MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 5, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:02 p.m., on Monday, March 5, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, 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 William R. O’Donnell
Senator Jon C. Porter
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2
Assemblyman John J. Lee, Clark County Assembly District No. 3
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, and Washoe County
Jeannine Coward, Assistant State Controller, Office of the State Controller
Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Deputy Chief of Police-Retired, Reno Police Department
John Redlein, Assistant City Attorney, City of Las Vegas
Tom Stoneburner, Director, Northern Nevada Chapter, Alliance for Workers’ Rights
Mary F. Valencia Wilson, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and League of United Latin American Citizens
Kendall R. Stagg, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Marlene Richter, Director, Las Vegas Interfaith Council For Workers’ Justice
JoNell Thomas, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Heather Kendall, Employment Case Manager, M.A.S.H. Village
Ruth Bruland, Executive Director, M.A.S.H. Village
Paul Brown, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Michelle L. Fitzpatrick, Municipal Judge, Municipal Court, City of Las Vegas
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Nevada Organization of Building Officials, and Assistant Director, Inspections Division, Building Department, Clark County
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County
Stephanie D. Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
I have a couple of requests for resolutions. I am not sure any committee has requested them, but one would be a resolution honoring Doctor John H. Seinfeld, who is the winner of the 2001 Nevada Medal presented by the Desert Research Institute. I would like to request a resolution be requested.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST A RESOLUTION HONORING DOCTOR JOHN SEINFELD.
Senator Neal:
Who is Doctor Seinfeld?
Senator Raggio:
He is the recipient of this year’s Nevada Medal, which is given every year by the Desert Research Institute. This is something we do every session.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
Another request, this comes on behalf of a group of people represented by Earlene Forsythe, Lobbyist, Alliance with the Washoe County Medical Society. It is a proposed resolution urging the Nevada Legislature to encourage the Commission on Tourism and the Commission on Economic Development to market the state of Nevada as a state with choice in health care matters.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST A RESOLUTION URGING THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION ON TOURISM AND THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO MARKET THE STATE OF NEVADA AS A STATE WITH CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE MATTERS.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We are going to be looking at Bill Draft Request (BDR) 22-497. This is a request from Washoe County.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 22-497: Prohibits cities in certain counties from exercising certain powers of zoning in certain circumstances. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 279.)
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, and Washoe County:
Bill Draft Request 22-497 is one that really only relates to Washoe County. Washoe County is unique in many ways; it is the only county with regional planning authorizing spheres of influence. Within the Washoe County sphere of influence, a city may exercise any of the powers of chapter 278 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), including the zoning approval of permits, building permits. The concern, from the citizens in the unincorporated area within the spheres, was property around them was being potentially zoned to a higher-use density. This bill is to simply say until a property is annexed within the sphere, which is what this sphere is all about, future annexation areas are designated so people know in advance there will be the potential for annexation, until the property is annexed. We are asking there be authority granted, in effect, to limit the changes taking place by use or by increased density until the property is annexed.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-497.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator O’Connell:
The next BDR we will be looking at is BDR 21-498.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-498: Prohibits certain cities from creating islands by annexation of land. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 280.)
Ms. Shipman:
Bill Draft Request 21-498 simply changes the existing state law currently in Washoe County. The annexation law throughout the state is different for Clark County, different for the rural areas, and different for Washoe County. The Washoe County portion of annexation law does not allow the creation of islands through annexation. I do not think I need to speak to how the creation of islands creates a lot of problems in terms of service delivery, but probably more importantly, it creates difficulty in terms of the ultimate annexation of those islands because people are upset about it. So, what we are just saying, is to do the annexation in a manner and method not creating those islands so we would not have these disruptions.
Chairman O’Connell:
This does not affect the position of the island, or does it?
Ms. Shipman:
Right now, there are only a few islands left. They are in the area of Sparks’ sphere of influence, I believe. There are no Reno islands at the current time because over the past 3 years, they have annexed all of the islands. Again, what we do not want is a repeat of the concerns we dealt with during the past 3-year period by creating new islands.
Chairman O’Connell:
This bill does not just affect Reno; it is available for the state?
Ms. Shipman:
Actually, no, the annexation law in Nevada is divided, basically, into three different sets of rules. This section only affects Washoe County.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, is there a motion?
Senator Raggio:
I am just going to make the comment on both of these requests. I am assuming these do not have the blessing of the cities, or do they?
Ms. Shipman:
No, they do not. Both of these requests have gone through extensive discussion over the last 2 years through the regional planning commission and the regional planning process of the subcommittees.
Senator Raggio:
I am going to move then to introduce the bill. I am assuming both of these measures are something the cities have opposition to.
Ms. Shipman:
That is why I was going to introduce them as noncontroversial.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 21-498.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
The motion carried unanimously.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will see that they are introduced. We are going to be addressing Senate Bill (S.B.) 228.
Senate Bill 228: Authorizes state controller to appoint persons to certain positions in unclassified service of state. (BDR 18-663)
Jeannine Coward, Assistant State Controller, Office of the State Controller:
(Ms. Coward’s prepared testimony Exhibit C was passed out to the committee members.) I am here to bring before you S.B. 228, authorizing the changes of six classified positions to unclassified. Senate Bill 228 allows the State Controller to more effectively manage the office in order to accomplish the mandated functions. This bill allows the controller to have more authority to hire staff and is more consistent with the organizations of other constitutional offices.
We did not feel it was appropriate to go to non-classification, as some of the other constitutional officers are doing. We feel going to unclassified will satisfy the intent of what we want to achieve.
We consider all our employees professional. Employees who fall under the scope of unclassified are considered to be professional, administrative, or executive. This bill moves four supervisory positions, one management position, and one executive assistant to the unclassified service of the state.
The job descriptions of these positions are more suited to the unclassified designation, as these employees make decisions affecting the controller’s office and directly participate in developing policies and procedures. Therefore, the job title changes also reflect the responsibilities, scope of duties, and status of the position.
Our chief accountants would become deputy state controllers in charge of their various functions, financial operations, operations, data processing, and the integrated financial systems.
Our management analyst, who is the sole person in the controller’s office in Las Vegas, manager of the southern regional office, and the personal assistant to the controller, rather than being an “administrative assistant,” would be the “executive assistant.”
The employees listed above, who are to be moved to deputy status, spend more than 50 percent of their workday exercising discretion and independent judgment. They all posses baccalaureate degrees, and three of the four are certified public accountants.
The following indicates the number of employees each supervises: in financial reporting, the chief accountant supervises 9; in operations, 12; data processing, 10; and in the integrated financial system, 5.
Our fifth position is the management analyst who manages the Las Vegas office and is responsible for coordinating all activities in the south. The position is currently and will be increasingly more involved in integrated financial system and debt collection training. She alone is responsible for the management and supervision of the work unit.
The last position is the administrative assistant to the controller. This person is personal staff and under the direct supervision of the elected controller. It is vitally important for the controller to have discretion when selecting this person.
This will also be consistent with current positions in the Lieutenant Governor’s office, the attorney general’s and the treasurer’s. A bill to do the same thing has also been sponsored by the secretary of state, this session.
Finally, we believe this legislation allows the controller more control over hiring management and personal staff. There will be less paperwork and fewer delays than in the current personal hiring process. The Governor strongly supports this bill and agrees passage will generate a wider choice of qualified candidates and enhance the hiring of experienced staff.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, questions?
Senator Neal:
Why is it important to make these changes now? When these changes have not been a part of previous years or previous administrations?
Ms. Coward:
I think all the constitutional offices are looking toward having a bigger base to hire from, since we do have so many problems trying to find qualified people for state service. I think now elected, constitutional officers are term-limited to 8 years, they would like a little more flexibility in hiring staff they are comfortable with when they come into office.
Senator Neal:
The state controller may appoint a deputy now, right?
Ms. Coward:
Correct, a deputy and an assistant controller. There are two of us right now in unclassified service.
Senator Neal:
To put into statute the function of a particular deputy, be it broad or otherwise, such as financial reporting for operations, integrated financial system, data processing. What is the difference? Are you not raising to a higher level of classification a person there, which may make it more difficult to find people to hire?
Ms. Coward:
Well, I think the title just reflects the professionalism of the position, more in keeping with the treasurer’s office, which has always had those classifications as deputy state treasurer of operations, of investments, of cash management. In talking to Mr. Gagnier, he also suggested changing the classification titles to more reflect an unclassified supervisory management position.
Senator Neal:
Let me give you a for instance here, a deputy for data processing. What is it such a person would give you which you now cannot get from the state or, say, from the data processing facility?
Ms. Coward:
I am not saying we would want to make any changes at this point. The people we have in our office are very qualified to do the jobs they are doing right now. It was just an attempt on the controller’s part to have a little bit more flexibility in management of the professional staff she has to oversee.
Senator Neal:
Are these proposals based on some type of audit?
Ms. Coward:
No, sir.
Senator Neal:
They just want to change it by statute because it would be acceptable to the controller to do so?
Ms. Coward:
Yes, sir, basically.
Senator Care:
The attorney general’s office has got deputy attorneys general and chief deputy attorneys general; and Scott Anderson, if I am not mistaken, is Secretary of State Dean Heller’s deputy secretary of state. What about the treasurer’s office, do you know the word “deputy,” is it statutory with the treasurer’s office and the secretary of state’s office?
Ms. Coward:
The treasurer’s office titles are the ones I just read, I believe it was operations, and financial. The treasurer’s office deputies are called deputy state treasurer of operations, of investments, and of cash management.
Senator Neal:
Do you have an organizational chart for how this would fit within the controller’s office?
Ms. Coward:
I do, sir, there would basically be the same positions they have now. Just with different titles.
Senator Neal:
Yes, but the title suggests these individuals, “a” through “f,” would be reporting to the controller.
Ms. Coward:
Which is what takes place now.
Senator Neal:
So, why do you want to change it?
Ms. Coward:
Well, as I said, Senator Neal, the controller feels it is important for an elected official to have a little bit of discretion in hiring the staff working directly under her.
Senator Neal:
By their new titles, would you, in effect, be putting these people in classified service?
Ms. Coward:
They are in classified now. They would be in unclassified.
Senator Neal:
Right now, they are in unclassified service?
Ms. Coward:
No, they are classified now. They would be going into unclassified service.
Senator Neal:
As I read the language here, starting on line 2 of S.B. 228, the controller may appoint a deputy in unclassified service of the state.
Ms. Coward:
I believe “deputy” is being deleted.
Senator Neal:
Yes, I understand. It indicates what the present state of the law is.
Ms. Coward:
The deputy being deleted there is the chief deputy, I believe. Now, it is just being expanded in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 227.100. It would still say the chief deputy, but then it would add these other deputies.
Senator Neal:
And just elevate them into unclassified services.
Ms. Coward:
That is correct, sir.
Robert J. Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA/AFSCME):
(Mr. Gagnier’s prepared testimony, Exhibit D was passed out to the committee members).
Thank you, Madam Chairman. We have some problems with this bill. It had been my hope we could have worked them out ahead of time, but we were not able to.
There are several reasons for having unclassified positions which serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. One is because they are policy makers. Another, approved by the Legislature over the years, is to use the unclassified service as a means of paying additional compensation, such as the case in the Public Service Commission of Nevada where, in the early 1980s, they unclassified many of the technical personnel there so the Legislature could set higher salaries for them than the Department of Personnel was apparently able to do.
We feel, in this particular case, neither is the case. What I want to address is “a” through “d.” It is the intent, and I believe it is in the budget to provide substantial increases for those people currently in “e” and “f.” To bring them up to parity with some people in other agencies. So, I would like to address my remarks to “a” through “d.”
If this bill were to pass in its present form, these four incumbents would all suffer a substantial loss of pay. The reason is, currently, they get overtime and they are in positions that generate a great deal of overtime. Once they become unclassified, then they fit the definition of those who receive no overtime compensation whatsoever. You have to understand these positions would suffer a cut in pay.
In addition, I think assuming taking positions out of classified service and putting them in unclassified, is going to broaden your recruitment base is erroneous, it is just the opposite.
There are many people who will not apply for unclassified positions because of the total lack of security and other benefits. If an agency in state government gets to a position where they are having a difficult time with their budget, more and more of the extra work is put off on the unclassified employees because they do not have to pay them overtime. So they end up working longer hours for less pay.
We really think it is not going to improve the situation. In this case, these four people would be called deputies; they are not called deputies currently, three of them are chief accountants. That is their title, chief accountant. One of them is a data processing manager. They would become the deputies under this proposal. They have extremely rigorous qualifications for their jobs as classified employees. If they become unclassified under this bill, they no longer have to meet those rigorous requirements. Three of these people must be CPAs (Certified Public Accountants) under the current classified structure, something that was worked out a number of years ago.
The employees currently in these positions have held these positions for some period of time and took them with the understanding they would be in classified service. I think at the very least, the amendment, which was passed out, would be in order. Let me say, this is something we are going to be consistent on this session. We believe there are at least three bills which would either unclassify or put into the non-classified status a number of people in elected officials’ offices. And in each one of those instances, we are going to offer something similar to the amendment you have before you, that they do not take effect until the current incumbents vacate those positions.
Senator Titus:
Would you remind me, Mr. Gagnier, of the differences between classified and unclassified when it comes to protection of your job and getting fired. If you are unclassified, do you serve more at political whim than if you are classified, or are there any differences?
Mr. Gagnier:
There is considerable difference in the two. Actually, now there are three, but the difference, primarily, is classified employees must, number one, compete for their positions on an examination list. They must take an examination, meet the minimum qualifications, and serve a probationary period. Once they have served the probationary period, they can only be dismissed for cause.
Unclassified employees, with some exceptions set by law, do not have to meet minimum qualifications; they do not have to compete for their positions. They are frequently what we would refer to as political appointees, and they serve totally at the pleasure of their appointing authority. They can be dismissed for any reason.
This is compounded now, I think, by the problem of term limits, because now you know no elected official is going to be in a position beyond 8 years. If you are looking for a career, you might be somewhat skeptical of taking a position where a new administration may come in and you go out. If you are in policy- making positions, it is frequently an accepted aspect of the job. Certainly, if you work for a Governor, you would expect it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any other questions for Mr. Gagnier?
We will close the hearing on S.B. 228 and open the hearing on S.B. 256.
Senate Bill 256: Establishes certain requirements for issuance of work permits to certain employees who work in gaming establishments by local
governments. (BDR 20-158)
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2:
I am here today to speak to you about Senate Bill 256. First, I would like to give you some personal history with the bill.
About 14 months ago, I asked a few questions concerning work cards (permits). At the table, there were three other people and I got three answers to each one of my questions. I began to realize when it comes down to work cards (permits) for nongaming employees only, there were many different answers, depending upon what political subdivision and jurisdiction you were in.
I am sure some of you have heard Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (Washoe County Assembly District No. 27) has another type of bill dealing with work permits. Hers is strictly gaming. Mine is strictly nongaming, and the definition of nongaming is in the bill. Just to make it clear and on the record, I am going to read what “gaming employee” does not include.
Per NRS 463.0157, subsection 2, “Gaming employee does not include: Bartenders, cocktail waitresses or other persons engaged exclusively in preparing or serving food or beverages.” Nongaming employees get their work cards (permits) through the county or city municipalities. That is how they are approved. The jurisdiction is handed over to Metro to run the record checks.
This legislation merely sets out some guidelines I believe all the counties and municipalities should follow to be equitable to all the employees across the state, as far as getting what we so typically call a work card (permit).
It starts off in S.B. 256, section 1, subsection 1, “If a county,” I am not here to say all counties have to issue work permits, some counties may decide not to go down this road. A work permit may not be needed in their jurisdictions. If they do decide to issue work permits for nongaming employees, I would like them to take these things into consideration.
I have worked over the past year with numerous people trying to come up with the basic guidelines of what we think would be the best way to approach this. I have had many meetings with Stan Olsen from Metro (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department), Jim Nadeau (James F. Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office). I know there were people from the Interfaith Council (National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice) involved, and at one time, we did have a study group working on this. The Interfaith Council in southern Nevada and I realized we were working in a parallel direction. We decided to have a few meetings and a study group. Unfortunately, that group was bogged down in a lot of technicalities and we could not get where we needed to go. It was a large group of 13 people. After that group did not meet again, I decided to go ahead and take this project on, because I thought it would be a good thing to do for working people.
Let us go to the bill, under section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), “The person has been arrested.” Subsection 1, paragraph (b), “The person has been convicted of a crime more than 7 years before the date the person applies for the work permit.”
Senator Carlton:
When I had given the instructions to bill drafting to do this bill, I did not realize some of the technicalities involved as far as the statutes of limitation on convictions, misdemeanors, felonies, and all the different levels of convictions there were. We have been working on some new language for that section. Unfortunately, it is not available at the moment. We are trying to put together a package on that new language.
Section 1, subsection 2, “If a person appeals to the board of county commissioners the denial of request for the issuance of a work permits to work as a nongaming employee, the appeal must not be broadcast to the public on television.” Those of you from Southern Nevada may remember, about a year and a half ago, Las Vegas City Councilman Lawrence Weekly brought this suggestion to the city council. I received a lot of mail and a lot of phone calls from people who agreed with Councilman Weekly. But, it was very hard on the people who were testifying before the city council on merely a work permit appeal, these people may not have ever been convicted of anything in their lives, but they were denied a card for some reason which we may not know and had to appeal in a public forum.
The public forum should remain the same. It is an open meeting, anyone should be able to walk in. Subjecting these people to the televised version was very difficult in some of their cases. And also, it was rerun numerous times throughout the week, possibly the next 2 weeks, on the city channel. I have been told the county commission in Clark County handles this very well. They present a folder to the county commissioners, the names are not spoken, there is a bit of anonymity allowed in the meetings, and they do a very good job of it.
Just to give you a point of reference, and understand how I really feel about this, I talked to someone at the State Gaming Control Board, a very reputable board in this state, on how they handle this. They handle their appeals through a hearing process not open to the public. This is not just for privileged licenses, this is for employees who have had their gaming cards denied or revoked. Then, the appeal is taken to the open board and the person who is denied is not required to appear before the board. It is discussed at the board, they talk about it and then a decision is made.
This information is just to give you a comparison of how permitting is done in another area and how it is handled to protect some of the privacy issues, because these are not necessarily convicted felons we are talking about.
That is basically what I had to say to you. The first section of the bill goes through all the different descriptions and repeats itself in order to address the different cities and counties, so this applies to all of them. I want to congratulate Mr. Olsen, who has worked with me for over a year. We have agreed to disagree on many things, but we have also agreed to agree something like this does need to be done to give basic guidelines so we all have the same set of rules, and we are all working by the same rule book.
Someone who is working in North Las Vegas should not be denied a job in Henderson or in Clark County because of different applications of these nongaming rules. This will be the first time the state has taken a step into the nongaming employee issue. There is nothing on the books. When I went looking for something on the books, there was nothing for me to address. So, this is the point at which we decided to start to address some of these problems.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are there any questions?
Senator O’Donnell:
What kinds of nongaming work permits are there? Have you got a list of them?
Senator Carlton:
There are many, that was one of the issues through all the meetings. When I first started the meetings with Mr. Olsen, I was aiming at basically service employees. But, what has happened through the counties and municipalities, nongaming’s umbrella has gotten larger and larger over the years. So, there are many job classifications out there called nongaming, but are not even in a gaming establishment.
Senator O’Donnell:
Why is it this umbrella has gotten larger?
Senator Carlton:
Through you, Madam Chairman, I do not know. We would have to discuss it with the counties and municipalities, why they made the decisions to add those classifications into the work card permitting system. I believe it is just to know who we have applying for jobs.
Chairman O’Connell:
If I may, Senator O’Donnell. I know in our businesses, it was extremely helpful to try and find out a background on an employee because we have too many transients. I think in this state and anybody who is handling money especially, we wanted some background information.
Senator Carlton:
If I may, Madam Chairman, the one thing I neglected to mention at the very beginning which I wanted to make very clear to everyone, is this was my mantra throughout every single one of these meetings: We are not talking about child care and we are not talking about adult entertainment; We are talking about a different section of nongaming employees in the state who basically are a service industry.
When we looked at the matrix, I said I wanted child care taken out and I wanted adult entertainment taken out. I wanted to look at the nongaming aspect.
Senator O’Donnell:
If I may continue, on line 7 in the first page of S.B. 256, it says if the crime is over 7 years old, then that is not an issue to keep somebody from getting a work card.
Senator Carlton:
Yes, Senator, this is language, I will tell you the intent I had and then I will tell you, the other people will be coming forward to tell you the problems that will arise legally from this. As was read in the paper this past weekend, we have a corrections officer down south who had a problem when he was a very young man and now he is having a problem as an older more responsible person in getting a job. The intent behind this was if someone had made a mistake when they were 19 or 20 years old, it would not haunt them until they are 32 or 33 years old. If they made the mistake in another state and came here 12 years later and wanted to work, I feel they need the opportunity to go to work. And, if there have been no subsequent crimes, there are no problems if their record has been clean, we need to give them a chance to get a job. And that is the intent of this bill. I realize with all the different conviction statutes there are, we do plan on doing work.
Senator O’Donnell:
What about subsequent convictions, if someone has five felony convictions over 7 years old, would they still be allowed to get a work card?
Senator Carlton:
If they have not done anything for 7 years, and they have a clean record for the 7 years or whatever time allotment we come up with, then I think 7 years may be a very good indicator.
Senator Raggio:
Senator O’Donnell has raised some of the same issues that became apparent to me when I read the bill. First of all, we are talking about nongaming employees, but we are talking about employees who are in a privileged business. Gaming itself is a privileged business and one which we control very strictly at both the state and local levels. I think we need to be as concerned with those individuals who are directly dealing, as with any of those who come in contact, with the patrons of a privileged industry. That is the obvious reason why work permits were required in the first place.
The two issues in the bill, first of all, this would preclude any licensing authority from considering, for any purpose, whether a person has been arrested or whether they have been convicted of a crime prior to the 7-year period. I guess I am coming from the standpoint, as a former prosecutor, there is a lot behind a rap sheet with a number of arrests and no convictions. And, there is a lot going into this, I do not know what you are proposing as an amendment, but I could see a situation where somebody was convicted more than 7 years ago, who served 6 years or 5 years, and is just recently out of an institution and this would preclude the licensing authority from denying a permit. I think this presents some major problems for those who have to make certain this kind of an industry is not subjected to problem cases.
The next thing that caught my eye is this would be other than what I have heard you say, the first time the Legislature is being asked. Here we are always asked to pass sunshine laws and here, for some reason, we are picking out an instance where somebody appeals a denial of a work permit, which is something the public has a right to know about, and we would say specifically, in this case and this case only, the television industry for some reason cannot release this information or broadcast this information. While you may have a salutary purpose, I am kind of mystified, as I said, we are always asked to keep everything out in the sunshine, out in the open, and now the Legislature is going to be asked to ban one segment of the media from reporting upon something that takes place out in the public. I find it a little hard to understand. Those things jumped out at me when I read the bill.
Senator Carlton:
If I may, Madam Chairman, I would like to answer Senator Raggio’s questions as I go down. Yes, it is a privileged industry and it is their privilege license. But, is it up to me to prove I am a good and honest person by getting fingerprinted to protect their privileged license?
Senator Raggio:
No, it is not, but they are the ones whose license is in jeopardy.
Senator Carlton:
And, it is their decision on whom to hire.
Senator Raggio:
Excuse me, if any of the persons who work for them, in any capacity, cause something, it is a basis for revocation of a license.
Senator Carlton:
I understand, Senator Raggio, but I am just giving you the answers I have, and the arguments I have made with everyone. As far as the conviction, as I said earlier, I realize there were problems. I have asked a couple of different attorneys and Mr. Olsen to look at it. I understand the problems, and I told you my intent was we can figure out a way to address someone who seems to have turned it around. To point something out to you, sir, if you are a juvenile in this state, your record is sealed when you are 18, at 19 you can go to work in a gaming establishment and they cannot look into your juvenile records. We do have people working in those establishments where their records cannot be accessed. That is one of the inadequacies or the misnomers, I am not sure how to phrase it, and this does happen with juveniles. There is a problem with this, just to point that out to you. The television and the sunshine, I understand where you are coming from. I have gotten some criticism on this, but, I greatly admire the gaming board and the way they handle this situation.
It is still an open meeting. We have boards and commissions go into executive sessions and talk about numerous things that affect all the people in this state. This is something that affects someone’s life and their livelihood. It is an open meeting; anyone who wants to attend can attend. It can be part of the record. Being televised, I realize once something is televised, as Senator Care pointed out, it is a matter of public perception. This is something between the person and the city council or the county commission.
They may not have necessarily been convicted. We do not have cameras in the courtrooms where people talk about their traffic tickets. I understand the “sunshining” and the open meeting, but I also understand how these people feel when they have to appear before a board. It is hard enough for us when we testify before our colleagues in a room like this. Someone, who is a citizen, testifying before a city council or a county commission is very intimidated and the fact it is on television, I believe a lot of times, dissuades people from appealing decisions and possibly keeps them from getting a job. It is very very difficult. The fact someone in their neighborhood, or maybe their child’s teacher, or maybe the minister’s wife, might see them on television talking about not being able to get a job, is a very hard thing to talk about.
I have gotten numerous calls about this bill, and that is why I felt putting something in this legislation would at least give some discussion on how most individuals felt having to stand before the city councils to discuss their private lives.
Senator Raggio:
Well, that is well and good, but the Legislature did not pass a law precluding the gaming board from doing this before television. We did not pass a law to that effect. It is something to be handled by the procedural rules of whatever the licensing authority is. So, to ask us, in this one instance, to single out one segment of the media, and ban them from reporting upon something happening in a public forum, I would suggest is inappropriate. Even though you may have a good reason for asking, I think it goes too far.
Senator Carlton:
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Senator Care:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, what the senator was alluding to was she is aware I used to be news director for the ABC Television affiliate in Las Vegas, and she and I have differing views on the role of broadcasting a public hearing.
I have never applied for a work permit. I have no idea what goes on there. I understand the bill’s purpose and what I am going to find helpful to me, from subsequent witnesses, I guess, is the entire history of the work permit process. I understand gaming has to be regulated. I understand Senator Raggio’s concerns here, but I just hope the original purpose for work permits has somehow not shifted to where it has now become a convenience or an automatic, just because it becomes convenient for law enforcement to know as much as it can about each of our fellow citizens. I do not know, I could be wrong, but that is the sort of thing I am going to be looking for in these hearings. Thank you.
Senator Carlton:
Madam Chairwoman, if I may, Senator Care, I can tell you what I had to go through to get my work permit, and I have not officially done a poll of the Senate, but I am probably one of the few people in the Senate who actually carries a work permit.
I applied for the job. After I was hired, I was given a referral slip from my employer to go down to METRO (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department), stand in line, no fault of their own, for half a day. When you go in the door, you pay your money. At the time I believe it was $30, it has gone up to $35, it could possibly go up to $50. You fill in all the pertinent information on the form then they run you through the computer, it is a local check, it is not a nationwide FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) check. I believe, at the time, it was not going to the state repository when I had my first check done, but subsequently, I do believe, they do go to the state repository now. Then you are fingerprinted.
Senator Care, I would like to tell you what it is like to be fingerprinted in front of your children. It is not a pleasant thing, to explain to them why you are being fingerprinted, because, they put fingerprinting and criminals together in their mind, it is just a natural assumption. You have to explain to your children why you have to be fingerprinted to be a waitress to serve coffee, eggs, and toast. Then, you stand in line, you get your picture taken, and METRO makes up a simple laminated card.
At the time I did the permitting process, it was about a 5 to 51/2 hour process. I do not want to embarrass anyone in this room, but I will tell you when I went back to get my card renewed, my fingerprints had not taken. They had to redo my fingerprints again. So, for the 3 years that I possessed the card, there was not a clear set of prints on the record. Now, I understand with the thousands of prints they take everyday, there is going to be problems. Just to let you know, I did have to be fingerprinted again. Anyone who goes to work in the industry knows this is going to happen.
I did not realize permitting applied to nongaming. I understand someone who is standing behind the blackjack table, the craps table, the roulette table, a pit boss, a change girl, or someone out on the floor. I understand the gaming aspect. I believe our industry has gone beyond the problems it had in the past with its reputation and we are now a very reputable industry. I do not believe people have any fear of walking into a casino or going into a casino coffee shop and having a problem with an employee, which I think, a lot of these things arose from years ago. If I remember my history correctly, the gaming card started in about 1947, if I am correct. The nongaming permit just blossomed from there as the industry got larger. They wanted to make sure the people who were denied gaming cards were not hiding in nongaming positions. But, as Senator Raggio so eloquently said, this is their privileged license, this license is a billion-dollar enterprise. They are there to protect it, they are going to protect it.
I do not believe, as a waitress, being fingerprinted protects their license anymore than them running the basic checks. It is my own personal opinion on this. I just wanted to let you know.
Senator Neal:
Senator Carlton, this is not the first time that issue has been before the Legislature. During the 29 years I have been here, we must have had it here about six or seven times and we kind of chipped away at it. At one time there was no appeal, it was just the sheriff denying a person a work card, and nobody had any review. So, finally, we were able to get it into statute they could appeal to the city agency, or government agency in an open review of what had happened.
Now, I have watched many of these cases come before the Las Vegas City Council. It is open, the sheriff has to come in and testify as to why this person should or should not be granted a card. More than likely there is a vote and questions are being asked of the individual. So, I do not find anything degrading about this, I think the public review of this was very important.
Let me just address another question aside from what Senator Raggio has said. You have in here a permit must not be denied solely because a person has been convicted of a crime more than 7 years ago. Are you aware that conflicts with another portion of the statute in which a person could be granted civil liberties back within 3 years when they have no other offense greater than a traffic ticket. I see this as kind of rolling us backwards in terms of what the tack has been upon these cards in the past bringing us up to this particular point.
If we should happen to pass this bill, it says to me, without any public scrutiny and without the press being able to report what has actually happened, you thereby enhance those people making this review to do whatever they want. That was not the purpose of even adding that particular part of the review in this. We want it to be public because we had been confronted with this in such a manner the work permit was the sole province of the sheriff’s office in Clark County to deny or grant. In some instances, it was used to enhance the political activity of the sheriff. We found it harmful to good law and even to the person who was trying to seek a job. That is what it was. And, so, to come this far and now have to roll it back in any instance, I think, would be doing a disservice to those who work in the industry.
Senator Carlton:
Madam Chairwoman, if I may, there was, as far as paragraph (b) goes under section 1, subsection 1, there was no intent to move backwards. As I said earlier, we came up with the original language when I gave the drafter the intent, I did not and I will not lay this on a bill drafter, I did not give them enough information to work from. Since then, I have talked to numerous attorneys and law enforcement and realized the problems with this particular section. And, I would never want to roll back something like that, Senator Neal, it was not the intent at all. I understand your concerns with open meetings and making sure people do get a fair hearing. I am merely here to represent to you the concerns I heard from people appearing before the city council and county commission; it was mostly the city council, to be honest with you, and how they felt. I was just bringing their concerns forward in this. I would never want to make a closed-door, back-room, let-us-decide-who-gets-a-job-in-southern- Nevada-type deal. It is an open meeting, the press is allowed, it is print press, it is televised press, now. As I said earlier, I admire the way Clark County is handling the process, where they key the names in a file and it is not quite as open as far as the names being out there, but the person is still standing there.
I would never want to roll back the things you had talked about, Senator.
Senator Neal:
If you really wanted to get at this particular issue, there is a simpler way to do it. Just make the vote of the city council as two-thirds of the members.
Senator Carlton:
Would you like me to add that into this legislation? I do not think we are in the right chapter.
Senator Titus:
I just wonder, what is a comparison of waitresses and maids who work in gaming hotels with waitresses and maids who work at Alexis Park Resort, where there is no gaming. Do they have to go through any kind of card process or check or anything? What is the real difference?
Senator Carlton:
Yes, they still do, even though they are in a nongaming establishment, they still do have to get the card. What other comparison would you like to know?
Senator Titus:
I was just wondering about waitresses and maids. Both of them have to get work cards, whether it is a gaming establishment or not?
Senator Carlton:
Waitresses and maids, yes. And, also nongaming cards apply to waiters, bus boys, and cooks at the nongaming restaurants such as Red Robin, Applebee’s, Olive Garden, places where there is no gaming at all.
Senator Care:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, that brings us back to the original purpose of the bill, this issue of an appeal being publicized aside. Going back to 1947, you say you think 1947 was the genesis of the work permit system. I would be interested in knowing if someone has the information, whether dishwashers or maids in nongaming establishments were required to have work permits in 1947. And, if he or she did not, but must have one now, then what changed that it is so urgent now those people have work permits?
I do not want to lose the focus there, and secondly, what happens with the information that does not follow, that simply because someone is issued a work permit then he or she has a job? Getting the job itself is the second step, I assume is how it works. Does the potential employer have access to the information gathered in the background check? I just do not know. And, at what point does the employer have some liability, and when is the employer somehow off the hook. This is a different world for me.
Senator Carlton:
And, Senator Care, those are questions I asked and did not get decisive answers to when I first started on this project 14 months ago. As far as getting the different answers, I was under the impression, being a waitress in Southern Nevada, this was a state law. Then, I found out it was not a state law, but this is totally handled by the municipalities. That is when I started asking questions and getting all different types of answers to the same questions and what lead me down this road to lay out some type of guideline for the municipalities to follow so all the employees are treated equally.
Senator Neal:
To answer Senator Care’s question. Having worked in the hotels many years ago, in the late 1950s, there was not any requirements, you just went out and got a job. These requirements came in, probably the mid-1960s when they did require you to go down and get a work card to be employed in the hotels. Up until that point, you just went out and you just got the job and you went to work.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, then, you are going to be submitting some additional language to us, Senator Carlton?
Senator Carlton:
Yes, Madam Chairwoman, I have had people working on some language for me. They may be bringing some forward, if they have gotten it pulled together, because I know you like to have things in writing before you, not just the concept. And, I would like to thank the committee for its time and I will be here to answer any questions.
Chairman O’Connell:
I would just ask, line 6 of page 1, seems to be pretty open-ended information, if you could perhaps give us some idea as to what your thinking was there on that line, where we are talking about a person who has been arrested.
Senator Carlton:
Under paragraph (a), yes, an arrest cannot count against someone getting a card. Simply because you have been arrested does not mean you have been convicted. If you have been arrested 15 times and never convicted, then that is another branch’s decision and another jurisdiction, not necessarily this one. If you have been arrested, and then convicted, then I believe we need to stand somewhere on that position; but a simple arrest does not make someone guilty.
Chairman O’Connell:
Well, this is my point. You can be arrested for not paying parking tickets. I am trying to qualify the arrest. Is it a parking ticket arrest, is it a dog-running-loose type of a warrant, or is it a substantial concern for an arrest?
Senator Carlton:
Madam Chairwoman, I would believe no arrest should count on someone being denied a card. If there is not a conviction, then they have not been found guilty, and, I do not believe we should hold their right to livelihood against them.
Chairman O’Connell:
The language there is what you had intended?
Senator Carlton:
Yes, Senator O’Connell, it is. Section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b), has caused me the problems, legally trying to address all the different statutes of limitations and all the quandaries lawyers go to school 4 years to figure out. And, once again, I am not a lawyer.
Chairman O’Connell:
There are a number of people who have signed in to testify in favor of this bill. Did you have any particular order in which you would like us to take them?
Senator Carlton:
I would like Mr. Olsen to come forward and talk about the work we have done, to possibly answer some questions for you.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK. I see we have several people who are in the Southern Nevada area, we would just ask you not be repetitive in the information you have already heard, we have two other bills to hear. If you would just like to indicate your support when you come to the microphone, if you would just say, “I support the bill for the reasons already declared,” something like that would be helpful to the committee.
Senator Carlton:
Madam Chairwoman, I made sure there were numerous people who wanted to testify on this bill, I sent the word out I would just like one or two representatives from the different agencies and people who had worked on this, to address different parts of the bill, so each person is not addressing all the different parts. They all have a part they are concerned about. I did not want to subject you to another parade on a Monday. Thank you.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
To begin with, we are technically in support of the bill, but we do offer a couple of amendments. They are technical ones. We had some concerns with the term indicating 7 years from the time of an arrest. We feel, and Senator Raggio brought this up also, somebody could actually get out of prison and apply for a work card that day, based on the way the bill is written. We would have some difficulty in addressing that.
We offer some amendments to S.B. 256, in section 1, subsection 1, lines 7 and 8. Remove what is there, and replace it with, “for misdemeanor, 2 years after completion of sentence, or parole, or probation. Unless it has been reduced from a felony.” There are plea bargains where somebody has committed a felony, and for whatever reasons, many times it is reduced to a misdemeanor as part of the plea-bargaining, we would have some concerns with that. Continuing with proposed amendments, under a gross misdemeanor, “5 years after completion of sentence, or parole, or probation,” is a suggestion. And, under a felony, “7 years after completion of sentence, or parole, or probation.” That would cover the issues as far as we are concerned, with somebody getting out of prison today and applying for a job today and then getting a work permit.
Senator Neal:
We are talking about a person getting a job in a nongaming area, say washing dishes, or as a porter, or a maid. What is the significance of putting this type of requirement for a person getting a job?
Lieutenant Olsen:
I can address that two ways, Senator Neal. First off, if a person is a convicted burglar, and wants to get a job as a maid, we have some major concerns. They have unsupervised access.
Senator Neal:
Why not say that?
Lieutenant Olsen:
Well, I am going to answer it two ways. We have some problems with unsupervised access to the personal property of some guests at some properties with hotel or motel rooms. As a sidelight, and directly attached to this bill on a local level, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County and I, representing METRO, got together and went through the list. As near as we can tell, for those people who do require work permits, currently, we have offered up some significant changes over what it is now.
For example, under the changes, a dishwasher would not have to have a work card. A busboy would not have to have a work card. Waiters and waitresses would not, but, anybody who has a passkey to enter a guest room unsupervised, would have to have a work card. That would mean a front desk manager, security officers, the engineers or maintenance people that could go into the room, the housekeepers, anybody who has a pass key to a guest room.
Senator Neal:
Let me give you some information about how this all came about. The work card came about in order to inform the hotels as to whether or not a person had a certain type of criminal record.
Somehow, it got twisted into the sheriff’s department denying the work permit. So, what is wrong with you giving that report back to the establishment, and let them determine whether or not the person should be hired?
Lieutenant Olsen:
If I understand your question, sir, the report being the background done on them, would give them or not give them a work card?
Senator Neal:
You said you are hiring this person for a porter’s job, here is the person’s record.
Lieutenant Olsen:
Okay, as I said, we have made recommendations on a local level to eliminate those people, as far as having to get work permits totally.
Senator Neal:
You have already done that?
Lieutenant Olsen:
The recommendations are moving forward within the city council and the county commission, they are going to go forward to remove certain positions that no longer should have to have work cards. I do not have the entire list, but a porter is one of them. The ones listed in state statute, gaming and security and such, would stand. The ones that are not listed in state statute, such as any employee with access to a guest’s room through a passkey, would stand. All others would not, for example, the landscape guy would not.
Senator Neal:
OK, you have hotel security in some of these establishments that rival the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the National Security Agency (NSA). Why not just let them make that decision as to who they are going to hire, with the exception of particular areas where you have a high profile, in terms of criminal activity, and you might get involved with the mob or something like that? Then, I can understand where you guys would come in and make those decisions. Of course, the gaming control board would be concerned about those particular individuals, also. But, the other guy who is trying to get a job as a porter or a maid and he happened to know somebody, and someone in that establishment is willing to trust that individual, to do that work, why not let that person go and do the work?
Lieutenant Olsen:
Senator Neal, the option is available to them now. If for example, a convicted burglar wants to be a maid, and we deny them, they can appeal to the city council or the county commission. Many times the property management is there to say, “We are well aware of the fact that so and so is a three-time convicted burglar, and we are willing to take the chance.” So, that opportunity is still available to them.
Senator Neal:
But, you take the establishment itself totally out of the picture. The only thing the establishment does, when a person goes out and applies, is they tell them go down to “X” place, or the sheriff’s department and get a work card and then come back. But, you have the option of denying that work card, and the person has to go to the city council to appeal that decision, and the city council sits up there and says, “Well, we do not think you should have this card. You have to be out a little bit longer.” Whatever decision they make, it is purely arbitrary. I watch these things, it so happens they have it on channel 4 down in Las Vegas, and I watch those hearings. I have seen what they do. Some of those hearings are appalling as to the reason they give for denying work cards to individuals who have no effect on gaming whatsoever. They just want to work as a kitchen helper, or busing dishes, or whatever. Yet they are faced with being denied.
Lieutenant Olsen:
Madam Chairman, to Senator Neal, I do not know if you are asking me a question or not, Senator, but I can tell you that, as I stated, on a local level we are already moving forward to eliminate a lot of the positions you just named from ever having to get work cards again.
Senator O’Donnell:
Can you tell me who is working to eliminate the work cards?
Lieutenant Olsen:
Senator O’Donnell, the county ordinances and the city ordinances are the ones governing the nongaming positions. As Senator Carlton indicated, there was a group put together that tried to move forward, but because of a couple of issues, the group could not complete its work. As we were getting closer to the session, and I was going to be coming up here to the Legislature, Senator Carlton was going to be unavailable, it was decided we would get together, the city, the county, and METRO. Other individuals were contacted and either could not make it or whatever. But, the fact remains, it is in city and county ordinance, and so the decision was made on which ones did need to have it (the work permit), or should not need to have it, and which ones could be eliminated.
Senator O’Donnell:
Let us go back to the 1950s. We established the work card permitting system to protect an industry that was thriving in the city of Las Vegas, and, I can only speak for Las Vegas, but, the work card program was initiated to protect the public. The gaming establishments and various businesses catering to tourism went to the sheriff and said, “We need to know about a perspective employee we are about to hire. We have no idea about his/her background. You understand the genesis of Las Vegas; we started gambling just after the war basically, in a big way. The only people who knew how to run gambling establishments came from Chicago and New Jersey, and a lot of those elements we sort of wanted to protect ourselves from, and those were the only people who knew how to do it. So, we established a work card permit to protect an industry.
Then, the sheriff decided he would use the work card permit to make sure crime was taken care of, in terms of not having rooms burglarized, because we had a plethora of that, so, the sheriff took it upon himself to beef up the work card permit process.
That is why I am curious to find out who is behind softening or weakening the work card permit process. Because, if anything, we need to make absolutely sure this industry is protected. The one thing Las Vegas, and Reno, and Elko have, as far as gaming goes, is quality gaming and ethical and honest gaming. We need to keep it that way. We do not need a black eye on the city of Las Vegas or any other city in the state in terms of having employees, whom you cannot tell and you cannot trust whether or not they are going to do an honest job.
Now, that being said, maybe a modified work card would be in order. If you have some people who have an arrest 7 years ago, and they have been clean since, they do not get a full-fledged work card, but might get a modified, “blue” card or something. You could have certain jobs that require a “blue” card. The problem with getting this information out to the employers, whom you are trying to protect, and you are trying to protect an industry, you cannot give an employer a rap sheet as far as I know.
If a job applicant has not been convicted of a felony, you cannot give employers a rap sheet. But, if a conviction has been plea-bargained from a felony down to a misdemeanor, you cannot give them that information, either.
We have to protect the industry, but at the same time, we have to protect the employers who depend upon the sheriff to do his job, because they cannot get that information.
Lieutenant Olsen:
Senator O’Donnell, I absolutely agree with you. It is important to know that police organizations and local government are being attacked regularly from different angles and different groups that want to totally eliminate work cards for everything, including the convicted child molester who wants to drive an ice cream truck. We take exception. We also take exception to anybody who has a felony record and has a passkey to a guest’s room. You are absolutely right, we do have a very safe industry, probably one of the safest tourist destinations in the nation.
We are well aware of the fact there are a number of crimes committed against people who come here as visitors. The METRO has formed a tourist crime section to directly deal with that. We also realize the work card system in the nongaming positions, even inside or outside a gaming property, have become a bloated monster, for lack of a better term, and has created some situations where people were not able to get employment.
Case in point, there was a stagehand who called me a little over a year ago. Most of the hotels do not have permanent stagehands located on and employed by the property. They may go to Caesars Palace one day, the MGM Grand the next day, the convention center the third day, things of that nature.
What happened was, this one individual who called me, his work card was going to expire. He went down to get it renewed. They told him, “You cannot, because the ordinance says you have to come with a referral from whomever you work for,” so, it got to the point where he could not get a referral because the hotels did not employ him, he could not get a referral from the convention center, because they did not employ him. He ended up calling me after he went through a county commissioner on what he could do. At this point, his card had expired and he still had no referral. That is when a lot of this started surfacing. Stagehands, by the way, are not the only ones; banquet waiters and waitresses are another example of that problem. The hotel does not employ them, they are sent out by the union to different locations every day.
So, we started looking at a way we could fix this. It was unfair, because of the system, this individual might get in a situation where he cannot feed his family, cannot pay his bills. And, we were concerned.
With this issue, what we did was we decided to change our policies and allow for the privileged license section to become the “referral agency,” for lack of a better term, for those types of positions so they could get their cards renewed. If they let the cards expire, they were going to be in some difficulty, and we got it worked out.
Then we started looking at more of this, when Senator Carlton brought up the work permits, and we started looking more and more, and there is a significant difference, from entity to entity, on how it is done. Even within Clark County and the City of Las Vegas, both of which METRO polices, we felt it was important to get everybody, at least those METRO deals with, on the same sheet of music.
Then, other problems came up with work cards. I will use Station Casinos as an example because they have a property in North Las Vegas, in Henderson, in Clark County, and in Las Vegas, but they are unable to take somebody, a busboy or a waitress, and move them from Palace Station Hotel and Casino on Sahara Avenue within the city limits of Las Vegas and move them down to Boulder Station on the Boulder Highway, without going through another part of the work card process. It would be the same as somebody telling the sheriff, “No, you cannot move Stan Olsen from the northeast substation to the northwest substation.” That was one of the inconsistencies and one of the problems. What started off primarily to deal with organized crime issues, and to protect the tourism, and bring money to the economy, became larger and larger, and basically, almost unmanageable at times.
We felt that issue really seriously needed to be looked at. In looking at it, we got to a point were we could not, as a group, continue any further. There were those in the group who either got everything they wanted or were going to sue. It just got to the point where we could not continue. That is how and why we started getting together and started looking at each individual job classification we could identify.
Case in point, outside of the hotels, in the city limits of Las Vegas, the person who drives a food wagon, in the ordinance, is separate from ice cream truck drivers. So, the ice cream truck driver has to have a work card, the food wagon guy does not.
In Clark County, the ordinance is not separated. So, the way it is worded, both of those individuals have to have a work card. There was a concern we do not care about the adult food wagon going to construction sites. We have some significant concerns with the ice cream truck drivers, because they have unsupervised contact with children.
These were some of the inconsistencies we saw just within METRO’s organizational area. We started looking at Henderson and North Las Vegas and what they did or did not require for a work permit. Sometimes they did not require the work permits the City of Las Vegas did and the county did, simply because they did not yet have that type of business, totally nude dancing is a good example. So, what we wanted to do was try and at least have a starting point to trim down this process to make it more manageable for everybody, but still protect tourism and the properties as they come in, which is why it has been a heated issue. We at METRO are adamant, those with passkeys to rooms will stay work-carded, because, it is the weak point where an unsupervised person is going to rip off a guest, regardless of what kind of property it is; and there are those who do not want us to.
Senator O’Donnell:
How about cab drivers? Are they work-carded?
Lieutenant Olsen:
No, sir. That is done by the Taxicab Authority.
Senator Neal:
You know, I sit here and I listen to you and understand the genesis of all of this. The work card started out as a problem created by Fidel Castro running the mob out of Cuba, and they came here, and J. Edgar Hoover was following them. The FBI, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, ran a wire from 15th Street, where the old office used to be, to the Fremont Street Hotel. That is when they did not have the sophistication of electronics and they tapped the phones and they would listen to the telephone conversations down in the office.
So, someone discovered this wire that was in the FBI’s office and then Governor Grant Sawyer, through the insistence of some of his friends in gaming, raised all kind of hell about it, challenged the FBI, wanted to run them out of the state, but they could not do it. And, they said, “Well, you do not have any surveillance on any of these people.” So, as a result of this, they decided to come up with this work card system to put in place to track these people.
It was never intended to get the low guy down there who was sweeping the floor and washing the dishes. Subsequently, the sheriff who came into power saw it as a means of control. It made him one of the most powerful people in the county, because he controlled jobs from the littlest job in the hotel to the biggest at the top.
That is what it was all about. I see how this has been abused, in terms of the small guy, and I am appalled. I watched all of this when it was occurring. I just wanted to enlighten you as to what actually happened and why this thing got started.
Lieutenant Olsen:
Senator Neal, I am aware a lot of times members of organized crime groups would come in, as individuals, and get jobs as a cook or dishwasher, whatever, and do other things, that is why a lot of it expanded, you referred to the little guy, because they were doing those types of things.
Senator Titus:
I completely agree, we need work cards for people in the gaming side of things, and, certainly for child care providers. I voted for that. But, I think the system has become bloated, I do not think it is meeting its original intent. I think now, instead of being there to protect the public, it benefits the industry, because they get a free personnel screening process, paid for by taxpayers. As I look at this bill, I wonder why, instead of this, we could not put in the statute, those types of nongaming jobs that should be covered by work cards. Or else, on lines 7 and 8, instead of changing as you suggest, with all of these details allowing for no exception, why do you not just say the sole reason for denying a person cannot be a prior criminal conviction. That way, you can use some discretion when deciding when a person has been rehabilitated, or what kind of crime it was relative to what kind of job he was applying for. Would either of those ways not be cleaner at getting at what Senator Carlton has in mind?
Lieutenant Olsen:
I would have to disagree, Senator Titus. Let me address the second one first. If we were to say we cannot depend solely on conviction, what do we do with a convicted child molester?
Senator Carlton:
Do not go down the children road, please.
Senator Titus:
Are we not just talking about nongaming?
Lieutenant Olsen:
Okay, then staying with nongaming, if you just say not on conviction, and you get a person who is a multiply-convicted burglar, and he wants to have a job where he is going to have passkeys to somebody’s room, and we cannot base a work card denial solely upon the fact of his conviction, we are at a loss.
Senator Titus:
No, but you could not say you automatically do not get a work card because you have been convicted of a crime. That is what this says, “convicted of a crime.” But you could clarify and say you cannot be a porter if you have been convicted of robbery, a rationale that makes sense as opposed to, “you have been convicted of kiting checks, so you cannot be a dishwasher.” That is based solely on conviction without any kind of nexus between the crime and the job, or, between the crime and the rehabilitation, or the crime and getting your civil rights back.
Lieutenant Olsen:
Madam Chairman, through you to Senator Titus, I do not think we have enough paper to list all those different jobs, simply because when we were trying to put this together, starting over a year ago, we were having significant difficulty getting, even from the unions, some of the job classifications. They have a list of them, so we could go down the list. We were having some significant difficulties.
Senator Titus:
Well, how are you doing it at a local level? You just said you were trying to do it at the local level excluding, certain ones, why could you not do that?
Lieutenant Olsen:
We started looking at the ordinances, but we could not identify every job classification, because we do not know what they are called.
Senator Titus:
But, why could you not do it by exclusion, like you are talking about doing it at the local level? A maid in Clark County would be the same as a maid in Washoe County.
Lieutenant Olsen:
If local government is working, first off, I would think it is reasonable to keep it as a local issue, county and cities, and they are working on it. By the way, it is not just Las Vegas and Clark County, I know Washoe County was involved in some of these meetings early on, also. It is a prerogative of local government to address this, and they are addressing it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Carlton, is there anything you want to add we have not heard?
Senator Carlton:
I wanted to answer one of Senator Titus’ earlier concerns about all the different job classifications. Lieutenant Olsen did a very good job. I had asked that question and one of the things Lieutenant Olsen did not tell you is the county needs the flexibility to be able to look at different types of classifications. We respectfully agreed to disagree on some of those areas, with being able to look into certain types of people getting certain types of jobs, and those job classifications. As I said earlier, there are so many different answers to the same question, I would just like to see this addressed towards the nongaming-type employee. I would love to be able to just say there will no longer be a nongaming card. I realize we needed to start from a different point.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
First, we have worked with Senator Carlton on this for quite a while, including my records manager, Debbie Campbell, who also reviewed this bill. Our biggest concern, as mentioned earlier, is the limitations on convictions, I think that needs work, and we are willing to work on it.
It is not unilateral within the sheriff’s office, to decide who gets work cards and who does not. That is established by county code or by city ordinance. In Washoe County, we have worked very closely with both the City of Reno and the City of Sparks, to make our work card laws relatively uniform. Quite frankly, I think we have done a good job and we have really limited the number of work cards out there. We feel quite comfortable with this bill, other than the aspects of the conviction.
As far as listing each job specifically within the statute, quite frankly, I think the county commissioners and the city councilmen need that flexibility, because, there are new names, new jobs, new variations constantly coming into play. Who would have thought, 50 years ago, we would be dealing with telemarketing, but obviously it is an issue. So, rather than having to come back to the Legislature, I think we need the flexibility, to add a new name or take a name away. I think it should be left to the local entities and their discretion.
We do support the bill with some amendments to the conviction aspects.
Senator Raggio:
Madam Chairman, I do not want to extend this any longer, but in my time as a prosecutor, I looked at a lot of rap sheets. I have seen rap sheets that had two and three pages of arrests without convictions. Mainly because the “offender” moved so fast nobody wanted to bother with him. I can see a lot of problems with this, it sounds good, but I can tell you, there are a lot of problems built into it. I do not know if you are ready to abdicate that kind of legitimate control. Some of these positions have been indicated as nongaming and with access to guest rooms, it is not an uncommon occurrence for patrons or guests to be robbed, or burglarized, or for access to be given to other people. These things are not uncommon. So, while I think there is certainly a good motivation, I think there are also some concerns that need to be considered before we take some hasty action on just a blanket limitation on the kinds of things being considered.
I would ask you, if you have not seen the kind of rap sheets that I talked about initially, and there are a lot of them, you can go behind some of those and get a lot of reports, in some cases, from which you could glean a lot of information about someone’s character.
Again, this is not preventing people from working; it is preventing them from working in a privileged industry. There is still the opportunity to work elsewhere. It is either a privileged industry or it is not. When tourism is the primary basis for Nevada’s economy, I do not think it is something to be just shrugged off with laughter. I think it is of concern. That is one of the reasons it has been in the law this long.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you all, very much, we appreciate your testimony. We are still taking testimony from people who are for the bill.
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
Not to belabor the point, but we support this bill. There are a lot of people who have fallen through the cracks on these things. I have a nongaming work permit I got from Clark County, and if you have never been down there, it is quite an operation. To say you are going to get out of there in 5 hours, you did well. But, there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks and I can certainly appreciate Senator Raggio’s comments. I had to get one because, as a stationary engineer, I had a key to everybody’s room, a key to every room in the hotel. The hotels are pretty diligent. They conduct stings on the employees all the time, but there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks with these things. You know, a bar back, a porter, I just do not see where those people really need to have work permits, when most of the problems with licenses have been generally with the licensee. I am sure there are cases where there has been a problem with an employee, but there are a lot of positions in the industry that do not make sense anymore than the testimony earlier about people who share a common company and are not able to move between the jurisdictions. So, we support this bill in concept, and would work with the committee to address those problems.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association:
The employers I represent are both the victims of the work card system and totally enriched by the work card system. We are victims of the ordinances, whatever they are, determining who has to be licensed. On the other hand, we are enriched because we do get the benefits of background searches of the sheriff’s departments in the various counties.
We are officially neutral here and I will tell you why. We have not had a chance to review this bill. We know Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie has a bill in the other house to be introduced. We think there are things that can be done with work cards to streamline the system, make it easier for employees to get work cards and to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We will continue to look at it and will give you more information.
I think what is interesting is, understand, no one gets a work card before they are hired. We have to make a hire commitment to an employee, “We are going to hire you, go get your work card, and come back to us within 24 – 48 hours (whatever it is) to go to work.” So, we do not know the background information on the employee before we make the hire. We base it on the interview of the applicant. So, if they do not get a work card, most of them we never hear from again. They do not come back. Some will come to us and say, “I am having trouble getting a work permit, and I am going to appeal,” then we try to work out some kind of time frame. I do not remember very many of those in my 25 years in the industry.
Most of the work card rejections are for people who have just arrived in Clark County and have no idea that when they get a job in a casino, they are going to have to go down and see the sheriff. A lot of them never make it to the sheriff, they just keep going. Generally, people who have been in Clark County for a while all know you do not get a job without getting a work card. In some sense it works as an automatic screener.
Just as background, I do not know when work cards started. My first work card was issued in 1964 in Douglas County, so work permits were being issued then and I have had them in other counties.
Understand how the gaming control aspects work, there are “licensees,” those are jobs which are identified by the gaming control board: president of a hotel, casino manager, and other jobs that must come forward to get a license. Then, there are “key employees.” Each hotel submits to the State Gaming Control Board on a certain time frame, usually an annual basis, a list of all key employees. Key employees are defined and listed by the control board, and if you fall into any of those categories, you get on this key employee roster, there are 300 or 400 names on it for an average hotel. The control board then has the option of calling forward anybody on that list for licensing, they do not have to, but they may.
The third level are the cards issued by the sheriff’s department. I do not know how the control board does that, somewhere they end up reviewing those cards issued, not at the time they are issued, but sometime after. I have been in a situation where a gaming control agent will come into a personnel office and say, “I want to see ‘John Smith’s’ file.” Who is John Smith? It could be a gaming employee, could be a nongaming employee because they have looked at the work permit application and made a decision they have some concern, and they come in. So, there are sort of three levels of review there for the State Gaming Control Board.
When I first started in this business in 1973 as a human resource executive, some jobs required cards and some did not. Somewhere, and I do not remember what year, they expanded it so, to my knowledge, every employee in the hotel has a card, either a gaming or a nongaming card now.
The problem for us in the hotel industry was we had to check a list to make sure if “John” needed a card. Now, once we decided “John” did not need a card, “John” could not transfer or do any other work in the hotel; that became an issue. If I am a porter, and I do not have a card, I cannot work as a utility porter, because, as a utility porter, I have to vacuum guest rooms. So, a porter cannot become a utility porter because he does not have a work permit. We do not have that problem anymore, because everybody has a work permit.
Mr. Thompson:
But understand, there are some 600-odd job classifications in most hotels. To move people around from one to another became an issue. It was easier for us if everybody had a card. As it is now, we track work cards and have to send notices to employees asking them to get them renewed and bring them in for us to check. At anytime the State Gaming Control Board could come in, and they do more frequently than probably the licensees like, and will come right up to an employee and say, “Show me your work card.”
Not only do you have to be issued a work card, you must have it on your person, not in your locker. You know who gets fined if it is not? It is the licensee, not the employee. The licensee is always on the hook. As Senator Raggio has pointed out, it is a privileged industry. We are responsible for meeting all of those regulations and laws. If they are violated by one of our employees, we ultimately are responsible for the actions of those employees.
We think the system could be better, it can be improved. We want to look at some of the issues we have talked about, such as work card for a county or statewide, or perhaps others. I do not know anything about nongaming employees, those are employees outside the gaming industry. But, I do not know what the word “nongaming” encompasses, and perhaps the city attorney’s office could tell us whether it encompasses day care centers, other food establishments, or bars in other places.
We hire ex-felons in this business, we hire people who have had gross misdemeanors. We make a decision at the time of hire. If someone was convicted for possession at 19 years old and he is now 35 years old and wants to be an operating engineer or a bartender or to have a front desk job, we make the decision as an employer, it is on the application. We ask about convictions. We say, “Yes, we are going to hire you.”
Now, on occasion, we have had a call from a sheriff’s office saying, “We are not going to issue a work card.” We think it is unjust, but the person has a right to appeal. We do not get any information back, they get work cards issued if they had a conviction, and not everybody is turned down who has a record of conviction. I think we can hear that, too.
I think our security staff in hotels do get some feedback when they ask about certain individuals. But human resources’ people do not have the ability to just pick up the phone and say, “Give us a records check on this person.”
There is a question of what privacy rights an individual has, with regard to somebody inquiring about his or her background. We ask the questions, we expect honest answers on applications, we do not always get them, but most of the time we do. People are pretty honest, I think; most people are hard-working and try to make a good effort. We would be happy to work with the parties to ease the situation if there is a problem. We enjoy the protections and would like to continue to receive those, though, at the same time. Thank you.
Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Deputy Chief of Police-Retired, Reno Police Department:
The Reno Police Department is basically in favor of this ordinance. I do want to point out Senator Raggio’s comments on the perception of the industry and its need to stay untarnished, or as near to untarnished as possible, is very important for the continued well-being of our state and of our major industry.
Secondly, at the same time, with Senator Neal’s concerns about people being able to work, we do need to have flexibility. One of my concerns has always been if you get a person outside the major properties, who has a particular type of conviction, working in an unsupervised location by themselves, you want to deny the work card in that area. If they go to a major property where there are supervisors, no problem. You can then go ahead and issue the work permit to them. I believe Lieutenant Olsen has already addressed my concern regarding the 10 years when there is a conviction, depending if somebody is right out of jail. If the property knows this person just got released, and is willing to take a chance with him, I think a provisional gaming card should be issued; it often is with our agency. We have also instituted a two-tier system of appeals; initially, if a work permit is denied on the basis of the law itself, they can appeal to the director of records. If the decision is upheld there, then they may go to the city council. But, there is an interim level. Most of the times, this is settled with the conditions I mentioned, you let your employer know you cannot have a work permit here, but if you go downtown where you are supervised you can have a work permit. That takes care of more than 95 percent of our potential appeals.
My other point, I wish to bring forward some concerns about, is the particular issue addressed in this statute, not be confused with those nongaming work permits such as cabdrivers. In Reno, we do permit cabdrivers, but it has nothing to do with gaming, it is a privileged license for obvious reasons, it is for the public safety. Denial on those permits is often related to narcotics convictions. You do not want people in a cab out there when they have been convicted for narcotics and they are fresh out of jail, no matter how long it has been.
Senator Raggio:
The bill only talks about nongaming employees who work in an establishment where gaming is conducted. So, it would not, as I read the bill, impact those types of situations.
Mr. Carson:
Madam Chairman, through you to Senator Raggio, that is absolutely correct. Except one question from the committee caused me some concern when the topic went to cabdrivers. My concern is that we stay focused exactly with your reading of the definition here. I believe this bill, with some work, can work well for everybody, to allow the flexibility and still maintain the restrictions of and the protections for the industry. I would be more than happy to utilize the personnel at my disposal, as well as myself, to work with anybody to come up with the language you need to make this work.
Senator Raggio:
But to continue, for example, some hotel establishment or gaming establishment could have a room for children, for minors, and have people in there to care for those children who are nongaming employees. I think the scenario begs a question, “Do you want no background checks on those people?” Let us say you had a background check on those people, and they had never been convicted, those are the kinds of issues I think that crop up under this kind of a blanket restriction.
Mr. Carson:
You are absolutely correct, sir, especially with the proliferation of arcades. The change persons in arcades and those people around who do handle the majority of young people, anywhere from above toddler up to age 25, an awful lot are in the teenage range.
Senator Titus:
This concerns me. I would like to ask our legal staff, are people who take care of children not covered specifically in another statute? This would not affect that would it? This would change those requirements, would it not, because if it would, then I have a whole new set of concerns. I was under the impression requirements for checks for day-care providers are in another statute. So, would you explain it to us, real clearly, so we have it on the record?
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel:
Yes, Senator Titus, there are specific qualifications for child care workers, but, I believe the example Senator Raggio has just brought up, typically arcades, as I am aware, are not nor can they be located anywhere near the casino floor. I do not know, it would appear that possibly this language could be interpreted to not include someone who might be overseeing an arcade area.
Senator Raggio:
I think the answer is people, as I suggested, do not come under the statute on child care facilities.
Mr. Carson:
Madam Chairman, Senator Titus, I am unaware, in my experience with the Reno Police Department, even in the times when I was in charge of overseeing the records division, of anyone in an arcade from any of our properties in town, coming in to comply with the Megan’s Law of fingerprint requirements. We did have several people who taught in Sunday schools and those types of things come in and make special requests for us to train their people to take the fingerprints so they could be turned into the sheriff’s office. Maybe Captain Nadeau can speak directly to the idea, if they came down to the police department and got a work permit from us and then went over to them to make sure they got a copy for the Megan’s Law requirement.
Senator Titus:
After the Sherrice Iverson incident in an arcade, did any of that tighten up? Surely it did.
Mr. Carson:
Senator Titus, it did tighten up, in concerns with all of the properties, about making sure everything was going right and everybody was checked. Unfortunately, if you will remember, that situation did not involve an employee. It may have involved some employees by not watching real closely, but it did not involve an employee, and their background checks on them could not have prevented it. The properties are very much in favor, whether large or small, of receiving preliminary employment, criminal-history check.
They are allowed to do that, any perspective employer can do that, but it only goes through the Nevada central repository, if fingerprints are submitted and the fees are paid.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much, sir.
John Redlein, Assistant City Attorney, City of Las Vegas:
I think, I come today pretty well-equipped to answer all of the questions asked today about this bill and this system. For more than 8 years, I was a felony prosecutor in the Clark County district attorney’s office, so I understand the crimes, the criminal procedure, and the criminal history elements activated by this statute. For the next 9 years, I was the chief of the attorney general’s Las Vegas office. My area specialty was administrative regulation. I represented, at one time or another, 20 different boards, and commissions, you have created to license occupations and professions, either as special prosecutor or as regular board counsel. And, for the last 4 years, I have sat with city council of the City of Las Vegas, every time they have met to consider a work card appeal.
In this bill, perhaps I ought to say something else about the list, because there have been a lot of alarming, perhaps even dreadful, things said about the scope of the work card enforcement. I can assure you, in the city of Las Vegas, it is not excessive. When you wrote our charter, you gave us the power to designate certain enterprises as privileged enterprises. You have done so, aside from gaming, with at least 48 different trades, occupations, and professions you regulate. In each and every one of them, the key word is “privileged,” and before you may engage in that trade, you must undergo a character review.
Now in most of your boards, commissions, and councils, we also have skill review. I am talking about everything from architects, engineers, nurses, doctors, podiatrists, veterinarians, and cosmetologists. They are all privileged industries, and the definition of a privileged industry is not that there is a skill test before admission, as in all of those I just named, but there is character review. There is a threshold character review which you must pass to determine whether or not you are fit to engage in that trade; not just skilled enough.
Well, the City of Las Vegas has designated about 25 privileged trades and occupations. Now one of them is really big, because it is the gaming business. I have been telling staff for years, the one very large one we have, we ought to surrender to the State of Nevada which, through its State Gaming Control Board and its Nevada Gaming Commission, already regulates almost every single one of those other trades. We have on our list, under gaming, pit bosses, shills, oddsmakers, folks who can extend credit, people who work on slot machines, all of these people are controlled by gaming. I do not know why they need two work permits. They are better-equipped to keep out the riffraff, or the dangerous people in that trade, with their character review.
Mr. Redlein:
The only other folks we have in the gaming category, and I may tell you that recently, staff has finally listened to me and I think there is going to be a proposal to the city council for us to lose the big batch of actual gamers. But, the only other people we require work permits for are from the array of 25 who would be affected by this bill, are those responsible for the retail sale, or service of alcohol. So, that means if you are a bartender in a casino, you are a nongaming employee, you are covered by this bill, and we are going to make sure you have not been convicted or do not have a custom, in prior employment, of serving alcohol to minors or serving drunk people.
Let me suggest to you, at the local level and in virtually every city of any size in this country, there is a work card for people who pour alcohol, and in most of them, there is a work card for people who sell alcohol, even when it is packaged liquor.
Because those people can do so much harm, as every city has realized, is why we do not care if he is a good bartender or not. In contrast to your regulatory scheme, how well he pours does not matter to us. To see whether or not he understands his responsibilities and is willing to abide by the law so as not to do a lot of damage, is the reason we conduct a character review for bartenders. These poor bartenders, the trade is going to take care of them.
Senator Neal:
Now, under NRS 463.0157, which is the gaming employee defined, the gaming employee does not include the bartender.
Mr. Redlein:
Absolutely, and pardon me, I probably confused you with your answer. The big batch of people, like the oddsmakers and those who can extend credit, and so forth, and really do a lot of mischief in the gaming component of a casino, those are the ones we would like to surrender. The ones we currently have work cards for who happen, in some instances, to work in hotels, would be those serving retail liquor, so it counts bartenders, just like every other bar even if it does not have gaming. If you are a bartender in a casino, we have the alcohol work card for you. So, if you are a waitress in a coffee shop and somebody orders a beer, and you have to call for a cocktail waitress, we would not require a work card for you. If you are able to go fetch the beer from the icebox and serve it to the client, we would require a work card, just like we would for the fellow who pours in PT’s Pub.
Senator Neal:
But, as I understand this, the authority for the local government to expand the definition of a gaming employee is given to you by the Attorney General’s Opinion of 1988 (AGO 88-13), which addresses the fact you can only expand the definition to include other trades, but not the definition set out in the statute.
Mr. Redlein:
Senator, I do not believe we even have expanded gaming. Let me explain it by example.
What would happen if you were a hotel of modest size, and you had a problem with a room key or safe for a guest. The MGM Grand in Las Vegas has three full-time locksmiths on staff, but most do not, and they would pick up the phone and call a commercial locksmith service. We require those people to have work cards. Now, they still have our work cards when they are working at your house just as they do when they go into that hotel.
Senator Neal:
According to the 1988 Attorney General’s Opinion (AGO 88-13), you are clearly within your right or authority to do that. But, the question I am concerned about is, “What about that maid or the porter the statute did not speak of?”
Mr. Redlein:
Those who provide a service in a room, clearly the maid with her key, I do not suppose every room service waiter has a key, but often when a maid comes in, if she finds the cart and the detritus from last night’s meal, she picks up the phone and calls room service, and the room service waiter goes up there while the guest is not there. I would not be very scared about a room service waiter bringing the meal, because the guest is usually there.
Those with access to rooms are the ones we require to have a work card. They are one of the three categories this bill would affect: folks who provide a service in a room, folks who serve retail alcohol, and child care providers.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have two casinos in the city of Las Vegas with child care centers. Everybody in them has a work card from us.
Senator Neal:
Do you know whether or not there was a hearing to make that inclusion?
Mr. Redlein:
Are we back to the casinos?
Senator Neal:
Yes, we are back to the casinos, dealing with the maids and the porters, because apparently the statute does not include the maids and the porters. It kind of left it to the local jurisdiction as to whether or not these people should be included. So, the question I am asking, is there a history of a hearing taking place to include . . .
Mr. Redlein:
In every instance, and let me suggest to you, it has a lot of similarity to those your body (Legislature) has conducted over the last 135 years. When you decide, as you probably did originally, that doctors ought to be regulated, it starts out with a proclamation, “We hereby declare the practice of medicine to be directly relevant to the safety and welfare of our citizens, therefore we create a state Board of Medial Examiners, and we make sure they are of good character and of decent skill and that they are going to be watched by our board.”
Now, as I said, our malpractice concerns are very narrow. It is not whether or not the guy is a good bartender or whether or not the maid makes a tidy bed. It is whether or not, because we are putting her in a unique position with access to guests’ valuables, she is a person of decent character, trustworthy, honest and not likely to steal from those guests.
If you do not control somebody, we can. Child care came up today. You have a state child care licensing board, so do we. When you created yours, you said anybody at the local level creating a licensing authority and with standards as strict as ours, we are not going to regulate anymore. So the city of Las Vegas has such a board. We require the people who own, run, and manage the operations to get a license from us. But, those who work with kids have to get a work card from us.
We simply designated that trade as privileged. Now, it is probably the one exception where we worry, truly in the traditional sense, about malpractice by our licensees. But in the work card, we just want to make sure there are people of decent trustworthiness and in every instance we have, I can promise you, it is either directly related to your personal safety or the personal safety of our citizens, or the protection of their valuable personal property.
We do not have any of these oddball ones. I am speaking only about the city of Las Vegas, which is section 2 in this bill (S.B. 256). I have heard the story for years, Senator, about busboys having to have work cards, and for the life of me I have never understood it. We do not, we have not, we have never required a waitress, unless she is serving alcohol just like the bartender, to get a work card. We do not have any of those crazy categories. There is some legend, which I have no idea if true, but you may have heard it from comments I heard earlier, in the olden days when casinos started up in the 1950s, they even had work cards for stagehands. But, that was the way the Mob was getting muscle into the casinos and so somebody decided that. Nobody decided what our privileged occupations are in the city of Las Vegas, except the Las Vegas City Council. And in each instance, it is done by addition to our code, as you prescribe in our charter, where we find these persons’ practices and their integrity can have a direct impact on the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens.
We do not have any queer or oddball ones in our batch. We are going to lose the gaming ones, I hope. We do license mobile food vendors, which is another one I recommended we lose. I think the original thinking behind it was they would be donut guys who would be sailing around and attracting the same kind of clientele as the ice cream truck drivers. But, they really do go to work sites where those guys can take care of themselves. I think the county health department is perfectly capable of protecting citizens in that trade.
Let me suggest to you, when I first saw S.B. 256, the problem I have in subsection 1, paragraph (a), which says a work card permit must not be denied solely because the person has been arrested. If what it says was what was meant, I am 100 percent okay with it. But, I have heard from Senator Carlton today, and I am quoting her, “No arrest should count.” The City of Las Vegas has never bounced anybody solely because they have been arrested.
Our provision for denying a license or denying an appeal of a METRO denial, is that the person has given us materially false information in the application, lied about criminal history when asked about it, more relevantly, committed or been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Let me submit to you an arrest is relevant in two respects. Nobody has ever been denied a work card by the Las Vegas City Council merely because of an arrest, every instance where it did not go to a conviction, we looked at the facts and circumstances. I regard it as my obligation, if there is no conviction, for us to produce, to demonstrate through testimony, witnesses or police reports, it was committed. Now, do not confuse that with somebody who has been arrested and then acquitted at a trial. If found not guilty by a jury or a judge, they did not do it as a matter of law. We do not ever try to hit anybody over the head with that. But, someone who has been arrested for a number of reasons, that behavior could be very relevant. And, not just the accumulation of many of the them, but many when you look at the police reports could indicate to you a course of conduct, which indicates this is behavior or mistakes on the part of the police.
Senator Neal:
Does that take into account, profiling the arrest?
Mr. Redlein:
I have never seen one anybody could argue was attributable to that. I honestly have not, and I read the police background reports produced on all these work cards. Let me tell you something, Senator Neal, in 4 years, I have seen the city council, the city of Las Vegas, I bet they have not denied more than a dozen work cards on an appeal. There are many people who have not gotten their work cards when they appealed, but in almost every instance, they were people who did not show up for the appeal. The council motion is to strike the appeal from the agenda and they just move on. There have been about a dozen in the last 4 years who have been denied. So, we are not dealing with a dreadful problem where good people are being kept from working. We are dealing, in most instances, where the council is very generous and forgiving about prior misbehavior.
Let me suggest to you, to say somebody’s arrest cannot count is just wrong. And, perhaps the better example to give, let us go back to the maids because we all know the reason why they are a privileged occupation, or why they are regulated to this extent. If a maid is caught stealing a tremendous amount of valuable jewelry from a guest’s room early in the week, gets caught, confesses, goes to jail, makes bail, her work card is not portable. The gaming ones are not portable, so she has to come in and get another one. Well, knowing of this arrest, and taking a look at the police reports to see how strong the proof is and presenting the information to the city council, this would suggest she could not be denied a work card when she wants to go to a different hotel at the end of the week. It is crazy, because, it is going to be 2 years before she gets convicted.
There was some discussion about uniformity from city to city. Let me tell you this, your scheme, put aside gaming, of professions and occupations, is not the same as other states. You have one professional occupation where it is a felony for me to engage in this state, you have 26 licensees and you are one of two states in the entire country to license them. You have one professional occupation where it is a misdemeanor for me to engage in, only 21 states have dispensing opticians. The first was homeopaths, then dispensing opticians. One of the strongest enforcement boards you have ever created is the State Board of Cosmetology. It is a crime for somebody to do nails or do makeup in this state for money without a license from your board. Twenty to thirty percent of the states do not regulate those enterprises at all. So, uniformity should not be an objective here. Nobody has ever suggested you do not have the power to regulate because your scheme does not look like everybody else’s; it should not. It should depend on what you decide is important.
Now, in regards to subsection 1, paragraph (b), we read: “A work permit must not be denied solely because . . . the person has been convicted of a crime more than 7 years before the date the person applies for the work permit.” Forgive me, the minimum sentence for sexual assault on a minor is 10 years to life. Even if the prison was really generous with good-time credits, I do not see how anybody is going to get out in less than 8 years. And, the day after they get out, they could come to us and we could not use their conviction against them.
This child care business is terribly important because we think it is a trend. We already have two, the old Showboat Hotel, which is now the Castaways Hotel Casino and Bowling Center, has child care, Suncoast Hotel and Casino, a big new place on the west side of town, has child care. Neither of them is called a child care facility. Under our codes, we have slightly different designations; they are called “accommodation facilities.”
The folks who work there do not have a continuing education responsibility. Those places do not have a responsibility to monitor vaccinations like a regular childcare center. And, the reason they do not is you cannot leave your child there for more than 3½ hours. These are drop off places. And, we have two big ones, staffed by child care workers with our work cards.
Let me suggest to you, and I am sensitive to Senator Carlton’s concerns, while nobody came right out and said it, I think I perceive what the point is in this subsection, somebody who has an old and unimportant crime is going to have it thrown in his or her face, and is not going to be able to work. I have never seen that happen. Our council has never done it to anybody.
Senator Raggio:
Let me interrupt for just a second, we are running way overtime, but, if we do not pass the bill, the city council or any licensing authority presently has authority, do they not? They can take circumstances into consideration now.
Mr. Redlein:
Absolutely, let me tell you in a nutshell what I have recommended to my council. You have created a scheme, you have decided upon what schedule people should have to carry around their prior convictions. It is in your sealing statute (chapter 179 of NRS), it is 5 years for a misdemeanor, 7 years for a misdemeanor DUI (driving under the influence), it is 10 years for a gross misdemeanor, it is 15 years for a felony, and it is counted from the time of the conviction or, if incarcerated, the release from custody.
Senator Raggio:
My point is, I am still not seeing the necessity for the bill since you already have this authority at any of these licensing authorities, is that not what you are telling us?
Mr. Redlein:
Almost, I cannot promise you there is not any municipality not throwing up very old and very minor crimes in people’s faces. But, I did not hear any testimony about it today, and I can assure you, we do not do it. I have urged the scheme, the rule of thumb you have created on sealing limits of 5, 10, and 15 years; and, offenses against children, and sexual offenses are not sealable. There is a good reason, the literature would tell us pedophiles are not curable and they do not change. They may grow old and weary and disinclined, but they do not change. I would never ever think somebody should be turned away because of an old conviction against a child.
Let me touch on the last thing, which has to do with the TV (television) broadcast prohibition. I have polled my council members, they are all of a view it is antithetical to the openness which you have forced, or urged, or enabled us to take on over the years. Permit me to point out to you, in public meeting law, there is provision for the government to videotape and any citizen (as long as they are not disturbing the meeting) can audiotape and videotape the proceedings. I do not believe, respectfully, you have the authority to tell us what we can put on our TV channels; we pay for it, and you do not.
Keep in mind, even if we were to exceed to your direction that we should not broadcast a certain thing, and we agreed to it, we cannot keep the press out and if we stop broadcasting these things, they would be on the 6 o’clock news.
I think none of you would be brave enough to suggest you can tell a commercial TV station what they can put on the air.
Senator Carlton and I have never sat down except once on a talk show, we have never had a conversation. If she sees problems and wants them fixed, I would be pleased to work with her. As far as we are concerned, this bill is a very bad idea.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. I have had, evidentially, someone who wanted to testify in favor of the bill and has asked the record reflect Mr. Richard L. Siegel, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, is supporting the bill.
Tom Stoneburner, Director, Northern Nevada Chapter, Alliance for Workers’ Rights:
Madam Chairwoman, and members of the committee, the Alliance for Workers’ Rights would like to say a couple of words in support of S.B. 256. We feel this is a necessary piece of legislation to protect Nevada workers and their efforts to seek out and retain gainful employment. We feel this is a piece of legislation long overdue. This conversation about this piece of legislation is long overdue. It is geared towards fixing a wrong that has been perpetrated against Nevada workers for a long period of time.
Also, I have a letter from Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Clark County Legal Services Incorporated (Exhibit E), he would like distributed to the members of the board.
Mary F. Valencia Wilson, NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and LULAC (League Of United Latin American Citizens):
I am here representing the Reno-Sparks National Association for the Advancement of Color People, and the Reno Council of the League of United Latin American Citizens, both organizations are supporting this bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much.
Kendall R. Stagg, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
(A document [Exhibit F] was passed out to the committee members).
I am here today in support of S.B. 256. If time permits, JoNell Thomas, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU) Board of Directors, will provide you with more details about the ACLU’s position on S.B. 256.
I come before you today to give you some general information and basically state our general concerns and our basic position with respect to work cards, and Senator Carlton’s proposed legislation.
The right to work is a fundamental right. There are limits on the government’s authority to burden that right. The ACLU believes the work card system, as it is now, functions as an illegitimate work tax. The extent to which the government has the authority to impose work card requirements in non-privileged industries is extremely limited.
Currently in Nevada, we have an excessive number of non-privileged jobs that are dealt with, like jobs in privileged industries. The government does not have the authority to impose work card requirements on someone in a non-privileged industry unless it can show there is a compelling state interest in doing so. Even when there is a compelling state interest to impose work card requirements, the standards by which those requirements are imposed must not be vague or subjective, as they are now.
Although the ACLU believes additional constitutional issues ought to be addressed with respect to work cards, we support Senator Carlton’s legislation, as far as it goes, because it will undoubtedly bring work card schemes in the state of Nevada more in line with the constitutional limits set on top of the government.
We support S.B. 256 and it is our hope you will support it as well.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, any questions? Yes, Senator O’Donnell.
Senator O’Donnell:
Is owning a gun a constitutional right?
Mr. Stagg:
I would urge you to look at the ACLU briefing papers on that issue, which is not relevant to this issue at hand.
Senator O’Donnell:
Is an ex-felon allowed to own a gun?
Mr. Stagg:
Madam Chairman, if I may address the Senator. I am not sure I really understand the relevancy, if you could please clarify how this is relevant to the work card scheme in Nevada, I would greatly appreciate it.
Senator O’Donnell:
Well, I am just saying if you think you are equating with the constitutional provision of the right to work, it is a right to work, but it also is a right for the government to protect the rest of its citizens.
Mr. Stagg:
I agree with that, Senator, but I would like to point out a system originally intended to protect the public is now actually doing quite a disservice to the public.
Right to work, is a fundamental right. We have burdened that right so greatly it is no longer in the best interest of the public to continue allowing this scheme to expand and grow. We need to put some limitations on this work card scheme.
Senator O’Donnell:
Now, I understand where you are going. I think, when it comes to protecting an industry and protecting the public, in those terms, who are we dealing with here? These are felons, people who have been convicted of abusing, or misappropriating, or stealing, or taking other people’s property. Who are you protecting, the fundamental right of these people?
Mr. Stagg:
Senator, your question, with all due respect, is phrased in a very inflammatory way. It is not just felons who are affected by the work card scheme. It is all people, it is your constituents, and it is the citizens of the state of Nevada. They are unfairly burdened by this work card scheme. It affects their fundamental right to obtain employment.
Senator O’Donnell:
But, that is not what this bill says. This bill deals with felons.
Mr. Stagg:
There are examples of people who have never been convicted of crimes, who have to go through the work card system, and sometimes appeal when their work cards are denied. They are unfairly burdened by this system and it hinders their ability to get gainful employment.
Senator O’Donnell:
I think my first job was as a busboy, and I had to get a work card. No big deal. I have no more questions.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Stagg, I am not sure I follow your argument here. This bill deals entirely with a privileged industry. Although, there is an attempt in the bill to define a certain segment as nongaming employees, but this is within the privileged industry.
Is the ACLU’s position that the law, as it presently exists, violates the United Stated Constitution by allowing these licensing authorities to require a work permit from anyone who works within a privileged industry? Is that your position?
Mr. Stagg:
Madam Chairman, if I may address Senator Raggio please? It is the ACLU’s position the work card system, as it is now, largely does violate constitutional limitations set on government.
Senator Raggio:
In what respect?
Mr. Stagg:
If limitations are going to be put on a citizen’s right to work, those limitations have to be . . .
Senator Raggio:
Within a privileged industry only.
Mr. Stagg:
My next point, Senator, was the way we define privileged industries. In the past, as far as I know, it would be industries the government has the authority to ban altogether. Today, you have heard about all kinds of privileged industries that do not fit under that definition. It seems as this work card scheme continues to grow, so does our definition of what is considered a privileged industry and what is not.
Examples of privileged industries should be things like gaming, the sale of liquor, and prostitution, things which the government has the authority to ban altogether, not busboys who work in a casino.
Senator Raggio:
You are saying, even though they work in a privileged industry, it is unconstitutional, the law as it presently exists. Let us forget this bill!
If you feel that strongly about it, why has the ACLU not filed a lawsuit and challenged it in court?
Mr. Stagg:
Senator Raggio, the ACLU protects, defends, and advances civil liberties through public outreach, education, legislation, and only when necessary, through litigation. If you would like us to file a lawsuit . . .
Senator Raggio:
Be my guest.
Mr. Stagg:
Then, we might end up going down that road. The appropriate steps, here today, are for us to come before the Legislature and ask it to make good laws.
Senator Raggio:
You are the one who raised the issue, and I am not trying to be argumentative, if you want to file a lawsuit, it is obviously your privilege. Challenge the whole system, challenge the system of the state and the defining of a privileged industry. That is why I am following your comments here, you are the one who said the law, as it presently exists, is in some respects unconstitutional. I was asking you to define and delineate it. This bill does not do away with that. What it does is just put some limitation on it, but it does not say these types of people cannot be afforded work cards. It says for some reasons they cannot be afforded work cards. So, I think your comments go beyond what this bill is suggesting. So, as I am saying to you, if you think, yes, go ahead and file a lawsuit. I do not have to defend it.
Mr. Stagg:
If I may, in my testimony, I said the ACLU supports S.B. 256, because we believe this bill would help bring work card schemes more into line with the constitutional limits placed on government. I am not here testifying before you today to ask you to support legislation to ban work cards altogether. I am asking you to please support Senator Carlton’s bill, which would help place limits on the work card schemes to make sure the terms are not vague and subjective. And, to make sure we are within, at least somewhat, the constitutional limitations we all have to abide by.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Stagg, Senator Titus has a question for you.
Senator Titus:
I am not sure it is for you, Mr. Stagg, it may be for our staff again. I am getting confused because I keep hearing references to the privileged industry. Then I read here nongaming is where gaming is, the person who works where gaming is conducted. Earlier I asked about the application to Alexis Park Resort, and I heard, yes, it also covers Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar and places like that. Would this bill put in some additional protection for people who are getting a work card only in casinos? Would it have any effect on people in other places? And, why would we just do it for these people and not for all people who get work cards? Which is it? I have gotten lost here.
Ms. Guinasso:
Madam Chairman, Senator Titus, this bill, in particular with the definition set forth as nongaming employee, relates only to those employees who work in an establishment where gaming in conducted, and define who is not a gaming employee. The example of Applebee’s would not be relevant here.
Senator Titus:
None of that applies in this situation, is that right? Do they meet different standards for work cards in those kinds of facilities or not? That is what is not clear to me.
Ms. Guinasso:
I believe the testimony you have heard refers to the manner in which local governments regulate work cards, in general. This bill itself is only limiting the ability of the local government, in terms of what is defined here in this section only and for this section only, as a nongaming employee who is only a person who is working in a gaming establishment and is not a gaming employee as defined in NRS 463.0157. Although, you have heard testimony relating to the Applebee’s situation, this particular bill does not apply.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Stagg.
Marlene richter, Director, Las Vegas Interfaith Council For Workers’ Justice:
Currently I am the director of the Las Vegas Interfaith Council for Workers’ Justice, and previously, I was the director of Social Services for Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada for about 5 years. When I first began there, we were serving about 8000 people per year and by the time I left we were up to 40,000 poor and homeless people in need of just the basic supplies to get along.
One of the things we provided were vouchers to obtain a work card. When a poor or homeless person hears the magic words, “You are hired,” they have overcome only one of many hurdles towards gainful employment. A work card for the homeless and poor creates an enormous barrier, legal and economic.
Chairman O’Connell:
Excuse me, Ms. Richter, are you talking about the gaming industry, or are you talking in general?
Ms. Richter:
Nongaming.
Chairman O’Connell:
But, somebody working in a hotel?
Ms. Richter:
We are talking about the maids and the porters. Those entry-level positions, dishwashers, all of the entry-level, minimum-wage positions the homeless would be trying to seek in order to get things together in their lives.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, thank you.
Ms. Richter:
The homeless will often encounter law enforcement agencies because of a lack of our community resources. They face problems because of sleeping in parks, loitering, misusing bus stops, panhandling, and then the greatest indignity of all, the inability to access public restroom facilities.
Whether someone was homeless 10 years ago, beyond the statute of limitations, or if someone has nowhere to sleep tonight, they cannot be denied a work card because of their arrest record.
To appeal, they must go before the city council and relive the humiliation of homelessness, by explaining on public television, why they were doing the activity they were arrested for. I have heard over and over from the homeless, they cannot wait until the appeal process goes through before starting work. They need to meet their new employers’ requirements but the process does not allow that.
It is unfortunate the poor and homeless experience so much difficulty in surviving until they can arrive at their first day of work, let alone, their first paycheck. They want to work, need to work, yearn to work, but the three brick barriers of denial, based on arrest records, a record search by law enforcement beyond the 7-year statue of limitations, and, ultimately, facing the humiliation of stating publicly they were homeless and had to do things they never imagined in order to survive, creates a cycle of unemployment leading them to join the number of chronic homeless living on our streets who have simply given up.
It is imperative the barriers the work card process creates for the poor be minimized, and the criteria for denial standardized. This can result in the words “You are hired,” carrying with it all the hope and magic they were meant to. Thank you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much.
JoNell Thomas, Lobbyist, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada:
Thank you, on behalf of the ACLU of Nevada, I am JoNell Thomas, I am an attorney who does some cooperating work with the ACLU and I also represent the State of Nevada. I do not want to repeat what Mr. Stagg has said, he did a nice job. Also, I submit a statement which more fully outlines our position, setting forth case law from the United State Supreme Court, which firmly establishes the right to work is an inalienable right under our United States Constitution. It is a fundamental right recognized for well over 100 years.
There is a lot of loose terminology at issue here. The terms “regulated industry,” and “privileged industry” seem to be used interchangeably. The courts have limited the definition of privileged industries to those in gaming, prostitution, and liquor. It is our position that jobs, within privileged industries that deal with the privileged aspects of the industry, can be regulated by the state so long as they still meet principles of equal protection, due process, and fundamental fairness.
Those positions however, do not include jobs such as maids, porters, cooks, and waitresses, aside from the liquor issue. It is our position that, in those positions, a person should not have to go to the sheriff and pay $35 and stand in line for half a day in order to obtain a job.
I did not have to suffer that humiliation, nor do most of us in our professional lives. As an attorney, sure, I had to have some qualifications and I had to submit some documents, I even had to be fingerprinted, but as a professional, I expected some of that. But, did I have to pay the sheriff, and prove to a law enforcement officer I was of good moral character? Absolutely not. Which is why I believe this bill should also be strengthened, not just so an arrest is not the sole criteria for denial, but so it is not a consideration.
I believe Senator Neal touched on a very important issue, issue of racial profiling. There are people who have had 15 arrests on their records without a conviction. The reason is not necessarily that they are bad people, so much as they live in the wrong neighborhood, they have the wrong skin color, they have somehow gotten themselves on the wrong side of a certain law enforcement officer.
In my other life, when I am not doing ACLU, I am a criminal defense attorney. I have looked at those scoop sheets, I have asked my clients to tell me the story behind this.
The number of times I have seen arrests without any further action, where the district attorney has declined to prosecute because he cannot even establish probable cause a crime had been committed, is astonishing. I think if we are going to look at the number of arrests as a criteria, then this committee should also be prepared to do an in-depth investigation on racial profiling as a basis for those arrests. Still, convictions are an important issue, and I would urge you to hold that they should not even be a consideration.
Ms. Thomas:
I would like to address the issue of a child molester. As I say, I am a criminal defense attorney, and as I believe most of you are aware, people convicted of child abuse or sexual offenses involving a minor are subject to lifetime supervision in this state. Part of the lifetime supervision scheme is the Division of Parole and Probation is permitted to limit the employment of those people who are being supervised.
There is already a mechanism within the state to prohibit convicted child molesters, from operating ice cream trucks, from working at day care centers, or from working in an arcade.
I believe this is not a serious issue, and I urge you to not be distracted from the central issues here by examples of things that just do not happen out in the real world.
There are significant lives at issue here, people who would like to have the opportunity to go out and obtain jobs. We should not be so cynical as to assume every person who was once convicted of marijuana use, which is a felony in this state, is necessarily going to become a burglar, robber, and thief for the rest of their lives.
I urge you to pass this bill, so far as it concerns the arrests and convictions, and, if anything, to strengthen it from the position it is in now. Thank you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you.
Heather Kendall, Employment Case Manager, M.A.S.H. Village:
I am the employment case manager for M.A.S.H. Village. Over the past month, we have had 5000 clients who came into the resource center looking for employment. One-third of these people had been convicted felons in the past. These people are currently not able to get their work cards. The entry-level jobs they are seeking, they are not able to obtain because they do not get these cards.
We have a gentleman who, in the past, was convicted of possession, but yet was hired by a company, handling money and other things. This gentleman was not able to take this job, even though his conviction was 10 years ago, because of the limitation based upon him. It is not fair that these homeless individuals are required to pay the $35 and are not able to work in the industries because of their circumstances.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you very much.
Ruth Bruland, Executive Director, M.A.S.H. Village:
I would like to primarily defer my speaking time, in interest of time, except to say, as it currently stands with the work cards, what we frequently will have to do is ask our clients to go to a temporary agency to get a temporary job in order to get the money together to get a permanent job. Very difficult to do the way the current system stands. In some circumstances you will see clients who are panhandling, simply because they want to make an honest living and are not quite sure how to go about it, given the current way the work card system is handled.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you very much.
Paul Brown, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada:
Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, I will be very brief. I am with the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. We strongly support S.B. 256. I do not have too much new to add, except I think it is a basic tenet, a person is presumed innocent in this country until proven guilty. So, I would very much like you to consider eliminating the rest. I think there are other ways we can deal with that if, for example, someone were to put down on an application he had no arrest, and in reality he had a couple of arrests, then he would be lying on the application, then a casino or resort would be in a position of not hiring them on that particular case.
I think it is very important we preserve a person’s right to be able to work. I too, have worked with Ruth Bruland and another organization called Interfaith Hospitality Network, and I am very concerned about the barriers homeless people face in trying to get work cards down here. If there is something we can do to remove some of those barriers, get these people back in the workforce, get them back to supporting themselves and contributing to society, I think it would be very worthwhile for all of us.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Brown, do you have anyone else down there who wishes to speak on this bill?
Mr. Brown:
That is it. It has been a long afternoon, thank you for your patience.
Chairman O’Connell:
Thank you, we appreciate it. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on the bill? Okay, we will close the hearing on S.B. 256. Let us open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 22, that should be very quick, and then we will get to our fourth bill.
Assembly Bill 22: Amends charter of City of Las Vegas to extend terms of municipal judges. (BDR S-858)
Assemblyman John J. Lee, Clark County Assembly District No. 3:
I think this bill will be fast, this will be the enabling legislation. Today, I am proposing a City of Las Vegas charter-change bill. The bill does not affect any other municipality except the City of Las Vegas. Assembly Bill 22 will enable the city council of Las Vegas to increase the terms of municipal judges from 4-year terms to 6-year terms. Currently, there are six municipal judges.
Another component of this bill would allow at least one-third of the judges to be elected every 2 years. I would like to give a little background of the Las Vegas Municipal Court system. They are a limited-jurisdiction court, and a court of record, at this time. The City of Las Vegas municipal judges, in 1999 and the year 2000, had 47,787 cases presented to them, that equates to 7964 cases per judicial position. This compares to the North Las Vegas Municipal Judges with 5800 cases per judge, and Henderson with nearly 2000 cases per judge.
Municipal courts or city courts only handle cases involving city ordinances, their jurisdictions handle traffic and non-traffic misdemeanors. Las Vegas Municipal Court heard the most non-traffic misdemeanors, with 69 percent of the total cases heard in Nevada. Reno and Henderson municipal courts and North Las Vegas, follow with 9, 8, and 6 percent, respectively.
Traffic misdemeanors are slightly different, however, Las Vegas still leads with 62 percent of all. North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Reno, follow with 13, 8, and 7 percent, respectively. Some of the questions begging to be answered today are: How will this benefit the citizens of Las Vegas? What about the judges who need to be removed? How does judiciary review work? And, has a judiciary review been tested?
At this time, I would like to introduce Judge Michelle Fitzpatrick, from Las Vegas Municipal Court. Not here, due to their workload, but equally recognized are judges Betsy Kolkoski, Jessie Walsh, Cedrick Kerns, Bert Brown and Chief Judge Toy Gregory. At this time, I am sure Judge Fitzpatrick would love to answer your questions. Thank You.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, any questions?
Senator Porter:
Is the City of Henderson also asking for something similar, is that correct?
Assemblyman Lee:
Yes, they are, but that is in a city charter bill that will be coming to you in about 2 weeks.
Senator Porter:
I guess to clarify, North Las Vegas, are they 4 years also? Are all the local governments now 4 years?
Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
All the municipal courts are at 4 years, at the current time.
Senator Porter:
I know you are not here for North Las Vegas, Mr. Musgrove, but, is North Las Vegas asking for this also?
Mr. Musgrove:
They do not have a bill in at this time. The only three entities currently, I am aware of, are Reno, Henderson, and Las Vegas.
Senator Porter:
OK, thank you.
Michelle L. Fitzpatrick, Municipal Judge, Municipal Court, City of Las Vegas:
Well, I had a lot of testimony prepared, but it has been a long afternoon. My name is Michelle Fitzpatrick, I am a judge in the Las Vegas Municipal Court and it is a pleasure to be up here to testify today. Just to put into perspective some of the statistics outlined here today by Assemblyman Lee, I preside in Department 3 in Las Vegas Municipal Court, and in the year 2000, there were 26,000 appearances made in that department. So, that puts into perspective the type of caseload the municipal court judges are handling.
Judges, as we know, really need to be in the political arena as little as possible. By extending the terms from 4 years to 6 years, you are allowing the judges to be in the courtroom and not on the campaign trail raising money and being outside the courtroom.
By creating this extension of terms, it would create a more consistent and a more independent judiciary. Also, as most of you know, all the other judges in the state of Nevada are elected to 6-year terms, supreme court justices, justices of the peace, district court judges, all have 6-year terms. Significantly, justices of the peace have concurrent jurisdiction with municipal court judges. They handle misdemeanor cases occurring within their appropriate jurisdictions, although they handle some civil matters and felony preliminary hearings. Their terms were extended from 4 years to 6 years, almost 9 years ago.
So, with that, I would be happy to answer any more questions the committee would have.
Senator Neal:
Are you now a court of record?
Judge Fitzpatrick:
Madam Chairwoman, if I could respond? Yes, we are a court of record in the Las Vegas Municipal Court.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any other questions? OK, thank you all very much, and we appreciate your patience in waiting. Anyone else on A.B. 22? Then we will open the hearing on S.B. 163.
Senate Bill 163: Makes various changes to provisions relating to enforcement of building codes and zoning regulations by cities and counties. (BDR 22-240)
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Nevada Organization of Builders Officials, and Assistant Director, Inspections Division, Building Department, Clark County:
([Exhibit G] Building Officials Amendments to Senate Bill 163, was distributed to the committee members.) For the record, Ron Lynn, representing the Nevada Organization of Building Officials. In a nutshell, this bill requires building officials, plans examiners, and building inspectors, to be certified, maintain certification and have continuing education credits. I will not bore you on how it evolved. “Certified Building Official” is actually a national program, and this is kind of modeled after it.
Most of the changes you have here (Exhibit G) were voiced by individuals or jurisdictions that had concerns. Very quickly, there was no provision in the original bill that if a new employee could be hired, they had to be certified. Now in Clark County, we hire them, but they have to be certified. But, in this case we did provide, under the third paragraph, “new employees working under the supervision of a person, are permitted 1 year to become certified.” Also, there was no grandfathering clause. Existing employees will have 6 years from the adoption of the statute to obtain appropriate certifications.
Finally, because it concerns some small jurisdictions in obtaining certified and qualified people, particularly, counties under 100,000, a city or county having jurisdiction shall establish, by resolution, the professional development hours and certification requirements for full-time building officials, plans examiners, and building inspectors . . .
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Lynn, can they do this through distance learning?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes, they can.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is that how most of them will approach this issue?
Mr. Lynn:
No, it is actually easier to do it by actually going to classes or having classes brought to you. As an example, under my other hat, the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council will provide the Applied Technology Council-20 report which is a presentation for looking at structures after disasters. As presentation, free of charge to rural jurisdictions, we will come out there and give the class. I know Gary Childers and Renee Diamond of the Manufactured Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, have indicated they also provide installation for manufactured housing to jurisdictions free of charge. So, there are other avenues of doing this.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Lynn:
That is basically it, in a nutshell. There are a few other things in here, the parent bill defines a building official, and for years we have been using the term “building inspector.” It was really meant to be “building official,” and the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) went through and made all the appropriate changes. And, the last part, there is a little glitch in the system on the real estate inspectors. It requires all inspectors be certified by the state; that meant the presale real estate inspectors. We had an attorney general’s opinion the definition could be misconstrued. This language clears it up, so, it is not misconstrued. So, people do not have to be certified as presale real estate inspectors, rather they are code inspectors.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, Mr. Lynn did not mention this, but I think it came out of the hearings from our last session. We got involved with the construction defects situation, and we had extensive hearings on exactly what building inspectors are qualified to do and what their job is. So, many people think if you have the inspector’s stamp on it, that takes care of everything, which is not the case at all. In fact, Mr. Lynn, if you would not mind just giving a little background to this committee, when you go out and do your inspections, what specifically are you charged with looking at?
Mr. Lynn:
Building inspectors are looking at the minimum standards, and the code is a minimum standard for the protection of life, limb, and property. Very few structures are built, hopefully, to that minimum standard. We are merely oversight, we are not out there full-time, we are not quality control, and we cannot control it. We are not quality assurance. We are out there less than 1 percent of the time a structure is being built. We are trying to make sure those critical elements, such as connection points, the critical elements in electrical and plumbing and mechanical systems are there, but, without the cooperation of the contractors, we could not do our job. And, of course, without the professional knowledge, which is what this bill is about, it would be very difficult to do one’s job.
Senator Raggio:
Since I have not participated in those hearings that went on and on about structural defects, I may need a little edification on this subject. Precisely, why is this bill necessary? Let me ask some sub-questions. Is it eminent, for example, in the state, people who are less than qualified are holding these positions at the present time? That is to say, they are not qualified to be building inspectors and they are not doing a good job, is that what we are trying to address? You have mentioned this is a national effort to require this kind of certification. So, I am asking, initially, what is the need, what is the necessity, or are we just trying to establish a level now, so we will not run into problems in the future? What brings this about?
Mr. Lynn:
Madam Chairman, Senator Raggio, there is a multitude of reasons. To answer the first one, it is certainly my hope at this time that all building officials or individuals conducting inspections within the state of Nevada are competent. In the past, it has not necessarily been true, even in the relatively recent past. I can attribute many of the problems in construction projects certainly cannot be solely placed upon the building officials, plans examiners, or inspectors. But, by raising their minimum standards, it helps, because the building official is the one charged to help assure structures are safe for our community. We spend 80 to 85 percent of our time in buildings.
Senator Raggio:
What type of organizations or associations do these certifications, and who are they?
Mr. Lynn:
There is the International Conference of Building Officials, which has over 20,000 members. There is the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Incorporated, and the Southern Building Code Congress International, Incorporated, which, together, make up the International Code Council. There is also the National Fire Protection Agency, American Welding Society, American Concrete Institute International, American Society of Nondestructive Testing, and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
Senator Raggio:
Where does the long list of requirements for continuing education come from? Are they usual and ordinary requirements for the associations you have named for certification and maintenance of certifications?
Mr. Lynn:
That list, and it is a long laundry list to make it more flexible, it is a list for certified building official under the international council.
Senator Raggio:
The reason I am asking the question, is it not sufficient if we process this bill, under section 3, to provide that the local governments authorize the city or county to establish the list of organizations for certification purposes without putting in all this laundry list of how many units you get for this, and how many units you get for that, if we put it into the law? It seems to me, and I have been around here long enough to know, every session we are going to have to come in and change this list. Do you follow my question? Why do we have to itemize all of that for continuing education, if in fact, it is something that delineated associations require for certification for maintenance of certification? And then, if they change their list, we do not have to change the law.
Mr. Lynn:
Each certification has different requirements. The attempt here was to standardize them to be consistent with other registrants in the state, whether they be engineers, or architects. The certified building official is a national one, but for plans examiners and inspectors, there is no national model, except to use the certified building official model.
Senator Raggio:
On page 3 of S.B. 163, we have specifically referenced the model code organizations by name, or similar. So, you are saying you still need all of this.
Mr. Lynn:
Well, actually, some of these things, such as the amount of court organizations, I would not have put in. The LCB felt it was better to put in some examples, and give some people some guidance, but I could live without it. I know what those requirements are and what is necessary. If there was wording saying it will be 4.5 continuing education units, it would be adequate. The other parts are really just guidelines.
Senator Raggio:
In other words, there is no state licensing board of any kind.
Mr. Lynn:
None, and we did not intend to establish one. We felt this was not to put in another layer of government. We looked at models from California, Utah, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, and New York, and we took the one least intrusive.
Senator Raggio:
I see, and then you are suggesting these amendments. In the fiscal note, we only had a reply from three counties. Douglas County, for example, at least insofar as the original bill suggests it would cost them $76,000 just to implement this. So, I am wondering, why?
Mr. Lynn:
Well, I am not sure how it was arrived at, but I did meet with a representative of Douglas County. I can say I have, probably, within the Clark County Building Department, over 200 people to certify.
Senator Raggio:
You have indicated there would be no fiscal effect on Clark County in the fiscal note.
Mr. Lynn:
We will continue to do exactly what we are doing now.
Senator Raggio:
So, you are doing this now?
Mr. Lynn:
We do it now, that is correct, now. I did submit, last time, some fiscal note stating it would probably have certification costs between $120 to $190, depending if you are going to do it by pen and pencil or if you want a computer-based testing. Computer-based testing you can do more often, but it is more expensive.
Senator Raggio:
In your situation, does the county pay the expense, or does the employee pay the expense?
Mr. Lynn:
If the person passes the test, and it is required certification, the county will pay for it. This bill does not mandate a jurisdiction pay for it; however, it can be a condition of hire as it is in Virginia.
Senator Raggio:
As I read this, this is merely authorization? Section 3 would mandate it “shall establish” this. I may not have read it carefully enough, it seemed to me if it is mandated it is not just authorization. It would require every county or city to put this into effect, would it not?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes, it would, with the exception in the new amendments which excepted counties under 100,000.
Senator Raggio:
I have not read those thoroughly, but you have identified them or outlined them as covering new employees, and existing employees will have 6 years?
Mr. Lynn:
And, “counties under 100,000” is the paragraph below that.
Senator Raggio:
Okay, it would exempt counties under that?
Mr. Lynn:
That is the intent.
Senator Raggio:
Each county having jurisdiction must establish, by resolution, the professional development hours and certification requirements, which does not eliminate them, does it?
Mr. Lynn:
No, it allows for a local jurisdiction to determine what is necessary. If they feel, as an example, a licensed contractor is inadequate or master’s license . . .
Senator Raggio:
They could have different certification requirements?
Mr. Lynn:
Correct.
Senator Raggio:
And, different continuing education requirements?
Mr. Lynn:
Correct.
Senator Raggio:
Okay, you do not have to be as safe in those small counties as you do in the larger ones?
Mr. Lynn:
It is beyond me to argue on that point.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any other questions? Yes, Senator Care?
Senator Care:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, going back to construction defects, I think at least two construction-defect bills have been introduced so far, and I know of at least one more coming. But, I think there is a provision in one of those bills saying, if a residence, if a building has been inspected, it is deemed to be defect-free or words to that effect. I am wondering about the interplay between this legislation and that construction-defect bill. I do not know the answer, I know you are not an attorney, but I am wondering if you have had any discussions with anybody about it? If this is enacted, and the other bill is enacted, what does it mean, if anything?
Mr. Lynn:
I think that bill discusses, if you receive a final inspection, it is a presumption the building is free of defects. I would argue against it. What we have in our code in Clark County, as a result of the activities of the last legislative session, was to look at the fact that these are minimum standards for the compliance of the code for structural safety. I am going to disagree from both the position of Clark County and from the position of the Nevada Organization of Building Officials.
This bill, however, is to maintain minimum qualifications of those people who are trying to assure those minimum standards are implemented.
Senator Care:
Madam Chairman, one other question, I am not trying to sound flippant, but I can recall on two occasions where I was in court on what we call a “motion hearing day,” waiting for my turn, the subject of building inspection came up and it became clear somebody had testified in deposition or had written in an affidavit, well, yes, even though they certified we inspected, in fact there was no inspection.
So, my question is, do not name the jurisdictions, I am not going to make you feel uncomfortable, but is it a practice in the industry, where you go to an apartment complex, a homeowners association, whatever, and maybe a unit is certified as having been inspected, but in fact, every third unit, every fifth unit, every tenth unit was inspected?
Mr. Lynn:
I have heard of it occurring. It is not done in Clark County, nor in the jurisdictions I am aware of at this time, in the state of Nevada. However, there have been jurisdictions who, in this state and other states who have been overworked, quite frankly. If they have a very small staff and a lot of work, in an especially large tract, that may very well occur.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any other questions for Mr. Lynn? Mr. Lynn, I would like to request you to take the bill and do it in a larger print and insert your amendment into the bill so we would know exactly where it belongs. I was trying to follow this amendment, and I did not do a very good job of actually seeing specifically where you would like it placed in the bill. Could you do it for us?
Mr. Lynn:
Certainly.
Chairman O’Connell:
And, if you would not mind doing the amendment in a different color?
Mr. Lynn:
Certainly.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here?
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
For the record, Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities. We just received the amendment, so we have not had a chance to really digest it. The thing concerning us, and I will give you just a few of the cities, Carlin, Lovelock, Fallon, Wells, Caliente, Elko, Winnemucca, most of these cities are using part-time building inspectors, we are not sure how the part-time ties in with the amendment, where it states full-time.
I will tell you, there is a very similar bill, in fact, an identical bill coming through the other house. We did send in our numbers on that, Carlin is looking at from $4000 to $10,000 for a small city. A number of the other cities have talked about an unfunded mandate. We all support and appreciate good building inspectors. In some of these areas where you may have one new home a year, a few remodels a year, they cannot go through what this bill calls for.
We would like to suggest maybe you could consider those entities with enterprise funds, to pay for this and leave the smaller entities doing what they are doing now; sending their people when they can, trying as much as possible to stay up on the codes to do the job they are being charged to do.
We feel this bill goes way too far for the small entities. They just cannot afford it.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Grady, dealing with the cities, have you found much of a safety-factor problem?
Mr. Grady:
We have not seen a problem, and I am speaking now for the rural cities, there has not been a problem, to my knowledge.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, thank you.
Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas and Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities:
We support S.B. 163, as we feel it establishes professional-certification standards for building officials. We also support the proposed amendments.
Chairman O’Connell:
Ms. McDonald, how many of your inspectors would fit, or have already qualified for the things in this bill, would you have any idea?
Ms. McDonald:
I do not have an idea, Madam Chairman, I would be happy to find out, but, I do know we are currently doing this.
Chairman O’Connell:
OK, thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. McDonald?
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County:
We did work with Mr. Lynn in regards to the amended section 3, regarding counties under 100,000, for a couple of different reasons. First off, in talking to our different local governments, we have found all of the building inspectors and the plans inspectors (examiners) are certified. The problem we have in the smaller local governments is, first off, we do not have the type of complex building you will see in Las Vegas or in Reno. We do not have the 20- or 30-story structures, we have much smaller structures, so typically, we do not need the high level of expertise you would need for those larger structures.
I would also like to state the original bill would have affected our staffing in the rurals, not just in the public works departments, but even in the finance departments, a lot of your other departments, and the recorders’ offices, because, where there is a lack of staffing, you have to wear a lot of different hats. So, your public works director may have to come in and fill in for a plans examiner, for example, during short periods of time. This was the reason we put in, as an exception for counties under 100,000, the board of county commissioners or the city council would establish, by resolution, what the professional educational hours’ requirement would be for just the full-time. We do have these people coming in, for example, the public works director comes to fill in at certain times. He may be an engineer, or he may be a former contractor who is very knowledgeable in this field, but he may not have these exact hours.
Senator O’Connell:
Ms. Walker, let me just stop you a minute, Senator Porter has a question.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, it is for Ms. McDonald, so she can finish her testimony if she wants.
Ms. Walker:
So, one of the problems we had is this would affect our staffing. The other problem they had, and Senator Raggio did point out the fiscal note from Douglas County, was not only the actual cost of the programs to educate them but, more importantly, the time away it would take to have to hire people back on an overtime basis to fill in for the hours lost from trying to inspect these building plans we get in. Those are the types of concerns we have. We appreciate working with Mr. Lynn on coming up with some language for the rural communities.
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. McDonald, your judges want to be 6 years also? It is the wrong bill, but, you can just yea or nay and we will talk later.
Ms. McDonald:
I hear there is interest, yes.
Senator O’Donnell:
Okay, thank you.
Chairman O’Connell:
Any other questions? Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on the amendment as well as the bill, S.B. 163?
Stephanie D. Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson:
The City of Henderson supports this bill. This bill is intended to ensure buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with minimum health and safety regulations by requiring our building inspectors meet and maintain minimum levels of technical competence in the areas they are going to be enforcing. We currently encourage certification and we also encourage continuing education and paying for those things. Thank you.
Senator Raggio:
Madam Chairman, is there anyone from Reno, Sparks, or Washoe County going to testify on this bill? If not, I would like to ask staff to contact them to get their opinion on this.
Mr. Lynn:
I believe, certainly, in the vote, indicated by the Nevada Organization of Building Officials, the building officials of those jurisdictions did vote in support of it, yes.
Senator Raggio:
Representing what, Washoe County?
Mr. Lynn:
Reno, Washoe County, and Sparks, yes, the building officials.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will share with the committee, when we were listening to all of the defect bills we had last session, most of the committee was very surprised to find out the issue Senator Care brought up just a few minutes ago about, “if it had been inspected then it could not possibly have any defects, or what was wrong with our inspectors.” We were very surprised to find out they are not looking for defects, really. They are simply looking at the code, period. So, there could be a lot of things somebody would consider defective that had nothing to do with the code.
So, that is just the way it is. People found it almost impossible to believe, but code compliance is all they are responsible for looking into. Unless we wanted to, I do not know who is sponsoring the other bill, but I just wonder if they are really aware of what the actual duties of an inspector would fall under.
Senator Care are you going to hear that bill in judiciary?
Senator Care:
Well, Madam Chairman, I am not the one to ask, there is some discussion going on about it, I understand.
Chairman O’Connell:
Okay, well I think we have one coming in the commerce committee too, but anybody listening to the bill needs to certainly understand what the responsibilities of the inspectors are.
Anybody else want to testify on this bill? This meeting is adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: