MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 6, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:19 a.m., on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ms. Dina Titus, Senate District No. 7 (Clark County)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Adkins, Chief Deputy State Treasurer, State of Nevada, Office of the Treasurer
Patrick Foley, Executive Director, Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program, State of Nevada, Office of the State Treasurer
Robin Reedy, Deputy Treasurer Debt Management, State of Nevada, Office of the Treasurer
John Sande, III, Attorney at Law with the firm of Jones and Vargas, on behalf of the Nevada Bankers Association
Robert Desruisseaux, Chairman, Statewide Independent Living Council
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources
John Sasser, Attorney with Washoe Legal Services
Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County Social Services Department
Gary Olsen, Deaf Resource Center, Carson City
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning, Committee on Government Affairs. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll? [Roll taken.] First bill on our agenda, Senate Bill 446.
Senate Bill 446: Authorizes State Treasurer to appoint and employ two Senior Deputies in unclassified service of State. (BDR 18-301)
John Adkins, Chief Deputy State Treasurer, State of Nevada, Office of the Treasurer:
[Introduced himself.] I would like to express State Treasurer Brian Krolicki’s regret that he was not able to attend today. I will take his place today for both S.B. 446 and S.B. 447. He had a commitment that he could not cancel. He regrets his absence, but he will be here in spirit.
S.B. 446 is merely an administrative, organizational change to clean up some items that have occurred in the past. It is not, as some people have read it, the creation of two new positions. It is merely an attempt to reclassify two existing classified positions to unclassified positions. It is a transfer to the same or approximately the same salaries, benefits, and everything else, but we have added some additional duties to the new unclassified positions.
These additional duties to these people have allowed us to eliminate another position, giving us about $62,000 worth of salary savings for the budget. So, it helps us in two ways. The Office of the Treasurer presently has deputies and other equivalent positions, such as executive directors and ASO4s [Administrative Services Officers 4], who are managers in both classified and unclassified positions.
This results in a situation whereby the positions of intended equal stature are created differently administratively. This difference leads to a dissimilar application of the State Treasurer’s policies, procedures, and benefits to what was supposed to be equal status positions. S.B. 446 is administrative updates, and I see no changes that would cause any problems, but if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.
Assemblyman Williams:
What will these two individuals be doing differently than what they do now?
John Adkins:
There will have assumed all of the responsibilities and accountabilities that they have now. In addition, there will be the possibility of a new collateral bill being passed and those duties would be assigned to them, and there’s a possibility of another bill passing that would create duties. All those duties would be assigned to these two people.
Assemblyman Williams:
What happens if those two bills don’t pass?
John Adkins:
Then we still have their original duties and salaries that they have now, which would be the same.
Assemblyman Williams:
So, if the bills don’t pass?
John Adkins:
We still have our savings because we’ve eliminated a position. The duties that they have assumed are those that were associated with the position that we eliminated.
Assemblyman Williams:
You’ve already eliminated some positions?
John Adkins:
Yes.
Assemblyman Williams:
How many positions have been eliminated?
John Adkins:
I believe we’ve eliminated four overall, but for this particular circumstance, the reorganization, it would be one. We’re taking three positions and making two positions out of them, and reclassifying them from classified to unclassified.
Assemblyman Williams:
What happened to the people that were in the other positions? Were they let go?
John Adkins:
One was created by a vacancy, and then we didn’t fill it.
Assemblyman Williams:
The position that’s eliminated, that salary will now be divided between the two people?
John Adkins:
No, sir. The salaries that the two positions presently have will be the same at the new unclassified positions. It’s a lateral or a transfer. There could possibly be a small amount of increase because of transferring from classified to unclassified. The numbers don’t match exactly, but there will be minimal change in salary and benefits in this transfer.
Assemblyman Williams:
What is the exact salary increase dollar-wise? What salary will they go from and what salary will they go to?
John Adkins:
One of them will be the exact same amount. He goes with the same salary to the new position. No increase. This is just a reorganization to get him out of classified and into an unclassified position. We’re not changing any salaries or benefits.
Assemblyman Collins:
I think that’s the wrong answer.
Assemblyman Williams:
I’ve got further questions, Mr. Chairman, but I’ll wait until they’re finished.
Patrick Foley, Executive Director, Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program, State of Nevada, Office of the State Treasurer:
[Introduced himself.] Southern Nevada is creating a senior deputy position that will take the executive director position from the Nevada Prepaid Tuition Program, combine that with the ASO4 position, and we’ll also take over additional responsibilities that will help support the Millennium Scholarship, the investment desk, and unclaimed properties.
Elevating to an unclassified position gives me the ability to work with these other programs rather than staying just within the Prepaid Tuition Program desk. We have consolidated the positions of the executive director with the ASO4 position in the Prepaid Tuition Program, and have made that into a senior deputy position, thus creating a savings, by combining those two positions, of approximately $62,000 just in the Las Vegas office. It will increase in fiscal year 2005 to $64,000.
The senior deputy position in northern Nevada is taking from the college savings plan position and allowing additional duties to be supported by that senior deputy, allowing that position to oversee other areas in the northern Nevada district.
Assemblyman Williams:
Right now you have six deputy treasurers and a chief deputy treasurer and an assistant treasurer. How many more chiefs will you get from this bill, S.B. 446?
John Adkins:
Two senior deputies, but we are eliminating the executive director, which is an equivalent position. We’re just changing the names.
Assemblyman Williams:
We hear that the Millennium Scholarship may be running out, and there are some problems with the Prepaid Tuition Program as well, so why are we increasing folks to these positions?
John Adkins:
We’re not increasing them at all. The salaries remain the same. There is no increase in salary for these positions. They assume more duties than they’re presently doing at the same salary.
Assemblyman Williams:
I’ll come back, Mr. Chairman.
Patrick Foley:
Regarding the Prepaid Tuition Program, as well as the Millennium Scholarship, those are factors that are outside of our control that have taken place. The issues regarding the Prepaid Tuition Program, which I’m executive director of, have experienced sharp tuition increases from the university system down to us, which are well beyond any control from the State Treasurer’s Office. We’ve made cuts, and we have made changes within the program that have helped solidify the future of the Prepaid Tuition Program. Through the hard work of the State Treasurer’s Office, as well as through the Board of Trustees of the College Savings Plans of Nevada that is in place, we’re working diligently to ensure that the Prepaid Tuition Program goes on.
The request for the senior deputy position is to allow the position of the current executive director to work with the Millennium Scholarship program, to work with the investment desk, and to work with unclaimed properties in creating a solid southern Nevada base for the State Treasurer’s Office that has interface with the clientele of the state of Nevada, and to be able to have that senior deputy working with and overseeing a cohesive group. It puts forth the best effort to our customers.
In regard to the Millennium Scholarship, we’re working extensively to create new opportunities for the program, whether it’s through the securitization bill that is before us in S.B. 448 that will be coming through, or changes to the requirements to maintain the scholarship or to get the scholarship. Those issues that will be heard as that bill comes forward. There are a lot of issues that face the Millennium Scholarship. However, we will continue to receive the tobacco settlement dollars as they come in, which will go towards some type of scholarship program. That program will exist as it goes forward somehow, some way.
Assemblyman Williams:
As the beginning of this legislative session, the State Treasurer made a very extensive presentation to us and presented the organizational chart. You made reference to the two positions pending two bills that are currently being considered, and that the positions these people will undertake depends heavily on the passage of those two bills, and that concerns me. If those bills don’t pass, what will happen?
Mr. Chairman, if the State Treasurer could come back and present the organizational chart to us with these new positions and explain it to us. The presentation with the organizational chart at the beginning of the year was very clear. If we could see what the new plan is with the new organizational chart, I’d have a better idea of what’s going on.
Chairman Manendo:
That’s fine.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I’m on the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and the State Treasurer is requesting that Committee to be able to sell our tobacco holdings to investors and get out of that, because you mentioned that they were going to manage the tobacco funds. They want to sell it for a lump sum and then take that money and invest it.
John Adkins:
That’s the securitization of the tobacco revenue stream. We attempted that last legislative session and we’re having the same bill this legislative session. That securitization of the tobacco revenue stream depends upon passage of the bill, but that passage does not have anything to do with these positions as such, because the resulting workload associated with that securitization would be handled by our chief deputy treasurer in debt management, Robin Reedy. I suspect she would have a comment with respect to the securitization bill that you’re asking about.
Robin Reedy, Deputy Treasurer Debt Management, State of Nevada, Office of the Treasurer:
[Introduced herself.] The constitutional amendment that is being brought forward is actually intended to protect those monies to only go to the Millennium Scholarship and the other healthy Nevada funds that it’s designated to go to now. If S.B. 448 passes, it gives allowances so we could securitize. It does not give us permission to securitize. It just has language in there allowing that to happen.
Patrick Foley:
I’d like to make a comment in regard to Assemblyman Williams’ question of the issue of these positions being tied to passage of this bill [S.B. 446]. They’re not. Right now, I am working in the areas in regards to the investment desk, the Millennium Scholarship, prepaid tuition, and unclaimed property, on a daily basis. I will continue to help and support those functions in interfacing with our client base. It truly has nothing to do with the passage of S.B. 447 or S.B. 448 for the Millennium Scholarship issues.
We do have interfaces going forward with all the different areas within the State Treasurer’s Office. We’re in the process of completing bids for banking. My background is an extensive banking background, and I’m helping support areas into that side. The senior deputy will help work with other areas within the State Treasurer’s Office.
Assemblyman Williams:
That was the testimony that was given this morning, when asked about the duties of the individuals that their new duties would be determined largely on the passage of two pending bills. Since you brought that up, the question I have now is, usually these types of suggested position changes are submitted in the Governor’s Budget; why wasn’t it done by submission in the budget request as opposed to putting it in a legislative bill? It’s sort of a rare maneuver, at least since I’ve been around here.
John Adkins:
I don’t have an answer for that one, because we thought it would be in the budget process also. It’s just an administrative change. I would have to go back to, if I gave you the impression that the two positions relied on the passage of these other two bills, that’s not what I intended, because that is in addition to what they’re presently doing.
They basically have a full-time job, but when they go to a deputy in an unclassified position, we ask them to work a little harder and a little longer, and that’s our problem now is that they’re classified. If they work an hour of overtime, we’ve got to pay them overtime. If they’re deputies, we don’t pay them overtime. We have all kinds of administrative problems there and we just want to change from classified to unclassified.
The name is insignificant, except that we use senior deputy because that would work into our proposed reorganization change, if it occurs. If it doesn’t occur, it doesn’t make any difference. We can still call them the same thing. We can still call it the executive director, but not an ASO4 because that’s classified, but some other name. The name is insignificant except that senior deputy allows us the flexibility to move into the organization that Treasurer Krolicki was referring to. Those are in there, but if we don’t get them, we’ve got to redo them.
Assemblyman Williams:
And there’s no increase in salary in either of these positions?
John Adkins:
No increase in salary.
Assemblyman Williams:
If you were a little bit confused why this wasn’t submitted to the budget process, as I am, and you wondered that question, too, then I guess two things could probably happen. If the State Treasurer comes back to us with the new organizational chart to clearly show this Committee how this will work, maybe the Chairman will consider rereferring the bill [S.B. 446] to the budget committees so the budget committees can look at this as well. If you didn’t know why it wasn’t submitted to the budget committees, and that’s the way it’s typically done, and we don’t know why it wasn’t submitted to the budget committees the way it’s typically done, then maybe as a protocol suggestion, we should let the budget committees look at it, too, because I’m sure they’ll probably wonder why it wasn’t submitted to them as well.
John Adkins:
It will go before the budget committees. That budget has not been closed. We will go before the budget committees, and I’m sure that we will discuss these positions as such. I thought this was in addition to the budget. I’m sure it’s going to go through the budget process on the final closing of it, and we’re going to discuss these two positions.
Assemblyman Williams:
It’s a difference between when you have final budget closing discussions and it’s brought up, as opposed to it actually being listed in a document that would be considered in the budget. It should be included in the proposed budget that the budget committees can see, because it means one thing to have items listed in the budget that is being considered by the budget committees, and then going in to talk about the budget closing and saying, “Oh, by the way, we’re making these maneuvers over here, too.” That’s an uncomfortable situation.
John Adkins:
That was not the case. We discussed those positions and that was included in our budget. It was shown where we showed the $62,000 salary savings in our budget, and it was taken into consideration at the time. Those were all discussed and that was in our budget. It was not brought up prior to. It was in our original budget.
Assemblyman Williams:
Why is it then that the language that’s in this bill is in this Committee as opposed to being in what other departments and agencies have, in their budget request? Why isn’t this in that budget request?
John Adkins:
It’s in the budget request, but in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 226 is a description of the duties and associated responsibilities within the State Treasurer’s Office. It requires this listing of the people that he can hire, and so it has to be added in there.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I guess I find it confusing that you need to have legislation to change people from a classified position to another position. Having worked in state service for a number of years, I’ve never seen it done this way. I’ve seen changes like this made, but not that require legislation. I’m also wondering that, by changing these folks from classified to unclassified, are they going to serve at the pleasure of whomever and have no protection under civil service?
John Adkins:
Yes. That part is true. The reason for the legislation is that NRS Chapter 226 lists all of the people that are unclassified that the State Treasurer can hire or keep in his staff. That’s the only reason we put it in here. The budget has been taken care of. We’re working on that. This is just an administrative item to list those treasurers and deputies that he has. That’s all this is. We have had this occur before with respect to a change from classified to unclassified, and, in the past, we have always had to go before the Legislature to get that changed from a classified to an unclassified position. This is not the first time. The precedent was set long ago and we’ve done it several times. It’s just an administrative change, that’s all.
Assemblyman Collins:
Sir, your first wrong answer was when you said you wanted to take someone out of classified and put them into unclassified. The second wrong answer was when you said you wanted to do it so you wouldn’t have to pay them. Thirdly, if you had collective bargaining, you wouldn’t be here with this bill [S.B. 446].
I go back to wondering why you gave the first wrong answer of taking them out of protections for their job, and the second one is why would you want to move them where you didn’t have to pay them? It’s got to be coldhearted or something. I don’t understand it exactly. Thirdly, maybe you need to take this bill [S.B. 446] over and put it in the collective bargaining bill and go to the budget committee. If you can answer those questions correctly next time, maybe you can swing my vote. Right now, you don’t have it.
John Adkins:
The first question you had was why we changed from classified to unclassified. It’s the protection situation. The State Treasurer’s Office is not the normal organization that’s in other agencies. It’s a flat agency. It has a lot of high positions, very few intermediate positions, and some low positions. We’ve done that with a specific purpose in that this flat organization allows us to run a lean organization.
We run with less people than any of the organizations would, because they would have to have the clerk-typist positions doing all of the work. They have to have supervisors over those, and then they would have to have more supervisors over those. Then they have to have the intermediate supervisors do the relationships with their clients.
Our situation is we do all of that with one person, and that one person deals with the clients, provides the services, does the work themselves so that they know what’s involved in it, and then they give a better service to the client based on a flat type of organization. Some agencies can’t do that. Our situation is we can perform that way. It requires paying a little higher salary because you’re demanding more. They work harder in the State Treasurer’s Office than they do in a lot of other places. I’m proud of what they do.
Assemblyman Collins:
You’re so proud, you want to cut their pay?
John Adkins:
We’re not cutting any pay.
Assemblyman Collins:
I mean you don’t want to pay them any overtime; I apologize. I’ve heard enough.
John Adkins:
As an unclassified, they have other benefits that offset the overtime. That’s why we have trouble with the classified, the accounting part of it.
Assemblyman Knecht:
For the record, on June 3, I’ll be back at work in an unclassified position and I’d like to verify what the gentleman said about the other benefits. It’s hardly a matter of working in the salt mines. It’s not oppressive. I don’t feel exploited or taken advantage of. Some years back, I had essentially the same position at a similar state agency in another state where I did work in a classified position, and the unclassified is better.
Chairman Manendo:
Anyone else on S.B. 446? I’m going to close the hearing on Senate Bill 446, and open the hearing on Senate Bill 447.
Senate Bill 447 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to governmental financial administration. (BDR 31-302)
John Adkins:
Senate Bill 447 is mostly administrative changes, except for Section 3 through Section 14, which creates a collateral pool organization that we will explain further, but the rest of the items are administrative changes.
Sections 1 and 2 delete the reference to board of county commissioners, board of trustees of a county school district, incorporated cities, and various other distinct local entities, and changed those and refers to them as “local governments.”
Sections 3 through 13 provides for the State Treasurer to establish a program for the monitoring of collateral maintained by depositories for the benefit of the state and for local governments. We’ll go into that one a little further.
Sections 14 and 15 are administrative in that it adds one type of security to the types of securities that can be used for collateral. That type is added in two different places, one for the State Treasurer and one for the county treasurer, and it is an irrevocable letter of credit from any federal home loan bank with the state or the county treasurer named as a beneficiary. That’s the type of investment that they may use as collateral. That’s an addition for benefits of the banks in providing securities.
Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are old bond issues authority that was associated with completing projects and if there was a little money left over from unissued bonds. This tries to cut off the issuance of any bonds based on this authority, except for refunding. It’s just a refund, but they’ll be no ability to issue bonds under these categories.
Robin Reedy:
What the Mr. Adkins has stated is true. It goes through some old authorities that we’ve had to report every time we issue a bond, and it’s just like having a credit card that you’re not using. You still have to report it when you go for a loan. I would like to eliminate the ability of anyone to use these authorities in the future, since they are currently unused and they don’t foresee it being used.
John Adkins:
That leaves us with Sections 3 through 14 that we haven’t covered. This covers the collateral pool concept that we’d like to start. We will use Mr. Foley to discuss the collateral pool because that’s in his area and that would be one of the things that he will assume later on.
Patrick Foley:
Sections 3 through 14 of S.B. 447 are covering a change to the pooled collateral or to the collateral position that banks currently maintain to protect the deposits of the local government agencies. Our current operations have it to where the banks must collateralize all public agency deposits up to 102 percent, utilizing government-backed securities, and other types of securities that are outlined within the NRS.
The current arrangement sometimes puts the banks in the difficult position when there are spikes in the individual deposits of a public agency that would sometimes take them above the collateral limits set by the banks, or with the banks that are housing in a third party depository for that public agency, or oftentimes the banks are over collateralizing. At 102 percent of the uninsured deposits that they’re now required to have, they are sometimes carrying up to 300 percent of the deposits in a third-party bank, costing the banks dollars to house these public funds deposits well above and beyond just the normal process that would be used in holding these deposits.
The pooled collateral position allows the bank to have one collateral account with a third-party bank for all their public agencies that they have depositing with that single depository bank. In turn, they would file reports daily to the State Treasurer’s Office listing the total amount of on deposit public funds, and on a weekly basis, we will get their fair market value of investments that they maintain with the third party depository bank, and ensure on a daily basis that every governmental agency that banks with that individual institution is covered on a daily basis. If they are not covered enough, we will contact the depository bank first thing in the morning, and ensure that they are able to cover that position. If they are uncovered, they will be assessed a penalty for not having enough coverage for the total institutions, and if they’re not timely with their reports, we’d be able to track and assess a penalty for that.
This position that would be created will be funded by the banks. There is no fiscal note on this position. The banks will be assessed a quarterly levy that will take care of the tracking position. We’ve had discussions with many municipalities and governmental agencies, including the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, the City of Henderson, the Carson City Treasurer’s Office, as well as Washoe County, and they are all in support of S.B. 447.
The banks are also in support of S.B. 447. John Sande, with the Nevada Bankers Association, was here a little bit ago saying to please indicate our full support for this operation, for the change into having pooled collateral. The pooled approach will allow it to smooth the spikes that are currently being handled by the banks, as well as help to protect the individual agencies on a regular basis when they do have these spikes in their deposit sites.
Assemblyman Grady:
Do I understand that you are doing this only for the state investment pool or do you want to have oversight on all banking collateral for all customers of the banks around the state?
Patrick Foley:
It is for all the governmental agencies, not just the State Treasurer’s Office. It is to help protect. Right now, if they have deposits of over $100,000 that are not protected by the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] insurance, they will be protected on an ongoing basis by the banks. We would receive daily reports of the general balances, the total overall balances maintained at that individual depository bank that they’re maintaining in public funds. So, it is going down to library districts, to the water districts, the counties, the cities, and such.
Assemblyman Grady:
When did we change to 102 percent from 110 percent? I thought all deposits were secured up to 110 percent. It was when I was in banking, but that was a few years ago.
John Adkins:
I’ve been in state government 12 to 14 years, but it’s always been 102 percent since I’ve been aware of it. By NRS, it’s been 102 percent as long as I can remember for state funds.
Assemblyman Grady:
I would like to hear Mr. Sande’s comments on this.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I want to make sure I was tracking your description right, Mr. Foley. Right now, you have individual depository agreements that require collateralization at 102 percent of the maximum balance over a period of time? Is that the problem?
Patrick Foley:
It is actually 102 percent of the daily balance. It is not of just the highest balance. It is of the daily balance that is maintained.
Assemblyman Knecht:
How do we get to a situation where a bank is sitting there with a 300 percent collateralization position? That’s what I didn’t track.
Patrick Foley:
Oftentimes, the balance will spike based upon the needs to the deposits coming in from different taxes or funding coming in from the state or wherever. Sometimes those fundings take place a day early or something similar to that, and the banks have not received information from the public agency that they are going to be receiving these funds. They try to maintain the balance at a certain level, and when that spike takes place, it’s unprotected.
Banks oftentimes take a look at that and, instead of getting into a position of not covering that spike, they go ahead and leave it at a high level and, in turn, they protect themselves of any spike that could ever happen, thus overcollateralizing on an ongoing basis. Oftentimes the bank will take a security that is a longer term than what is necessary and put it into this collateral position, thus leaving the balance that they maintain in that collateral bank at up to 250 percent or 300 percent above what’s necessary.
Assemblyman Knecht:
So, the banks do this somewhat voluntarily, even though their requirement for collateralization is a daily requirement and part of the reason is because of the unpredictable nature of these deposits and because of the terms on the collateral? The solution is to pool it all, so that you’re working with a bigger total where some of the spiking and that kind of activity is diversified away, in a certain sense, within the portfolio and therefore, on considering the total when you aggregate it, you can collateralize it less and, for that reason, they have the ability to pay somebody on our part to monitor this?
Patrick Foley:
Yes, you’re correct. They do have a savings by being able to lower down from that 300 percent over collateralization to 150 percent or 125 percent. That is a savings to the banks on an ongoing basis, thus allowing them to fund for this tracking. This arrangement of the pool collateral is utilized by many state treasurers and by many other surrounding states. It has been very successful and worked to the benefit of both the state and the government agencies, and to the banks.
John Sande, III, Attorney at Law with the firm of Jones and Vargas, on behalf of the Nevada Bankers Association:
[Introduced himself.] We are in support of this bill [S.B. 447]. I think it was well-explained. Under Section 7, you have public money, which means all the money deposited by the state or local governments with financial institutions, and you would be allowed to pool them, so you would look at one source to determine on a daily basis whether you are complying with the law. They will have somebody looking over this, so I think it is not only a win for the financial institutions, but also for the state in that the state will have one person making sure that these financial institutions are complying with law at all times and, if they are not, then there are some penalties provided here.
Assemblyman Collins:
Is all this reporting like how you do wire transfers? They just e-mail it over daily? It’s not going to put 15 more people in the office?
John Sande:
That’s correct. I’m sure it would be done by e-mail or other methods. Nowadays, with the modern financial world, everything is done electronically, but, as I understand it, you would have someone in the Treasurer’s Office, paid for by the banks, who would administer the program and make sure that the banks were complying. I think, in that sense, it’s good for the state.
Assemblyman Collins:
I’m so used to businesses saying we do too much paperwork and too much reporting, and I was wanted to make sure you were on the record that you didn’t mind additional stuff.
Chairman Manendo:
I’ll close the hearing on Senate Bill 447 and open the hearing on S.C.R. 10.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 10: Urges Governor and agencies of State Executive Branch to take certain actions concerning persons with disabilities. (BDR R-699)
Robert Desruisseaux, Chairman, Statewide Independent Living Council:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here today to urge your support of S.C.R. 10. I was a member of the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities that worked on the Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities. This plan was a compilation of, not just my interests as an individual with a disability, but it also included families of individuals with disabilities, service providers, and government agencies.
In the seven years that I’ve been working in this field, I have never seen such an impressive, cohesive group with what we originally considered different interests. In the development of this document, we recognized the need for compliance with the Olmstead decision [Supreme Court of the United States, Olmstead v. L.C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999)] as well, and we developed a subcommittee and continually reviewed recommendations and the work that was being done by the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities.
In addition, we included the expertise of a gentleman by the name of Tony Records. Mr. Records is an expert on Olmstead and in community-based service delivery, and has helped multiple states in delivering Olmstead plans. In Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities that we’re discussing here, there is a report from Tony Records addressing the compliance of this document with the Olmstead. It goes a long way towards not only meeting Olmstead, but also meeting the needs of people with disabilities throughout Nevada. We would strongly urge your support of S.C.R. 10. This is a stepping-stone in moving into the future and improving the quality of life for all individuals throughout Nevada in a very responsible manner.
Mary Liveratti, Deputy Director, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources:
[Introduced herself.] [A copy of Ms. Liveratti’s testimony is attached as Exhibit C.] S.C.R. 10 supports the work of the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities and the Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities authorized by A.B. 513 of the Seventy-First Legislative Session. We would like to express our appreciation to Senator Dina Titus and the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the State Program for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities. We were able to coordinate the efforts of the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities with the activities of the Subcommittee, which benefited both groups.
As Nevada Task Force on Disabilities Chairman, Brian Lahren indicated that Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities was the product of nearly two years of work and hundreds of voices of people with disabilities, their families, providers, and advocates. It has been carefully structured to ensure adherence to U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead provisions and to the principles of inclusive, independent living for all Nevadans.
As indicated in item 1 of this bill [S.C.R. 10], the Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities has been recognized as an effective Olmstead plan. Section 5 of Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities contains the report by Tony Records, which Robert Desruisseaux mentioned, who is a nationally known authority on Olmstead issues. In this report, Mr. Records states, “Nevada’s Strategic Plan has taken compliance with Olmstead requirements quite seriously. From the draft planning documents reviewed, it appears the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities has addressed each of the Olmstead compliance concerns.”
Item 2 of this bill [S.C.R. 10] concerns identifying and transferring persons with disabilities who are currently in institutional care into the community with appropriate supports. S.B. 137 also addresses this issue.
Item 3 of S.C.R. 10 requires identification of persons with disabilities who reside in the community and who are at risk of being improperly institutionalized. A number of people in the community are already identified and are currently on waiting lists for services. The Executive Budget contains several decision units that would address waiting lists for the Medicaid waivers for people with disabilities and the elderly.
We agree wholeheartedly with Item 4 of S.C.R. 10 that expresses the philosophy that persons with disabilities and services be considered in a more holistic manner when planning budgets and making decisions concerning programs. The transfer of the Office of Community Based Services from DETR [Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation] and the creation of the Office of Disability Services within the Department of Human Resources is included in the Executive Budget. This will enable a more comprehensive approach to policy development, budgeting, and planning.
This office will also assist in Item 5, which considers the needs for persons with severe disabilities who do not qualify for Medicaid services, but who are unable to afford the services they need. I wanted to show you that Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities is quite comprehensive; this is a copy. [Ms. Liveratti held up a copy.] If any of you are interested, we’d be happy to provide a copy for you, but as Robert Desruisseaux said, it was a wonderful effort by people with disabilities, and their families, advocates, and service providers.
Senator Dina Titus, Senate District No. 7 (Clark County):
[Introduced herself.] You’ve heard the details from the experts, but I’d like to put something on the record, because I’m very proud of the work that we did during this interim. During the last interim, I had the privilege of chairing the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the State Program for Providing Services to Persons with Disabilities. Senator Ray Rawson was the vice-chair and did an excellent job. He has a long record of being an advocate in this area. Other members included Senator Randolph Townsend and Assemblypersons Chowning, Claborn, and Angle. The staff for the Subcommittee was just excellent. The team was led by Bob Guernsey and consisted of Jim Rodriquez, Leslie Hamner, and Jo Rasey.
Over the course of the year, we held five public meetings. We heard from state agencies, local governments, members of the disabled community, advocacy groups, private organizations, and experts in the field. We also worked in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources’ Task Force on Disabilities that was created as a result of A.B. 513 of the Seventy-First Legislative Session. You’ve just heard about that from Ms. Liveratti.
I cannot emphasize enough how great it was to work with Mr. Mike Willden, Director of the Department of Human Resources. Tackling an almost impossible task in a very short time, he was able to overcome formidable obstacles and bring all parties to the table, working together on this very important issue, instead of in an adversarial relationship. We’re also indebted to Donny Loux, whom you all know and who, unfortunately, has just retired. I met her replacement; I’m sure he’s going to do a great job, but we miss her. Paul Gowins, Dr. Tom Pierce from UNLV, and many others who provided valuable input to the Committee.
I believe you’ve all received copies of our report. This has been distributed to you, maybe not this morning, but you should have a copy of it. You’ve seen Nevada’s Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities that came from the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities, and probably the Executive Summary that gives you the meat of it in shorter form.
Throughout our proceedings, two things emerged. First, we sought to make serving those with disabilities a priority with the state, rather than an afterthought, because when the disabled can lead productive, happy, normal lives, we all benefit from their contributions to society. Second, we attempted to identify and consolidate existing services and programs so they would be more accessible to the disabled and, therefore, more effective and efficient. In other words, we wanted to move towards “one-stop shopping” or “no wrong door,” whichever jargon you want to use. The concept is go to one place and get what you need. The resolution before you today, S.C.R. 10 sums up those two priorities and lays out both long-term and short-term goals that we identified as a result of those Subcommittee hearings. Some of the short-term goals we can afford now. Some of the long-term goals we need to work towards as we get more revenue, but we believe that it’s well worth the investment. I would urge you to pass this resolution. Thank you very much.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Senator. I know you had an opportunity to work with some fabulous people and they did a great job. Once again, you’re always at the forefront for our folks in the state and we appreciate that.
Senator Titus:
Some of the ones you’re hearing from this morning are really outstanding and we appreciate them.
Chairman Manendo:
Awesome people.
John Sasser, Attorney with Washoe Legal Services:
[Introduced himself.] I’m testifying in support of S.C.R. 10. I was also a member of the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities in the interim, and served with attorneys from the advocacy community, the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff, and from the State Attorney General’s Office as a technical advisory group on Olmstead, to the larger task force and worked with Mr. Records in the development of the Olmstead portion of the plan.
For those of you who may not be familiar with Olmstead, it is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that was reissued in the summer of 1999 and says it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to serve people with disabilities in segregated settings when they could be served in more integrated settings with the rest of society. An example would be saying, “We will only serve you if you have a disability if you’re locked up in a nursing home or in an institution as opposed to being in the community.”
After the decision came down, the federal government issued directives to states recommending that they move toward identifying those who are in institutions who could be served in the community, and moving them out at a reasonable speed. It would be a defense if Nevada were sued in court if we had an effective working Olmstead plan showing that we were moving at a reasonable pace toward integrating these folks into the community. That is what is included in the Nevada Task Force on Disabilities’ report, and that is what this resolution [S.C.R. 10] encourages you to do, to adopt that plan as the official Olmstead plan for the state of Nevada. I urge your support of S.C.R. 10.
Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County Social Services Department:
[Introduced himself.] We applaud the work of the Subcommittee that Senator Titus was chairing. One of the things that they identify in the resolution is urging the state take care of an underserved population. Those are disabled folks that don’t qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money. Believe me, it’s just a wee bit more than they can make to qualify.
One of the things that the resolution asks is that the Executive Branch consider providing services to those folks, whether it be a personal assistant, respite care, health care services, medications, or even an environmental home modification. This is a group of folks that don’t normally get any kind of services, and we appreciate and applaud the efforts of the Subcommittee and this resolution [S.C.R. 10], and we are in support.
Gary Olsen, Deaf Resource Center, Carson City:
[Mr. Olsen testified using sign language, and his testimony was transmitted to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs via a certified Interpreter for the Deaf] Good morning. My name is Gary Olsen. I’m from the Deaf Resource Center here in Carson City, and on behalf of the deaf people and community in Nevada, we strongly support all of you to pass this resolution. We still have a long way to go to serve the deaf community, but we strongly believe that this is a great starting point, and it is creating a wonderful opportunity for the future within our deaf population of Nevada. Thank you very much.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate your testimony. Anyone else on S.C.R. 10? Seeing none, I’ll close the hearing on S.C.R. 10. The Chair will entertain a motion to adopt S.C.R. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assemblyman Williams:
I want to reiterate on that first bill [S.B. 446] from the Treasurer’s Office, that I would still request that the State Treasurer come back to us with his organizational chart to explain these new positions that he’s requesting and to answer the questions that were not answered by his staff, the questions that I had, the questions that Assemblyman Collins had, particularly with the collective bargaining question. The removal of those employees from one type of classification to the other needs to be explained, just as he did at the beginning of the legislative session. If the Chairman will allow that to happen, I would appreciate it.
Chairman Manendo:
We’ll have the State Treasurer come back and talk to us about his bill. Is there anything else to come before the Committee? We are adjourned [9:26 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: