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10: Urges various persons and entities to coordinate efforts to promote economic development and diversification in this state. (BDR R-261)
Robert E. Shriver, Executive Director, Division of Economic Development Commission on Economic Development, explained that S.C.R. 10 was the result of a resolution adopted by an interim study committee established by Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 19 of the Seventieth Session.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 19 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of methods to encourage corporations and other business entities to organize and conduct business in this state. (BDR R-534)
It had been determined that it was important to make a statement encouraging the various entities within the realm of economic development to work together and provide leadership in the area of technical research development, Mr. Shriver said, adding that the commission endeavors to integrate all the various elements of economic development diversification in Nevada. Mr. Shriver elucidated on the work done in conjunction with the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) to bring about a strategic visionary plan for the state of Nevada. He noted the Battelle Memorial Institute provided a goal-setting document, a road map of where the state should focus direction and energy. S.C.R. 10 endorses what is really going on in the state and puts a legislative emphasis on entrepreneurism, he said. The State of Nevada received a Kauffman Entrepreneurial grant through the National Governors’ Association as one of ten states selected to forge a strategy to encourage, develop and sustain entrepreneurship. Mr. Shriver commented that S.C.R. 10 depicted the legislative intent and interest in the development of economic diversification.
Senator Neal acknowledged that the resolution did not mandate anything, that it just urged groups to work together. He asked specifically why the resolution was needed now. Mr. Shriver remarked that he and Chairman O'Connell had discussed that, also. He commented that at the time S.C.R. 19 of the Seventieth Session was adopted, many members of the committee did not realize the scope of groups involved in economic diversification. Mr. Shriver noted S.C.R. 10 identified areas of which, perhaps, policy makers were unaware, for example, the needs for venture capital and entrepreneurial training. These issues arise daily in the development of economic policies. Mr. Shriver concluded that the intent was to enumerate in a resolution the ongoing activities and to urge the continuation of those cooperative partnerships.
Senator Neal asked, specifically, what the university would offer. Mr. Shriver responded, remarking that the university would be the developer of the workforce research and development programs. It would be the entity to develop the ideas that would become businesses through technology transfer. Senator Neal queried the type of technology transfer in which the university would be engaged. Mr. Shriver stated that he could not speak to everything, but mentioned the integration of programming between the engineering schools and the colleges of business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). The ideas being developed would keep the best and brightest students in Nevada. He also pointed out the need for creating jobs to keep students here.
Joe Crowley, Lobbyist, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), expressed the support of the chancellor and the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) for S.C.R. 10. Mr. Crowley spoke to Senator Neal’s question regarding technology transfer stating that it had become a significant part of the business of higher education. The UCCSN is very involved with the Commission on Economic Development statewide, but particularly at the local level, he said, and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) is working with the Economic Development of Nevada Authority for Washoe County, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) is involved with the Nevada Development Authority in Las Vegas. He said the community colleges are also being called upon in the need for greater workforce development. Mr. Crowley continued, saying that the increased emphasis on research and the applications of the research was a major consideration in the College of Engineering and the Mackay School of Mines, as well as at the medical school. He said biotechnology programs are being developed at both universities in collaboration with the Desert Research Institute (DRI).
Chairman O'Connell asked for any further testimony or questions on S.C.R. 10.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 10.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE (VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O'Connell drew the committee’s attention to a proposed bill draft request, which Senator Porter then explained involved Title 36 of Nevada Revised Statutes, specifically dealing with the appointment of the adjutant general. Senator Porter stated that currently the adjutant general is appointed to a 4-year term by the Governor and can only be replaced if that individual resigns, upon withdrawal of federal recognition or for cause to be determined by court martial.
The chairman asked about the clause regarding active duty. Senator Porter responded that in order to be appointed, the individual must be an officer in the Nevada National Guard, federally recognized in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher, and must have completed at least 6 years’ service in the Nevada National Guard as a federally recognized officer, 3 years of which must be immediately prior to the appointment. Senator Porter continued, saying the proposed bill would allow the Governor to make a change and that this would also apply to the assistant adjutants general.
Senator Neal emphasized the necessity for stability in the Nevada National Guard. He maintained his concern that the appointment by the Governor should remain in effect for the 4-year appointment. (Later introduced as S.B. 471.)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REVISING LANGUAGE IN TITLE 36 OF NRS.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
There was no further business; Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing at 11:38 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Julie Burdette,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: