MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

AND THE

Senate Committee on Finance

JOINT Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation

 

Seventy-Second Session

February 14, 2003

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation was called to order at 8:14 a.m., on Friday, February 14, 2003.  Chairman David Parks presided in Room 2134 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.

 

Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. David Parks, Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Josh Griffin

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Richard Perkins

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Sandra Tiffany (excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter

Assemblyman Peter J. Goicoechea

Assemblyman Tom Grady

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst

Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Chairman Parks called the meeting to order at 8:14 a.m., and noted that the agenda would be taken out of order.  He said the first item on the agenda would be the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training, Budget Number 3774, after which the original agenda would be followed.  Chairman Parks welcomed Mr. Richard P. Clark.

 

Mr. Richard P. Clark, Executive Director of the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (POST), introduced himself and thanked Chairman Parks for adjusting the agenda to accommodate POST.  He said there were several dignitaries present to comment about their budget requests.  He noted former Senator Jacobsen was present and they were expecting Sheriff Ron Skinner, President of the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association; Sheriff Gene Hill, Chairman of the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards, and Training; Sheriff Ron Pierini, POST Commissioner.  Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, and other labor representatives were also present.  Mr. Clark said he had a letter from Attorney General Brian Sandoval that he wanted to read into the record.  Mr. Clark noted a copy of the letter was contained in the Commission of Peace Officers’ Standards and Training handout (Exhibit C), under Tab 4.  Mr. Clark read the Attorney General’s letter (Exhibit D) as follows:

 

The Honorable David Parks.  Dear Chairman Parks:  I wish to express my support for the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) budget request.  This is an important agency that sets and enforces the standards of professionalism for Nevada peace officers.  P.O.S.T. provides a valuable service to the state of Nevada both as a regulatory agency and a provider of basic and in-service training to urban and rural criminal justice agencies.

 

If there are any questions that I can answer, or if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.

 

Sincere Regards, Brian Sandoval, Attorney General

 

Chairman Parks thanked Mr. Clark and said he had a copy of the letter that he would provide to the Committee secretary.

 

Mr. Clark continued and said that the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training was the regulatory commission statutorily mandated by NRS 289.500 and NRS 289.510, to establish and enforce the professional standards that govern the selection, hiring, basic and in-service training, and certification of all peace officers in the state of Nevada.  He said their mission statement reflected two basic responsibilities.  The first responsibility was to develop and deliver professional training and the second was to ensure that all Nevada peace officers and their agencies complied with established statutes and regulations in order to enhance the safety of the residents and visitors of the state of Nevada.  He said that in 1999 POST was reestablished as a stand-alone commission under the Governor’s Office, with all its regulatory training and certification responsibilities reaffirmed.  He said that POST was not funded from the General Fund.  Nearly 100 percent of POST funding came from administrative assessments and a small amount from registration fees as established in 1983.  He noted the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training played a vital role in maintaining the quality of public safety that Nevadans enjoyed throughout the state.  He added that in order to sustain a high level of professional service and safety, address issues of increased crime and domestic terrorism, protect people and property, and protect individual rights, peace officers must be held to the highest standards of professionalism.  He said a strong and viable regulatory agency that built and maintained professional standards and quality training for Nevada’s peace officers was not a luxury but an indisputable necessity.

 

Mr. Clark said for this biennium POST academies graduated 73 law enforcement cadets who served in 32 Nevada criminal justice agencies.  He added that POST had developed a statewide training needs assessment that identified 21 high priority training topics, and had convened two manager training meetings to develop performance objectives for a basic academy core course.  The Commission revamped the Category III Certification Exam to accommodate detention and correction personnel, and produced and distributed the POST physical fitness standards videotape.  He said they completed an agency employee evaluation process to improve working conditions and developed a user-friendly POST Web site enhancement to answer frequently asked questions, announce training opportunities, and download capabilities for printing forms.  He said they completed seven basic academy audits, and provided nearly 6,000 hours of community police training in collaboration with the Western Community Policing Center in Oregon.  In partnership with the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Clark said they provided training in a model policy for domestic violence field procedures, and enforcement of domestic violence protection orders.  With the help of the Nevada National Guard, POST developed and provided several training opportunities for weapons of mass destruction training.  The Commission had also made weapons of mass destruction a mandatory course for all Category I basic training academies.  They had relaxed regulations to assist criminal justice agencies in streamlining the hiring of qualified out-of-state peace officers.  He said the Commission developed a contractual process to certify Tribal peace officers that wished to become POST-certified and at that time had contractual agreements with 11 Tribal agencies.

 

Mr. Clark said they could have accomplished much more had the Commission not suffered a $92,000 shortfall in administrative assessments funding in FY2002 and the equivalent in FY2003.  He noted that those two shortfalls gave the appearance of a significant increase in their enhancement request.  He explained that, due to the previous and projected shortfalls in administrative assessments, the entire law enforcement academy operation had been removed from the base budget and placed in the enhancement decision unit E-125.  He noted decision unit E-125 included a request to continue the law enforcement academy operation with four positions, a dormitory, a food contract, travel expenses, supplies, maintenance, and a request for facilities.  He said the agency was housed in four separate geographic locations.  The facilities request in decision unit E-125 would consolidate and unify all the Commission’s administration and training staff in one location to improve agency efficiency, effectiveness, and communication ability.

 

Mr. Clark said that the funding requests in decision units E-500, E-503, and E‑504 were support items to the academy.  The requests included a facilities manager position to reduce the administrative burden on training officers and thereby enable them to increase training time and better manage cadet activities, a leased van to replace a worn-out vehicle, a shotgun for firearms training, and an identification card system to increase security.  He said that decision unit E-501 allowed POST to be in compliance with NRS 239 that required duplication and security for public records.  The funds requested in decision unit E-502 were for a commercial off-the-shelf software system used by many states to electronically manage peace officer files and records.

 

Mr. Clark concluded that the E-505 decision unit reflected what POST had not spent in the base budget year, FY2002, because of the shortfall created by the decrease in court assessments.  He concluded by saying the Commission’s funding request in the E-505 decision unit was needed to support their mission.

 

Mr. Clark turned the presentation over to Tim Bunting and Jim Riggs for more detail on their POST budget request.

 

Tim Bunting, Deputy Director for the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training, indicated that behind the first tab in the briefing book (Exhibit C) was an organization chart showing the 15 POST employees.  He pointed out the snapshot depiction of POST’s accomplishments in the performance indicator report behind tab 2.  During FY2002, not including the Nevada Police Corps Academy, 43 peace officers graduated from the POST academy.  Mr. Bunting noted one non-graduate who had been called to duty by the National Guard before completing the training.  The 43 graduates came from 19 different agencies.  In FY2003 the POST academy graduated 20 peace officers and had 24 attending the POST Academy 7.  Mr. Bunting said those 44 officers were from 25 agencies.  During the last biennium the Commission processed 2,299 professional certificates, administered 1,201 state certification exams, and processed 7,562 personnel action requests.  POST’s continuing education section conducted, managed, or facilitated training for 5,129 officers from various in-state, federal, and out-of-state agencies.

 

Mr. Bunting went to tab 3 of the handout (Exhibit C), which contained a summary of the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training budget enhancements.  He said that decision unit E-125 covered all the funding for POST’s law enforcement academy.  He said the financial resources for this and the other enhancements would come from a pending bill draft request that increased the amount of each court assessment.

 

Mr. Bunting said he would highlight most of the projected expenditures in the E‑125 decision unit.  The cost for the four existing positions, the academy commander, two training officers, and an administrative assistant, was $263,713 for FY2004 and $268,757 for FY2005.  Food service for the cadets, contracted with Services for the Blind, was $77,500, and rent for the dormitory building at the Stewart Facility was $93,938 per each fiscal year.  Also contained in decision unit E-125 was the proposal to consolidate the physical location of POST.  Mr. Bunting noted POST was currently housed in four locations.  Consolidation would allow for more efficient and effective operations and communication.  He said the POST academy had borrowed space from the Department of Public Safety under a Memorandum of Agreement that would expire in FY2003.  He said the Department of Public Safety was growing and POST needed to relocate and consolidate its operation.  He said that based on authorizations from the Buildings and Grounds Division, POST needed 11,000 square feet of office, storage, and classroom space.  Rent for such a facility would be $118,765 per year.  Using an estimate provided by DoIT, telephone facilities would cost $17,652.  A file server was estimated at $11,483 and $17,045 was needed for classroom equipment.  Mr. Bunting noted those last three items were all one-time expenditures.  Mr. Bunting continued by saying that POST had been slated to move into a state-owned building, but that in the best interest of the state, a General Fund agency would move into that building.  He said there was no other state-owned building large enough to accommodate POST and that they had found a non-state-owned building that would meet their needs.

 

Mr. Bunting moved to budget decision unit E-500, which was a funding request for a Program Officer I position to act as the facilities manager for the training facility.  He said employees in a small agency were required to perform many additional duties.  The new position would entail scheduling classrooms, training vehicles, and dormitory room assignments, and would be responsible for the maintenance of agency vehicles, maintenance coordination for the dormitory building and training facility, and would be responsible for logistics operations and scenario set-ups for both of the academies.  Mr. Bunting said that currently training officers performed those duties at the cost of not training peace officers.  In the past, to accomplish those duties proposed for the new position, POST awarded compensatory time in lieu of overtime.  He added that as criminal justice agencies faced increased budget restrictions it became more difficult to get instructors from those agencies, therefore adding more instructor duties to POST staff.  The current ratio of student to instructor at the POST academy was 1 to 11.  He noted that the average ratio of similar, non-residential academies, was 1 to 6, and instructors at those academies did not perform additional non-instructor duties.  The addition of the requested Program Officer I position would release training officers for more instruction time, reduce overtime, and would consolidate the maintenance and scheduling operations.  The cost for this position for FY2004 and FY2005 would be $35,525 and $47,984 respectively.

 

Mr. Bunting proceeded to decision unit E-501.  He said in this decision unit POST had requested funds to microfilm peace officer records currently stored in paper files, thereby bringing POST into compliance with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 239.051, and funds for an administrative aide position to keep those records current.  He added that POST planned to use the Nevada State Library and Archives Micrographics and Imaging Department to microfilm their records.  He said this was a complicated effort as each record had to be prepared and then transported to the library.  The decision unit E-501 enhancement included a contract for the necessary manpower to accomplish the microfilming task so that current staff could continue their daily responsibilities.  He said the new position would initially work on setting up the microfilming project and then revert to basic microfilm records maintenance and preservation.  A study conducted by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) estimated the cost of the imaging equipment to be $98,609 with a $4,390 annual maintenance cost.  Mr. Bunting said POST had negotiated with the Nevada State Library and Archives to use their equipment at a cost of $20,000 plus a one-time charge of $25,000 to contract for the employees to ready the records.  He concluded that the total request for decision unit E-501 for FY2004 was $70,748, and FY2005, $34,489.

 

Mr. Bunting said that decision unit E-502 was a one-time purchase for commercial, off-the-shelf software that would allow POST to maintain electronic files for peace officers throughout the state.  He added that the software they proposed to purchase was used by law enforcement and regulatory agencies in 20 different states.  It was used by 115 law enforcement agencies In Maryland.  The cost of $46,570 covered the software, training, data transfer, and license fee.  He said that the software also interfaced with the Nevada Library and Archives’ software and would electronically transfer records to microfilm.  Mr. Bunting said decision units E-503 and E-504 were support items for the academy.  Decision unit E-503 requested $5,220 per year in enhancement funds for a leased van.  He said the present van, a 1990 Chevrolet, with more than 120,000 miles, was in need of major repairs.  Decision unit E‑504 requested $350 in enhancement funds for a new shotgun for firearms training.  Mr. Bunting noted the shotgun being used was worn and unsafe.  Included in the E-504 decision unit was an enhancement request to make staff identification cards.  POST planned to use the Legislative Counsel Bureau to make the cards at $10 each with a recurring cost of $150 per year.

 

Mr. Bunting proceeded with his presentation and said the Commission curtailed spending during its base budget year due to a shortfall in court assessments.  He said to meet the shortfall they reduced training, depleted supplies inventories, and traded supplies with other state agencies.  The Commission reduced printing costs for its annual report and for the production of its policy and procedure manual by putting it on compact disc.  The Commission imposed further expenditure reductions by conducting its audits on local agencies within driving distance and by using videoconferencing for half of its meetings.  Mr. Bunting said decision unit E-505 reflected the $17,886 the Commission was unable to use in the base budget year.  He said that the proposed budget enhancements and the base budget were equal to $1.7 million for FY2004 and $1.6 million for FY2005, and increased personnel strength by two positions for a staffing total of 17; 14 in POST and 3 in the Nevada Police Corps program.

 

Mr. Bunting concluded his briefing and asked for questions from the Committee.

 

Senator Rhoads noted 43 cadets graduated from POST in 2002.  He asked how that compared with other years.  Mr. Bunting responded that 43 graduates per year was about normal.

 

Senator Rhoads asked, with regard to the bill draft request (BDR) mentioned earlier in Mr. Bunting’s budget presentation, what the total assessment would be if the BDR added an additional $9.80 to the current administrative assessment.  Mr. Clark responded that there were two bill draft requests.  Bill draft request 14-613 had been submitted by the Nevada Supreme Court to raise court assessments by an additional $9.80.  Senator Rhoads asked what the total would be.  Mr. Clark responded that 49 percent of the court assessments would be eligible for distribution to Executive Branch functions identified in NRS 176.059, and that POST would share in the $4.90 of the assessment funds pool.

 

Senator Rhoads asked how Nevada’s court assessment rates compared to other states.  Mr. Clark responded that California’s were higher.  Senator Rhoads asked for more information on comparisons of court assessments for the western states.  Mr. Clark responded the Commission would provide that information.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked for clarification regarding the cost of POST training versus community college training.

 

Mr. Clark responded that the sheriffs and chiefs paid a registration fee of $500 per POST enrollee for Category I and $350 each for Category II training.  POST was a residential live-in academy, and the fee covered lodging and meals.  Mr. Clark noted that in FY2002 the Category I peace officer registration fee rose from $350 to $500, and that they planned to ask the Commission to increase that a little more.  Mr. Clark said that a community college could cost the agencies upwards of $2,500 per trainee, excluding food and lodging.  He said there were other costs the agencies had to pay, such as temporary salaries to cover the absences imposed by training.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if $2,500 was the total cost for training at the community college.  Mr. Clark said $2,500 was the registration fee for the community colleges they had surveyed.  He noted there were additional costs for food and lodging, and some community colleges had semester-long programs that required a considerable time commitment.  Mr. Marvel asked how individuals were housed at community colleges.  Mr. Clark said food and lodging would be covered by a per diem and individuals would make their own housing arrangements.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the administrative court assessment would be levied as a uniform fee across the courts.  He noted his district was recently audited and the administrative assessment fees had differed from court to court.  Mr. Marvel also noted that fee collections were in serious arrears.  He asked Mr. Clark if POST would actually get their portion of the fee.

 

Mr. Clark responded that he had discussed better organization and control over the levying and collection of court assessments with members of the Supreme Court and Ron Titus, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).  He said that should BDR 14-613 pass, the appropriate portion of assessment funds would be distributed to the Executive Branch function and then proportionately shared with POST.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would introduce BDR 14-612.  Mr. Clark confirmed that the AOC would introduce BDR 14-612.  Mr. Marvel noted many entities shared the court assessment fee, including the Administrative Office of the Courts.  Mr. Clark responded that in 1983 the portion of the court assessment fees that was sent to the state was specifically designated for POST.  He said the court assessment fees had subsequently become a good funding source for other state agencies.  Mr. Marvel added that part of the court assessment fees was used to help fund the Criminal History Repository.  Mr. Clark said he believed a portion of their funding came from court assessment fees and from fees the Repository charged for their background investigations.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if the certificate of completion awarded by Community College academy training was comparable to a certificate of completion awarded by POST.  Mr. Clark responded that all the academies in the state were approved and certified as POST-certified training academies.  He added that POST helped the training academies to grow and develop their curriculums.  If the academy was POST-certified the graduation certificates of completion were equivalent to POST’s.

 

Senator Rhoads said that in each of the 2003-2005 biennium years it cost $12,000 per cadet to train at POST and $1,500 at a Community College academy.  He noted the Community College academy cost excluded room and board and that the course length was assumed to be 16 weeks.  Mr. Clark clarified that their research indicated a cost of $8,700 to train a Category I cadet in the protracted, live-in academy.  That included dormitory facilities and food, and covered a 16-week period.  Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Clark to provide the Joint Subcommittee with information about POST’s projected per cadet training costs.  Mr. Clark said he would provide the Joint Subcommittee members with the exact figures.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if the Community Colleges or POST graduated the greater number of cadets.  Mr. Clark responded that there were 18 academies in the state, and that about four were Category III for the Department of Corrections.  He said three Community Colleges ran programs.

 

Senator Rhoads asked for the names of the three Community Colleges.  Mr. Clark listed Western Nevada Community College, Southern Nevada Community College, and Truckee Meadows Community College.  Chairman Parks asked Mr. Clark to provide the Joint Subcommittee with the numbers of graduates from each of the Community Colleges.  Mr. Clark confirmed he would provide those numbers.

 

Chairman Parks noted that POST academies had specific time frames within which they conducted their training.  He asked if the Community Colleges’ academies had ongoing or specific times within which to conduct their training.  Mr. Clark said that the Community Colleges academy training was ongoing but fit into their semester-based college curriculum.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Bunting to explain what was reflected in the personnel action requests statistics.

 

Mr. Bunting said that a personnel action request was submitted each time a staff person changed his or her employment status, and cited as examples hiring, termination, and promotion.  Those requests were submitted or faxed on a form available for downloading from their Web site.  He said the Web site was not secure enough to allow staff to process the personnel action requests electronically since personnel action requests contained security-sensitive material.

 

Chairman Parks noted that, as shown on the chart in Exhibit C, tab one, the Commission’s organization was vertical, and, for a small operation, had an Executive Director and a Deputy Director.  He asked Mr. Clark to explain the responsibilities delegated to the Deputy Director that were distinct from those of the Executive Director.

 

Mr. Clark responded that the Deputy Director had oversight for planning, and organized and directed the day-to-day operations of the Commission’s Activities Bureau, the Basic Training Bureau, and the Nevada Police Corps Program.  He said the position supervised three Grade 38 Employee Development Managers, conducted staff or disciplinary investigations, and complaints against the POST Commission.  The Deputy Director assisted in the development and administration of the Commission’s budget, assisted in the ongoing development of the department’s policies and procedures manual, and acted in lieu of the Executive Director as needed.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further discussion of the relocation of the training academy.  He said Mr. Bunting indicated the Commission had found a location for the training academy that was separate from the state of Nevada facility, and that the cost as shown in the budget was additional to what they paid now to house the POST training academy.  He asked Mr. Bunting to elaborate.

 

Mr. Bunting responded that currently they paid no rent for the POST academy training space.  He said that space belonged to the Department of Public Safety (DPS).  The other offices the Commission used were in a non-state-owned building.  Annual rent for that facility was $34,000 a year.  The Police Corps rented office space out of Western Nevada Community College.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Bunting to discuss the location they had found for the POST academy.

 

Mr. Bunting said they had found a suitable location near the Commission’s office location.  The building was empty and had no interior walls so POST could have it designed to meet their needs.  The space was about 12,000 square feet and the average rent in Carson City was $1.15 per square foot.  He said they had not negotiated for the space but had ascertained that it was available.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further explanation about the dormitory facilities for the cadets.  Mr. Bunting said the dormitory facilities would remain at the Stewart facility and they would transport the cadets back and forth.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Bunting to discuss the teacher to cadet ratio of 1 to 11 compared to the national average of 1 to 6.

 

Mr. Bunting said the average was based on the ratios at the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Public Safety, and the Las Vegas Metro Academies because those academies were the closest.  Mr. Bunting said the teacher to cadet ratios ranged from 1 to 12, 1 to 5, to 1 to 4.

Chairman Parks moved the discussion to the E-501 decision unit module.  He noted the Commission’s budget requested $46,570 for a contract for services to microfilm peace officer records, and $46,570 for the software, training, data transfer, and license fee for this project.  Chairman Parks asked Mr. Bunting to explain the contract for the services component of this request.

 

Mr. Bunting said the contract was for one full-time employee.  He said they had received estimates from two temporary agencies that averaged about $25,000 to cull the paper folder copies of what was not needed for the microfilm records, prepare the records for microfilming, transport them to the Nevada State Library and Archives and then have the records microfilmed.  He said that since the library used inmate labor for their microfilming activities, police officer records could not be turned over to them.  This fact necessitated that the project use a bonded contractor.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Bunting to expand the discussion about the proposed electronic database project in decision unit E-501.

 

Mr. Bunting said the E-501 decision unit funding was to purchase a database package from Crown Point Network Technologies.  He said that particular software program had been designed by law enforcement agencies.  He added that the software was in use throughout the country and interfaced with the Nevada State Library Archives.  When the database was completed the records information could be transferred directly to Nevada State Library and Archives microfilm and thus eliminate paper files.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the need for the microfilm project was to comply with NRS 239.  Mr. Bunting said they were required by that statute to have a backup, off-site records file.  The microfilm file with the state Archives in combination with the electronic database would fulfill that requirement.  Chairman Parks corroborated Mr. Bunting’s statement that the microfilm file and electronic database would provide the required backup and eliminate paper files.

 

Chairman Parks asked for more information about the replacement van POST had requested and its proposed use.

 

Mr. Bunting said that the van they proposed to purchase would be used during academy training to transport cadets, but would also be used for their Firearms Training Simulator (FATS) that was housed in two trailers.  He said the northern Nevada operation did not have a vehicle that could move the trailers.  The proposed replacement van would have a trailer hitch for the FATS trailer.

 

Chairman Parks said he had gathered from the presentation that it would be desirable to locate the Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training in one location.  He asked for further comment on the issue and the availability of the Stewart Center facility.

 

Mr. Clark responded that they had looked forward to having the Stewart Center as a public safety-training center.  It had a dormitory, gymnasium, chow hall, track facilities, and was in close proximity to the firing range.  He said having the training facility and training operations together was more efficient and effective.  Centralization would save considerable time and money that was lost transferring personnel and duplicating equipment.  He said there were no facilities that could accommodate them.  They had identified one facility in the Stewart Center but it had been given to a larger General Fund agency and Buildings and Grounds had nothing else that could accommodate them.  He said they were scattered throughout the city but their desire was to consolidate the operations so they could concentrate on their mission.

 

Chairman Parks noted they needed to employ former Senator Jacobsen to work on that.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the Commission wanted to comment on the three upgraded positions approved by the Department of Personnel during the 2001-2003 biennium and the additional duties added by the 2001 Legislature.

 

Mr. Clark said the current structure of the organization, as presented in the organization chart (Exhibit C, tab 1), was created in 1999 when POST was removed from the Department of Motor Vehicles as stipulated through Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 21 and Senate Bill 68.  The upgrades reflected accommodations to match the basic and expanded duties and responsibilities for the positions.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment from the audience.

 

Sheriff Gene Hill of Humboldt County, and chairman of the POST Commission, introduced himself.  He said the Commission staff had covered the most important budget topics.  Sheriff Hill testified that a centralized location would greatly improve the capacity of the Commission to conduct its business.  He noted he had the same situation in Humboldt County, and that having two different locations within one town was “not handy.”  Sheriff Hill said he had compared Nevada training facilities to other states, and in particular, Wyoming.  He attended two weeks of their academy and found the facility extremely functional.  He said he hoped, with improved funding sources and a revived economy, Nevada could have a comparable training facility.  He noted current funding shortfalls and economic issues were devastating.  He commended Mr. Clark and the Commission staff for having done a remarkable job under the current funding and facilities constraints.

 

Sheriff Hill said he was a rural sheriff and depended on POST.  Humboldt County could not afford to pay per diem for a semester of community college curriculum in lieu of the 16-week training available through POST.  The cost would be prohibitive.  He said he probably spoke for other rural counties.  Sheriff Hill testified that it was imperative to employ and train high caliber peace officers.  He said with the addition of homeland defense against domestic terrorism, more and more was falling on the shoulders of law enforcement.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked if there was some movement to reduce the training Categories I, II, and III to just one.  Sheriff Hill responded he had not heard of any movement in that direction.  He said some agencies sent all their trainees through a Category I academy.  He said he used Category III or Category I depending on their work site and duties.  Mr. Marvel asked what category correctional officers trained under.  Sheriff Hill said they were trained through Category III.  He said Category II served bailiffs and probation officers.  Mr. Marvel asked if there would be any advantages in having one category.  Sheriff Hill said there could be some benefit if everyone trained through one centralized training program that covered the topics of all three categories.  Mr. Marvel asked if there was a difference in cost between the three category trainings.  Sheriff Hill said there was a difference in cost that resulted from the difference in the lengths of training time, 5 weeks for Category III academy, 8 weeks for Category II, and 16 weeks for Category I.

 

Senator Rhoads asked what it cost to send someone from the Humboldt County unit to POST.  Sheriff Hill responded that his unit paid the individual’s salary for 16 weeks of academy training plus the $500 tuition.  He noted wages for a starting deputy were about $35,000 a year and that room and board were included in the tuition.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if Sheriff Hill felt comfortable with the court assessment fee increase of $9.80.  Sheriff Hill confirmed he felt comfortable with the present increase.  He said he had reservations with regard to the long-term effects of inflation.

 

Sheriff Ron Pierini of Douglas County introduced himself.  He noted he was new to the POST Commission.  He remarked that he had been deeply concerned when he discovered how lean the Commission’s budget was.  He commended Mr. Clark and his staff for doing an excellent job with very limited financial resources.  He said the staff provided good training and worked diligently to ensure that POST provided the state with high performance standards.  He noted that the Commission acted as a licensing agency.  It set high standards and prepared officers to perform their duties responsibly in the community.  He said Nevada citizens could have confidence that their officers were well-trained.  He said when something went wrong it affected the local community and the state.

 

Sheriff Pierini said he considered his department was a rural law enforcement agency.  It had 120 staff members and sent 4 trainees to the POST academy every year.  He said that was a significant number for his department.  Many of the trainees came from one of their 25 jail positions.  The budgetary effect was considerable.  He said his department had to pay overtime to backfill the empty positions while the trainees were away.  The cost for that was about $14,000 in wages and overtime   Ammunition, transportation, and tuition were additional costs.  He said those fees were paid to support the training effort and that the counties were thereby sharing in the support of the POST academy.  Sheriff Pierini added that most importantly, the academy product, in return for the training, was excellent.  He said if there was a conflict with an employee his department used the Commission to resolve it.  Sheriff Pierini added that his department had several certified instructors who were sent free of charge to the academy to assist in the training.

 

Sheriff Pierini said he had read and discussed one-on-one with legislators the proposed assessment increases in BDR 14-613.  He said the bill would have a Band-Aid effect on the financial constraints that faced the Commission.  He said the proposed increase would help the Commission through the current budget deficit period and enable the training to continue.  He emphasized that setting and upholding high standards and identifying issues for officers was extremely important.  He said officers needed training to ensure that their conduct was equal to the high standards expected by the community.

 

Chairman Parks asked if they sent any of their officers to Western Nevada Community College.

 

Sheriff Pierini responded that they did not send their officers to Western Nevada Community College.  They sent their trainees to POST.  He said he had hired individuals who had been trained at the community college academies.  He found that their product was good.  He said for his group, the logistics, overtime, and per diem the agency would have to pay for community college training was prohibitive.

 

Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Southern Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, introduced himself to the Subcommittee.  He said since September 11, 2001, his Las Vegas office was tracking 300 pieces of legislation proposed by the federal government.  Several of those 300 pieces of legislation required training for law enforcement personnel throughout the nation.  He said POST would have to take on the bulk of that training for Nevada, particularly for the rural counties.  In order to retain and maintain professional law enforcement officers, he said Nevada must have the training capabilities in place to ensure that the latest information on rapidly changing laws was available.  Similarly, he said new legislation was being produced that would require different types of training and that it was absolutely critical to have the training capability in place.

 

Senator Rhoads asked, given all the emphasis on homeland security at the national level, if there were any funds coming from the federal government to local jurisdictions within the state, counties, and cities.

 

Lieutenant Olsen responded that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was researching several possible funding sources.  It was not clear how homeland security money might become available at the federal level.  He said it might come through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  FEMA housed the United States Fire Administration and Lt. Olsen said there was serious concern that homeland security money might be funneled through the U.S. Fire Administration rather than through law enforcement, which was the first responder, or the “canaries” as they were called in southern Nevada.  He agreed there was serious concern about homeland security funding sources and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was looking at grant money and tracking federal money.

 

Sheriff Ron Pierini said some federal funding for homeland security had come to their agency and others.  He said this was sometimes announced at the Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association meetings.  The funding was minimal, most of which was for purchasing reactive equipment.  He said they needed to be pro-active to identify terrorists and to prevent emergencies before they happened.

 

Lieutenant Olsen made reference to Assemblyman Marvel’s suggestion to reduce the POST training categories from three to one.  He said that at an earlier time the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and POST had merged the categories into one academy.  He said, as an example, that they found a Category III corrections officer could only be trained to a certain point within the single category time frame, then the training needed to be expanded for different levels of responsibility.  He added that to have one academy with only one category of training for everybody would be too costly to all the agencies, the rural counties, and the state.  He said there would be some real issues with that kind of scenario.

 

Sheriff Ron Skinner, Pershing County and president of the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, testified that he and the members of the Association, concurred with the testimony that had been given.  He added that he had been certified as a police officer in three different states, including Nevada.  During his career he had spent much time with other Police Officer’s Standards Training academies in Colorado and Utah.  He said by comparison Nevada’s POST was somewhat behind the times.  He understood that Nevada was looking at many budget concerns, but he said it was critical to not withdraw support for Nevada’s POST.

 

Richard Weighall, Chief of Police, West Wendover Police Department, introduced himself to the Subcommittee.  He said that over the past ten years his department had relied exclusively on the Nevada POST to train their new recruits.  During that period he had sent 25 to 30 recruits to POST and when they completed their training they returned as law enforcement professionals.  Mr. Weighall said one of his primary concerns was liability.  He said his first defense against liabilities was training.

 

Mr. Weighall noted that in northeastern Nevada the closest community college to his area, other than the satellite, was in Elko, Nevada.  Logistically it was very difficult to get sufficient training for the officers.  Over the years he said he had worked with Mr. Clark and his staff and found them very helpful in meeting the training goals for his department.

 

Ron Dreher, president of the Peace Officers’ Research Association, and a retired Reno police officer, introduced himself and stated that he had over 26 years experience with the police department.  He said he hoped the Legislature would not be “pound-foolish and penny-wise” with regard to the Police Officer’s Standards Training academy’s budget request.  He said the most important factor in law enforcement today was training.  Without high performance standards provided by training law enforcement officers, the liabilities were tremendous.  He noted that the state of California had a $56 million budget for training under the Peace Officers’ Standards of Training and they were attempting to cut that budget in half, which Mr. Dreher believed was ridiculous.  He cited a serious liability issue in California where a commission on conduct had to be formed to review a breach in standards of conduct.  He said the crux of the incident had been lack of training.  He said training and law enforcement issues were crucial and that training budgets should not be cut.  The budget that Mr. Clark proposed was small compared to what was needed in Nevada.  He expressed the wish that “the court assessment fees were tripled” in order to keep POST funded.

 

Mr. Dreher said that the intent of NRS 289 and the Nevada Administrative Code was for Nevada peace officers to meet high levels of performance standards, and that required high standards of training.  The state had only just begun to fulfill its mission.  He said he strongly supported a one-category training for all peace officers.  He said he and the Nevada Association of Counties shared in supporting having one category level of peace officer training.  With uniform training the liability issues would be notably reduced.  He urged the Subcommittee to fund the POST budget at the level they had requested without cuts and to raise the court assessment fees.

 

Robert Hadfield, representing the Nevada Association of Counties, introduced himself.  He said the Commission on Peace Officers’ Training activities was an example of an effective, working partnership between Nevada’s local governments and the state.  He said he strongly supported the previous comments about the importance of the training program and uniform performance and achievement standards.  He said POST had done an outstanding job in this regard.

 

With regard to the question about federal funding for security issues, he said Congress had just reached a budget agreement.  Mr. Hadfield said that in his Association’s most recent conversations with the White House, it was indicated that there was a strong effort to get $1 billion for grants to local and state governments.  He said that although he did not know the details of the discussions, an agreement had been reached that would go before both the U.S. Senate and the House for final approval.

 

Lawrence Jacobsen introduced himself.  He said he represented Lyon and Douglas Counties and Carson City.  He said he had been with the Police Officers’ Standards Training since its onset and had helped start it.  He said POST was more necessary today than ever because the challenges of law enforcement differed significantly from the past.  He said there were obvious benefits for the state of Nevada to have its own academy, and there were also unseen benefits, particularly for the rural communities.  When cadets trained and lived together for an extended training period they learned to work as a team.  He cited an example of the benefits of teamwork where one county had the ability to call in reserves from as many as ten different areas to assist in handling a heavily-attended event or a catastrophe.  Because the officers had trained together, they worked together as a team and coordination problems were minimized.

 

Mr. Jacobsen indicated that he had volunteered about 5,000 hours at the Stewart facility, a favorite of his projects.  He said that through his efforts the Stewart facility title was vested back to the state of Nevada.  The process had been complicated because Native Americans had utilized the area for many years and believed they had ownership through occupancy.

 

Mr. Jacobsen said today’s testimony showed that the Stewart facility could not accommodate POST in full or in part.  He said over the years there had been several different requests for accommodation at the facility.  It housed several agencies such as the Department of Corrections Administration with 42 officers, the Fire Marshal, Hazardous Materials, Domestic Violence, and the community colleges.  He said changing the use of a building was expensive and complicated, often requiring remodel.  He noted there were still buildings that were not being utilized.  Mr. Jacobsen recommended the Subcommittee discuss the non-utilized buildings with Mike Meizel, Chief, Buildings and Grounds Division, Department of Administration, when it came before them.

 

Mr. Jacobsen said he was close to POST, attended their graduation exercises, and attended some of their training seminars.  He said the curriculum was very comprehensive.  He noted that POST furnished training for law enforcement officers, the park systems, and all other state agencies that had police officers.  He said the number of officers to be trained had increased dramatically over the years.  Mr. Jacobsen said POST was crucial; new challenges faced law enforcement, particularly, as raised earlier by Senator Rhoads, homeland security in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001.  He said the Subcommittee should review the POST curriculum.  They would be impressed by its scope.

 

Mr. Jacobsen said that, years ago, before community colleges were introduced, POST was the only training source available.  He said he liked the military aspect of POST’s training.  Just recently he had seen cadets retiring the flag and said he had not seen that in 50 years since he left the service.  It was like “frosting on the cake.”

 

Mr. Jacobsen said the POST academy was superb and needed to be accommodated, particularly for the rural communities.  He said serious, organized training was the basis for a professional police force.  Police officers could not simply be recruited; they needed to be trained to standards.  Today there could be legal ramifications resulting from inadequate training.  He cited the complex issues and difficulties when handling domestic violence, one of today’s major areas of concern.  He surmised domestic violence probably headed today’s police records.  Other new areas of concern for law enforcement officers were hazardous materials and high-level waste.  Those issues haunted the officers.

 

Mr. Jacobsen concluded that he hoped POST would receive utmost consideration.

 

Chairman Parks noted there was an extra chair on the dais.  Mr. Jacobsen said he would be happy to sit there.  He said he could give lessons on how it felt to be a Senator one day and “a nobody” the next.  Chairman Parks said, “Senator Jacobsen, you would never be a nobody with that group.”

 

Chairman Parks recognized Speaker Perkins.

 

Speaker Perkins noted that since his arrival at the Legislature he was amazed by the funding process for police officer training.  He said a fundamental government responsibility was to provide public safety and he believed that someday the POST academy should be funded as a General Fund agency rather than relying on volatile administrative assessments.  He said that was not an opportunity for the current session given our economic situation.  With regard to the discussion of homeland security, the issues under discussion at the federal level, and the additional pressures placed on local law enforcement, federal funding had not materialized.  Speaker Perkins said he was privileged to have served on the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) task force to protect democracy.  He said the federal funding carrot was always out there but they found that the “carrot dropped off” and states were left with “the stick.”  He said the agencies in our state were really struggling to meet their responsibilities.  Speaker Perkins noted that Capitol Hill had not realized that “when you dial 911 it doesn’t ring in Washington, D.C., it rings right here.”

 

Speaker Perkins said the officers needed to be well trained, well prepared, and well funded.  He said it was tragic that at this point the Legislature was not able to provide the support.  He summarized that in the future they should study how to provide more stable funding for POST and possibly make it a General Fund agency.

 

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE – PUBLIC SAFETY

BUDGET ACCOUNT: 4706

 

Dave Kieckbusch, Deputy Director, Department of Public Safety, introduced himself.  He passed on Director Kirkland’s apologies for not being present.  Mr. Kieckbusch said Dave Ellison, Administrative Services Officer, would handle the technical aspects of the budget presentation.  Mr. Kieckbusch said they had two fairly short cost-allocated budgets for the Director’s Office, followed by Administrative Services.  Mr. Kieckbusch turned the presentation over to Mr. Ellison.

 

Dave Ellison, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Public Safety, introduced himself.  He said his presentation was for Budget Account 4706, the Director’s Office of the Department of Public Safety, found on pages 1 through 4 of The Executive Budget for the Department of Public Safety.  He said the Director’s Office established policy for the Department of Public Safety, directed and controlled the operations of the divisions and various offices of the Department, provided for legal and audit services, and handled all media relations for the Department as provided by NRS 480.010 through NRS 480.720.  The Executive Budget for FY2004 was $1,926,958 and for FY2005 was $1,935,969.  Mr. Ellison said the operating expenses for the next biennium would increase by approximately $72,000 in comparison to the current biennium, due to a reallocation of rent expense among the various divisions that occupied office space at Wright Way in Carson City.  The Director’s Office budget was allocated to all Public Safety budget accounts except for Administrative Services, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Public Safety Technology Division, based upon criteria established by a study conducted in 1999 and effective for the current biennium (Exhibit E, tab 1).

 

Mr. Ellison said the Director’s Office budget reflected seven authorized positions.  He said one was currently vacant as of January 2002.  In decision unit E-275, that budget included $7,457 for both years of the biennium for out-of-state travel for the Director and Deputy Director to attend law enforcement conferences, and travel for the Public Information Officer for training.  He said decision unit E-710 and E-720 for FY2004 reflected the purchase of seven personal computers, software, and one printer for a total cost of $11,978 to replace old equipment purchased in 1998 and 1999.  He concluded that particular budget account presentation and asked for questions.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked for an explanation of the high figure for State Cost Allocation.  Mr. Ellison responded that the Budget Office generated the allocation for the Integrated Financial System (IFS).  He said this cost was reflected throughout the state in all budget accounts.  Mr. Marvel asked for clarification on the amount involved from the General Fund.  Mr. Ellison responded that the General Fund was not involved.  Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Ellison to explain which of his agencies was involved.  Mr. Ellison said the cost allocation was from the IFS of the Department of Administration.  It was not a part of the Director’s Office budget.

 

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst, said the allocation was a statewide cost allocation from the Controller’s Office.  It represented a recouping of expenses for the Controller’s Office and the Budget Office.  The Department took that allocation and reallocated it to other budgets and programs within the Department of Public Safety as well as to the Administrative Services and Office of Professional Responsibility accounts.

 

Mr. Marvel noted that the next budget was $47,000 in Administrative Services.  Mr. Ellison said that the state cost allocations resulted from federal funds reimbursed to the IFS for federal grant-funded programs.  When IFS received those funds it reimbursed the individual programs.  Mr. Ellison said the federal revenue went into individual line activity that was deemed a federal-eligible expense.  Overhead was considered an eligible federal expense that would be billed against a grant.  Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst, said the state cost allocation included a combination of federal funds, General Funds, and Highway Funds.  Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, said that the increase was from past biennium cost allocations.  He said they had written the Budget Division requesting detailed information in regard to the increase and had not received a response.  He said when they received it they would provide the information to the Subcommittee.  Chairman Parks confirmed that further explanations would be provided regarding the state cost allocation program.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment on pending S.B. 6 that proposed to remove the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) function from the Department of Public Safety to the Office of the Governor effective July 1, 2003.  He asked what effect the change would have on the Public Safety budget should the bill be passed.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said the Division of Emergency Management’s budget presentation followed theirs and would address the budget issue at that time.  He added that the removal of the DEM budget from the Director’s Office budget would affect the cost allocation portion of their budgets.  He assumed those funds would be redistributed for payments necessary to the cost allocated budgets.  He said that would be the only impact.  Mr. Ellison said the Director’s Office and Administrative Services’ budgets did not include the Division of Emergency Management.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further comment on the $7,500 out-of-state travel request in decision unit E-275.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that when the departments under the Director’s Office split from the Department of Motor Vehicles, the related accounts were evenly split in some cases and unevenly in others.  He said their previous out-of-state travel budget was $279.  The Director and Deputy Director paid for some out-of-state travel from their personal funds.  He said they had attended meetings in alternating years.  The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conferences offered an excellent opportunity for networking with professionals in the field, examining issues, and expanding the horizons of their understanding and goals.  He said the increase appeared significant but was the result of the department that split from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

 

Chairman Parks asked if either Mr. Kieckbusch or the Director were members of organizations that would require them to attend conferences.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said there was no necessity for them to attend and participation was voluntary.  He said the Director traveled to the IACP the first year of the last biennium and he traveled the last year of the current biennium.

 

Chairman Parks asked for comment with regard to funding for the Public Information Officer (PIO) to attend training at a conference in California.

 

Mr. Ellison said the PIO was scheduled to attend a training conference in California.  He said he did not know the details of the conference, but its content was related to the function of the office and to help the department’s recruitment process.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further comment on the decision unit E-710 request for $10,000 to replace personal computers.

 

Mr. Ellison responded that the computer equipment for the Director’s Office was outdated and difficult to upgrade to a software platform that was compatible with all the users.  The request was to upgrade the equipment, 1998-1999 personal computers, and software.

 

Chairman Parks asked for an explanation of the decision unit E-720 request to buy a logo embosser.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch and Mr. Ellison commented they would have to get back to the Subcommittee with an explanation.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further questions on Budget Account 4706.  There were none.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  4714

 

Mr. Ellison referred to tab 2 in the handout (Exhibit E), Administrative Services Division of the Department of Public Safety, budget page PS-5, Volume III.  He said the Administrative Services Division provided fiscal, accounting, and other administrative services to the Director and various divisions, and advised and assisted the Director and various divisions in carrying out their functions and responsibilities as provided by NRS 480.140.  The Executive Budget for FY2004 was $1,463,529 and $1,494,557 for FY2005.  He said personnel were the primary cost of this budget, making up 86 percent of the FY2004-2005 recommendation.  The Administrative Services budget was allocated to all Public Safety budget accounts except for the Director’s Office, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Public Safety Technology Division, based upon criteria established by a study conducted in 1999 and effective for the current biennium.  The Executive Budget for FY2004-2005 reflected 22 authorized positions compared to 21.5 positions for the current biennium.  Decision unit E-913 reflected the addition of a Personnel Analyst II position to be stationed in southern Nevada as a personnel representative for the south.  He said this position would be transferred from the Division of Parole and Probations.  A part-time Accounting Assistant I position would be reverted in this process.  He said there were currently four full-time vacant positions and one part-time vacant position resulting from the split from the Department of Motor Vehicles.  He noted that the Department of Public Safety was a relatively new organization and the positions would be filled as the department determined the most effective use of those resources.

 

Mr. Ellison said that decision unit E-275 included $35,895 for printing material, advertising costs, and registration for job fairs for department recruitment.  That enhancement included out-of-state travel of $5,920 for a recruitment conference and out-of-state job fairs.  Enhancements E-710 and E-720 included the purchase of three personal computers and software in FY2004 and two personal computers and software in FY2005, for a total cost of $7,700 for both years to replace old equipment.  He stated that those enhancements included the purchase of miscellaneous office furniture in FY2004, for a total $1,720.  He asked for questions.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Ellison to discuss their recruitment programs, job fairs, and advertisement materials.  He noted that in previous discussions the recruitment efforts had less than desired results when they had gone to other areas of the country.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch answered and said the recruitment discussion was very timely and would be taken up in greater detail by the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Training Division budget presentations.  He said over the past several years Public Safety had dealt with personnel issues involving investigations, dismissals, and several other unfortunate situations.  The discussion about improving the recruitment process began when they noticed other recruiting agencies at job fairs had implemented unique devices to attract candidates to their displays.  An analysis concluded that a central solution to the Division’s personnel issues was recruitment.  He said the Administrative Services Division had been authorized money by the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to create the Division’s first professional recruiting effort to attract highly qualified candidates.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch went on to say that some of the substantial training problems that fell to the Office of Professional Responsibility started at the recruitment level.  He said they needed to improve their recruiting methods to attract high quality candidates for the Department of Public Safety.  He added, as an example, that they needed to do a much better job conducting background investigations and then putting the recruits into relevant training programs.  He said developing a professional recruitment presentation would begin a long-range recruitment strategy for all the Department’s divisions, and reduce high turnover that negatively affects the quality service to the citizens.

 

Chairman Parks confirmed that during an Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting money was reallocated from their travel funds to initiate a recruitment effort.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that the effort was worthwhile.  He said they had produced a very professional video presentation for their job fairs and would be happy to show the Subcommittee if the Subcommittee was interested.  Chairman Parks asked Mr. Kieckbusch if the current recruitment plan was comfortable.  Mr. Kieckbusch said it was comfortable and that it continued to develop.  He said their relatively new department personnel officer had come from the private sector.  Mr. Kieckbusch noted that in discussions with the personnel officer he had raised the question of their ability to compete successfully because of salary and benefit discrepancies.  From the perspective of the private sector, the personnel officer pointed out that the question was not if they could complete but that they had not been competing.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further discussion about the Administrative Services Officer IV position that had been vacant since August.  He noted that Mr. Kieckbusch had said they were assessing the four vacancies as they dealt with the Division’s separation from the DMV and the subsequent reorganization.  Chairman Parks observed the position had been vacant for nearly a year and a half.  He asked if this was because of caution, organizational questions, or difficulty in filling it.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said the position had remained empty due to a combination of the factors mentioned by Chairman Parks.  He and the Director supported doing more with less, and at the time of the separation they had not been comfortable filling those four and several other positions simply because they existed.  They wanted to analyze their overall staffing needs first.  He said they were discussing the possibilities for the Administrative Services Officer IV position but had not finalized anything.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said Mr. Ellison was also new to the Department and his very professional input was invaluable.  He added that they were very fortunate and pleased to have Mr. Ellison.  He said Mr. Ellison had given them a clear, objective picture of how they had done business at the administrative level.  He said they were working toward having the divisions become totally accountable for their own areas of activity.  He said Administrative Services would support and coordinate the separate divisions’ efforts, help them with audits, and act as checks and balances.  He added their activities would be minimal and essential.  The divisions were paid to do their assigned jobs, and they understood and accepted those responsibilities.  The goal was to establish accountability at the divisions’ levels.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the transfer of a personnel analyst out of Parole and Probation had created a deficiency within Parole and Probation.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch replied no deficiency had been created.  He explained that while they were decentralizing most functions, they wanted to centralize the personnel function to maintain a checks and balances capacity within the Division.  He said centralization of the personnel area was needed to avoid many of their past mistakes.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  4707

 

Mr. Kieckbusch began the presentation by saying that the Subcommittee might have substantial grounds for discussion about the Office of Professional Responsibility because many questions had been raised and perhaps not sufficiently answered.  He said some misconceptions might exist.  He added that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was more commonly known in the law enforcement world as “internal affairs.”  (Exhibit E, tab 3)

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said the Office of Public Safety was developing a police agency that would be configured differently than standard police agencies.  The process of change started three years ago when the Director assumed responsibility for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  The Director recognized that the expertise and ability within the Division to conduct adequate professional personnel investigations and maintain accountability was notably deficient.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that in developing their investigative process they had accessed the relevant expertise of the Division of Investigation to educate, inform, and teach the OPR staff how to conduct accurate and professional investigations.  He said that as they developed the process, the divisions, specifically the Highway Patrol and Probation and Parole, understood that they would ultimately be responsible for their own investigations.  He said there would be guidance from the OPR office, but the command officers responsible for investigations would bear ultimate responsibility for correcting the conduct that led to the investigation.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that they were making substantive progress.  Initially the OPR workload had increased substantially due to philosophical and practical reasons, but had then decreased.  Mr. Kieckbusch said the central function of the OPR was an accounting one that assigned numbers to the investigations conducted at the division level, and then provided the Director’s office accountability information for the timely completion and accurate prosecution of the cases as appropriate.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch turned the presentation over to Sergeant Jerry Seevers.

 

Sergeant Jerry Seevers introduced himself as Commander of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), more commonly known as Internal Affairs.  He said his presentation was on Budget Account 4707, Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Public Safety, Budget page PS-11 – Volume III.  He said that the mission of the OPR was to conduct administrative investigations of complaints alleging misconduct by department employees.  The Executive Budget for FY2004 was $342,786 and FY2005 was $341,850.  He noted that the primary cost in the budget was for personnel, and comprised approximately 85 percent of the FY2004 and FY2005 request.  He said the budget of the Office of Professional Responsibility was allocated to the Highway Patrol, Parole and Probation, Nevada Division of Investigation, Capitol Police, Fire Marshal, and the Training Division.  He noted that the actual numbers were behind tab 3 in the Department of Public Safety handout (Exhibit E).  He said they had been authorized four positions and were currently at full staffing.  He said the four positions assigned to Carson City were Commander, one administrative assistant, one investigator, and one investigator assigned to Las Vegas.  Decision unit Enhancement-720 for FY2004 reflected $4,900 to purchase equipment for the division to conduct its operations.

 

Sgt. Seevers said his primary purpose in testifying was to explain why the Department of Public Safety and why the citizens of the state of Nevada needed an Internal Affairs unit.  He said the DPS had the responsibility to serve the visitors and citizens of the state of Nevada through effective, efficient, and ethical conduct of its employees.  The complaints of misconduct received by the DPS against its employees were from citizens who deserved thorough, impartial, and complete administrative investigation into those allegations.  He said the investigations sought to determine the relevant facts and circumstances regarding the complaint and to present clear and convincing evidence to support or refute the allegations.  He added that the department also investigated internally generated allegations of misconduct.

 

Sgt. Seevers said that the OPR also conducted risk management investigations where an ethical or financial state liability was indicated.  He said the state of Nevada was fortunate to have many high-quality, honest, and dedicated public employees.  He noted the damage that can occur from police corruption or misconduct.  He noted the effect the Detective Serpico scandal had on the New York Police Department and the citizens they served.  In a recent television review of the Detective Serpico investigation, one witness, a former detective, subsequently sent to prison, said in his testimony against the New York City Police Department that it was not hard to find an officer who was taking bribes.  What was hard was finding one who was not.

 

Sgt. Seevers cited the Los Angeles Police Department Rampart Division scandal that again brought police corruption into the national spotlight.  That scandal resulted in the formation of a board of inquiry that studied the issue of police corruption.  The board produced a comprehensive report that outlined the origins and processes in the collapse of police conduct and ethics.  Sgt. Seevers commented that the report was very extensive and that he could get a copy for the Subcommittee.  He said the report listed several areas of concern.  The top four areas of concern were:

 

• Testing and screening of police officer candidates.
• Personnel practices.
• Personnel investigation and risk management.
• Corruption investigations.

 

Sgt. Seevers continued and said that of the top four areas, the OPR was tasked to focus on numbers three and four having to do with administrative investigations.  The report stated clearly that the breakdown in police conduct began when the divisions and their supervisors did not take citizens’ complaints seriously, and when management failed to recognize and then correct the patterns of misconduct or behavior in which an officer was engaged.  He said the three main indices for a problem officer were:

 

• The number of complaints made against the officer.
• The number of claims that cited use of force, i.e., anything beyond simple handcuffing of an individual “when taking him to jail.”  Even the slightest struggle was considered a use of force.
• The number of traffic accidents an officer was involved in while on duty and in the course of employment.

 

He said the report stated that the Los Angeles Police Department Internal Affairs Group (IAG) needed to investigate all but the most minor of complaints and that the integrity of the investigations should be enhanced.  The report also stated that the IAG needed to recruit the best officers to investigate the highly sensitive and complex internal affairs cases.  Sgt. Seevers said the question posed to the Office of Professional Responsibility was how to eliminate or minimize the number of officers involved in misconduct or wrongdoing.  He said the answer lay in tracking complaints and consistent implementation of discipline for misconduct.

 

Sgt. Seevers turned his discussion to the DPS progress in those areas in the last three years.  He referred the Subcommittee to the charts under tab 3 of Exhibit E.

 

Chairman Parks suggested that Sgt. Seevers bypass the text and go directly to the chart.

 

Sgt. Seevers referred to the first chart that showed the number of complaints by division in calendar years (CY) 2000, 2001, and 2002.  He noted that in CY2000, 90 investigations had been handled by the OPR.  He said that half way through CY2000 Richard Kirkland became Director of the Office of Public Safety and initiated the transfer of responsibility for claims investigations from the OPR back to the divisions, and that explained the shift in spikes between the OPR and the divisions in CY2001.  The claims with the OPR dropped from 90 to 25 and there was a corresponding increase of investigations within the divisions.  He noted in CY2002 there had been a reduction of total number of investigations for the DPS and the OPR.

 

Sgt. Seevers moved to the next chart, Exhibit E, tab 3, that showed the total number of complaints for CY2000, CY2001, and CY2002 for the Department of Public Safety.

 

Chairman Parks asked Sgt. Seevers to discuss the increased number of investigations versus the slight decrease in sworn staff.

 

Sgt. Seevers responded that the increase in numbers of investigations reflected a philosophical change.  He noted that at all levels of the private and public sectors it was difficult for supervisors to directly confront a subordinate with charges of misconduct.  He said that the change of policy implemented by the Director’s Office to transfer investigative responsibility from the OPR to the divisions sent the message that employee misconduct would not be tolerated and that supervisors would be held strictly responsible for employee conduct.  The directive to document the cases of officer misconduct caused the actual number of investigation cases to rise dramatically.  The policy directed that disciplinary action become a process of tracking and documentation.  Employees realized that misconduct would be documented and put into their records.  Sgt. Seevers noted that the number of cases under investigation decreased subsequent to the initial increase.

 

Sgt. Seevers referred to the next chart in Exhibit E, tab 3, which illustrated tort claims per division paid by the state of Nevada in CY2000, 2001, and 2002, for financial liabilities involved in misconduct.  He cited the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles that illustrated the financial consequences that can result due to police misconduct.

 

Sgt. Seevers noted that he had received figures for the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) tort claims from January to July 2000 that had just become available.  He said there was an additional $50,039.08 in the Nevada Highway Patrol tort claims column for CY2000 bringing the total to $101,122.  He pointed out a notation of $260,000 at the bottom of the CY2000 chart for tort claims against the NHP that had been excluded from the chart.  He explained that they had excluded that figure because it represented one case and therefore statistically skewed the chart.  He noted that tort claims increased for the NHP as well as for Parole and Probation and the Nevada Department of Investigations (NDI) for CY2001.  He continued and pointed out that in CY2002 tort claims for the NHP increased by $100,000 to $226,000.  He also noted an exclusion that appeared at the bottom of the CY2002 chart.  He said that exclusion was for a $2.4 million settlement against the NHP involving one event.

 

Senator Rhoads requested an explanation of the differences of activities between the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Department of Safety, and the Ethics Commission.  He noted that the OPR and the DPS spending were nearly three quarters of a million dollars.  He suggested the Ethics Commission could handle the OPR and DPS investigative activities.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch answered Senator Rhoads’ question.  He explained that the cases tracked through the Office of Professional Responsibility, whether conducted at the DPS or the OPR level, were of an operational nature.  Typically the investigations originated in an operational setting and were conducted very similarly to a criminal investigation.  Mr. Kieckbusch said it required a unique level of expertise and resources to complete the investigations in a satisfactory and professional manner.  He said, given that the Ethics Commission’s area of expertise was complaints associated with elections, he did not think the Ethics Commission would have the appropriate expertise available for his area.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch went on to say that his administrative and personal concern would be that the divorce of the investigative process from the organization could result in a divorce within the organization from accountability and responsibility for the conduct of its employees.  He said the issues of accountability and responsibility were seminal to their policy changes for improved employee conduct.  The goal for the DPS was to place responsibility and accountability for employee conduct with first-line supervisors and mid-managers.  He said primary accountability begins and ends with those individuals.  He said egregious examples of employee misconduct abounded and chronicled the need for this type of process.  Mr. Kieckbusch added that although the Department process was not completely in place, their ability to supervise, manage, and document employee conduct was much improved from that of two years ago.  He said their staff was now more capable of conducting and documenting employee conduct investigations, and they continued to work toward higher levels of professionalism.

 

Senator Rhoads asked if most states had something similar to the Department of Public Safety.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch responded that most states had agencies similar to the Department of Public Safety and Office of Professional Responsibility.  He said not only did all the law enforcement agencies of which he was aware have similar departments but that they were generally much larger that the DPS.

 

Chairman Parks thanked Sgt. Seevers for his presentation and moved on to Budget Account 4704, Public Safety Drug Commission.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – DRUG COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITY

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  4704

 

Mr. Kieckbusch introduced Sandy Mazy, Acting Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice Assistance and the Drug Commission, to give the presentation of Public Safety, Drug Commission, budget page: PS-21 – Volume III.

 

Sandy Mazy, Acting Administrator of the Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, introduced herself.  She said that the Drug Commission budget supported the activities of the Governor’s Commission on Substance Abuse Education, Prevention, Enforcement and Treatment.  She said the Commission had 15 members appointed by the Governor and served without compensation.  The purpose of the Commission was to research, evaluate, coordinate, and advocate for prevention, education, enforcement, and treatment efforts to help control and eliminate substance abuse in the state of Nevada.  The Commission was required by statute to meet quarterly and to hold three public hearings each year.  The testimony from those public hearings came from private and public individuals and from agencies.  The testimony focused on substance abuse problems in Nevada.  Every other year the testimony from the hearings was incorporated into a biennium report for the Governor.  Ms. Mazy said in the last biennium the Commission created subcommittees that met on an as-needed basis to address specific problem-area needs and solutions.  The budget had one authorized staff position that assisted the Commission.  The budget was $80,776 for FY2004 and $81,666 for FY2005.  She said the budget was funded by a combination of General Fund, federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant funds, gifts and grants from private sources, and a grant from the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.  She said the Commission presented the budget as recommended by the Governor.  Ms. Mazy asked for questions from the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks asked Ms. Mazy to discuss her knowledge of the possible changes proposed by the federal government to the Byrne Grant funding.

 

Ms. Mazy responded that the latest news from the Department of Justice was that the Byrne Grant was in committee.  The House of Representatives had voted on it and the Senate was slated to vote on it next.  She said the grant had been reduced from $565 million to $500 million.  She said they were expecting some reductions in the funds.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie noted she had served on the Drug Commission.  She stated that there were serious budget constraints facing the Legislature while the Byrne Grant was being reduced.  She said that the Commission’s work performance indicators showed that the Commission met and prepared their biennium report.  She said there was nothing in the Public Safety handout (Exhibit E) to show what the Commission had done.  She said that, although the suggestion was radical, if the Drug Commission were eliminated, $53,000 in the General Fund would be saved.  She asked, what would be the effect to the state of Nevada if the Commission were removed.

 

Ms. Mazy said the Commission played an important role as a link between substance abuse professionals, the general public, the Governor’s Office, and the Legislature.  She added they had a geographically and ethnically diverse membership representing a broad range of occupations.

 

Ms. Leslie said that the Drug Commission produced a report for the Governor every two years.  She asked if that was the only work product.  Ms. Mazy added that the Commission recommended legislation to the Legislature.  Ms. Leslie asked Ms. Mazy to discuss the specific legislation they had recommended at that time.  Ms. Mazy responded that the Commission had recommended establishing a statistical analysis center and backed other legislation.

 

Ms. Leslie suggested that the Commission’s recommended legislation could have come through other routes.  She went on to say that, although the Commission gave citizens a chance to be involved, attendance from the private sector was not notable.  She said the Subcommittee was facing some very serious budget reductions in the Department of Public Safety, citing the Nevada Division of Investigation and the Parole and Probation’s parolee drug testing program.  She said the Drug Commission might be an area the Subcommittee should take a hard look at.

 

Chairman Parks thanked Ms. Mazy for coming and presenting the budget.

 

Chairman Parks moved to Budget Account 3673, the Office of Emergency Management.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  3673

 

Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, introduced himself and began his presentation with a brief overview of the Division of Emergency Management, Budget Account 3673 - page PS-36 – Volume III.  He said the Division’s mission under the authority of NRS 414 was to coordinate and facilitate the many efforts of the state and its political subdivisions through planning, training, exercise, and equipment initiatives in mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the impacts of natural, man-made or technological emergencies.  The Division provided financial and technical support to state agencies and local governments in preparing for and maintaining a readiness capability statewide.  Mr. Siracusa said the performance indicators, budget pages PS-36, identified what the Division did in each of those areas.  He said for the FY2002-03 budget cycle the Division had revised and expanded the performance indicators to better reflect their accomplishments and that they had exceeded their projected performance indicators.

 

Mr. Siracusa continued to say that the Division was approved for 18 full-time equivalents.  Fourteen of the 18 approved positions were funded 50 percent by state General Funds and 50 percent by a Federal Emergency Management Grant.  He said four of the FTEs were funded 100 percent through the Department of Energy.  He said in the current budget and in The Executive Budget for FY2004 and FY2005, funding for staff salaries and operational expenses was 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent General Fund.  He said they had two enhancement modules.  Decision unit E-710 had enhancements to replace computer equipment and licensing, both of which were necessary to keep abreast of existing technology.  Decision unit E-805 requested two staff reclassifications to handle the additional workload resulting from increased initiatives in homeland security and administer additional federal funding that passed through their Division to local governments.  He said the reclassification enhancements were necessary to compensate staff for increased responsibilities and skills required to manage the new sub-grants.  Mr. Siracusa asked for questions.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Siracusa to address the excessive overtime charges for FY2002-03.

 

Mr. Siracusa said the significant overtime for FY2001 and FY2002 resulted from the office being short-staffed by one person at a time when they had to manage six audits and an influx of new federal grants.  He said there was only one person with the expertise necessary to accomplish those tasks and that accounted for a majority of the overtime.  He noted the agency was small and staff often multi-tasked.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Siracusa to discuss the agency’s method of handling federal grants for disasters like fires and floods.  Mr. Siracusa responded that the Division of Emergency Management received and facilitated most of the federal grants.  Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Siracusa if the Division handled insect and obnoxious weeds control.  Mr. Siracusa said his agency did not handle insects or obnoxious weeds control.  He said those issues were handled by the individual agencies.  He said his Division managed the Emergency Assistance Account that was part of the State Disaster Relief Fund.  Mr. Siracusa said that the Division granted money to local and county governments or state agencies based on a request generated by them in which they demonstrated financial need, and that the event qualified as an emergency based on the Division’s criteria.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Siracusa if their funding level was the same this year as last.  Mr. Siracusa said the funding level was fairly consistent because the Emergency Assistance Account was statutorily set.  He said the funding level was derived from interest on the State Disaster Relief Fund, which was derived from the interest on the Rainy Day Fund.

 

Chairman Parks asked for further comment about the overtime.  He noted there continued to be a substantial overtime charge.

 

Mr. Siracusa agreed there was still overtime activity, but that they were working hard to reduce it.  He said they had filled one of their vacancies.  He indicated that the office was dealing with significant increases in federal grants due to the September 11, 2001, attack and the homeland security initiatives.  He added that the new grants and sub-grants required additional management and continued use of overtime.  He said another factor contributing to their continued overtime charges was a flat budget that did not allow them to create new positions.  Mr. Siracusa added that federal grants did not allow them to fund positions.  He said they were streamlining the office and he was confident they would be able to reduce the overtime.

 

Chairman Parks asked if overtime charges were eligible for federal reimbursement.  Mr. Siracusa responded that all of their programs received matching funds through FEMA, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Justice.  Chairman Parks asked if they had a procedure in place that required pre-authorization for overtime.  Mr. Siracusa said that matter had come up during a Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit and they now had a process in place.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Siracusa to discuss further their justification for the reclassification requests, as driven by the increased federal activities.

 

Mr. Siracusa responded that both reclassifications resulted from the additional tasks and responsibilities generated by new federal government activities.  He said state emergency management agencies were the usual point of contact to receive and distribute federal dollars.  Currently the federal government provided grant funding to 50 states and territories.  He said his agency was the contact point in Nevada, resulting in a substantial increase in sub-grants and the attendant activities to manage them.  The responsibilities included audits, assessments, and management and distribution oversight, because the state had the ultimate responsibility for those funds.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the upgrade of an accountant technician to an Administrative Services Officer I would create a future need for an accountant technician.

 

Mr. Siracusa replied that the upgrade enabled that individual to officially assume all the additional responsibilities already assigned to that position.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Siracusa to comment on the new emergency operations center in their Capital Improvement Project (CIP).

 

Mr. Siracusa said that currently the Division of Emergency Management was housed in the old National Guard complex at 2525 South Carson Street.  He said they shared the facility with the Division of Forestry, a portion of the Nevada National Guard, and the State Emergency Response Commission.  He said the building was old and in need of repair.  He said that their agency was not suitable for a rented facility, and that the time was appropriate to find a facility that would meet the needs of a state operations center.  He said that in response to the Governor’s request they developed a CIP request for a new facility.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Siracusa if it were possible to use federal funds for the project.

 

Mr. Siracusa responded that they were actively seeking federal dollars through available FEMA and homeland security grants.  He said the funds were competitive, based on the state’s needs.  He said they had good cause and justification to receive federal dollars.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Siracusa to share how his office would coordinate the Homeland Security Advisor’s office.

 

Mr. Siracusa responded that his office worked very closely with the Homeland Security Advisor on homeland security, domestic terrorism, and related issues.  He said the Homeland Security Advisor’s office was located in the same complex as theirs.  He said the Advisor’s focus was to secure federal dollars for those particular issues, whereas Emergency Management Division’s was broader.  He said the Homeland Security Advisor was the point of contact for the federal Office of Homeland Security, the Governor, and the Division of Emergency Management.

 

Chairman Parks turned the discussion to the Division’s performance indicator data.  He asked if Mr. Siracusa had previous data that would correspond to the current performance data to provide comparative information.

 

Mr. Siracusa said they were continually updating and modifying their performance indicators.  He said their performance was driven by requests from local government and from the federal government.  He said their services were contingent on the particular needs generated by local governments.  He said they could provide past performance indicators.  He said the indicators in their FY2004-2005 budget reflected exactly what they did and how they operated.  He cited as examples, emergency plans they helped develop and review at the state and local level, and in the private sector, training courses they helped initiate and deliver, exercises they facilitated and coordinated between the state, local government, and the private sector, and technical assistance and support they provided in all aspects of emergency management, planning, training, and exercising.  He said the indicators varied from year to year based on specific needs and requests for their services.

 

Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee would appreciate receiving information on the Division’s past performance indicators.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Siracusa to comment on S.B. 6 that dealt with the relocation and new name for their agency.

 

Mr. Siracusa responded that the proposals had been introduced at the last legislative session.  He said most emergency management agencies were operationally best served by having access to a chief executive level.  It was critically important that his agency have direct access to the local, county, and state chief executive levels to better and more effectively do its job.  He said that was the most efficient way to work.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Siracusa to discuss the relationship of greater access to federal funds and congressional action.

 

Mr. Siracusa confirmed that access to federal funds and congressional actions were intimately connected.  He said his agency had several federal funding streams.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant was one stream and better than 90 percent of those funds were passed through to local governments and first responders to help fund local emergency management activities.  The Division of Emergency Management also received funding from the Department of Justice and Domestic Preparedness that was passed through to local governments to assist in purchasing equipment and training.  Mr. Siracusa said they anticipated funds from the Office of Homeland Security.  He said that the bill had not moved through Congress so the amount of available funding was unknown.  He added that funding amounts were for FY2003 and the next several fiscal years.

 

Mr. Siracusa described the process by which his agency received and distributed federal money.  He said the Division applied for grants when funds became available.  They submitted detailed information based on the criteria set for those grants.  Within the state each county emergency planning council submitted applications and requests to the Governor’s Committee on Homeland Security.  The Division was responsible for reviewing those applications for accuracy and to ensure they met the risk needs and vulnerabilities assessments that the state had identified over the years.  Federal funds were distributed to the local governments based on evaluations performed by the Division of Emergency Management.

 

Speaker Perkins asked Mr. Siracusa about the current level of funds in the Disaster Relief Fund   Mr. Siracusa said there was about $7 million in the Disaster Relief Fund.

 

Speaker Perkins asked Mr. Siracusa for further clarification about funds that the Emergency Management Division managed.

 

Mr. Siracusa said his agency oversaw the Emergency Assistance Account that was funded from interest on the Disaster Relief Fund account and that he did not know the exact total for that account but could get it.

 

Speaker Perkins asked if there were concerns regarding the level and replenishment of the Rainy Day Fund if it were significantly depleted over the next few months.

 

Mr. Siracusa responded that he had concerns about the stability of the Rainy Day Fund.  He said that the state Disaster Relief Fund was available to counties or local governments in an emergency or disaster situation if they did not have the financial resources to deal with it.  He noted that it was much more difficult to get presidential declarations of disaster to receive federal dollars and that put a burden on the states.  If the Rainy Day Fund were depleted, the interest generated by it would be depleted, and there could be a future negative impact since the Emergency Assistance Account was funded by interest accrued on the Disaster Relief Fund.  He said his agency used the Emergency Assistance Account funds to assist local governments and state agencies that lacked the financial resources and had an emergency that affected life and property.

 

Speaker Perkins asked Mr. Siracusa if he had a plan to identify alternate funding streams if the Rainy Day Fund were tapped significantly.

 

Mr. Siracusa answered that without assistance from federal programs, contingent on a presidential declaration, the Emergency Management Division did not have any funding alternatives to offset a significant reduction in the Rainy Day Fund.

 

Chairman Parks noted that due to time constraints the Subcommittee could not hear the three remaining budget agenda items.  He asked Mr. Kieckbusch for his preference as to which budget to hear before the Subcommittee had to adjourn.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said he would prefer Division of Investigation.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY – DIVISION OF INVESTIGATION

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  3743

PUBLIC SAFETY – NARCOTICS CONTROL

BUDGET ACCOUNT:  3744

 

Phillip Brown, Chief, Division of Investigation, introduced himself.  He noted that Beverly Bergstrom, Management Analyst and a 20-year employee with the Division, accompanied him.  Mr. Brown said the Subcommittee could follow his budget presentation in Exhibit E, tab 6, and the budget details were contained in budget pages PS 77-83, Volume III.  He said the Division of Investigation’s primary mission received its authority and mandates through NRS Chapters 484.400 to 484.610 and Chapters 453 and 179.  He said the Division was a state law enforcement agency dedicated to public safety.  It accomplished its goals by enforcing controlled substances laws, providing investigative services to all criminal justice agencies, and by supporting law enforcement statewide through the collection and dissemination of relevant and timely criminal information.  The Division investigators were sworn peace officers, who responded to requests by other criminal justice agencies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, if needed.  Investigators worked with crimes against persons and property.  They conducted administrative investigations, performed narcotics enforcement, and conducted specialized investigative functions having to do with homeland security issues.  Most recently they acted as the state’s INTERPOL liaison.  He noted on page 3 behind tab 3 of the handout (Exhibit E) there were examples of the Division of Investigation functions.  He said he could provide the Subcommittee with more detailed information if they were interested.  He noted that their primary customers for larger investigations were Mineral, Humboldt, Storey, and Eureka Counties.

 

Mr. Brown said the Division of Investigation had two budgets and he would begin with Budget Account 3743.  Funds for this account come from General and Highway Funds.  The Executive Budget for FY2004 was $4,680,966 and for FY2005, $4,703,270.  He said the Division of Investigation had a current staff of 61 full-time employees.  Forty-four of those were law enforcement personnel and 17 were support staff.  In decision unit E-250, The Executive Budget proposed a staffing of 40 positions, 32 sworn positions and 8 support staff positions.  Those recommendations eliminated 21 positions in the General Fund portion of the two budget accounts, representing 12 law enforcement positions and 9 support staff.  He said the total savings amounted to $3.2 million, $1,582,491 in FY2004 and $1,609,455 in FY2005.

 

Chairman Parks asked how the recommendation proposed reductions would affect the Division’s services in metropolitan areas.  Mr. Brown said generally those areas would be accommodated by splitting them into regions.

 

Mr. Brown proceeded to Narcotics Control, Budget Account 3744, contained in budget pages PS-84 through 89, Volume III.  He said the federal Edward Byrne Grant historically funded this budget account.  The Executive Budget recommended eliminating this account completely as a duplication of services.  He said that every jurisdiction in the state of Nevada had either a police chief and a sheriff, or both, with primary jurisdiction responsibility and law enforcement capability over those criminal activities.

 

Mr. Brown said the current staffing of this budget account was 18 full-time employees, 12 law enforcement positions and 6 support staff.  The recommendation eliminated the 18 positions.  He said that in June of 2002 the Division of Investigation had 81 total employees.  Because of the economic downturn that increased financial burdens on the states, the Division was asked to reduce its budget by 3 percent and that resulted in the loss of 2 positions.  He said, including the current reductions, the Division’s total staff for FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 would be reduced by 39 positions.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie noted that the rationale that there was a police chief or sheriff in every jurisdiction was weak justification for the sweeping staff reductions.  She asked Mr. Brown for more information as to how long Narcotics Control had been operating, and why there was a sudden duplication in effort.  She surmised that Narcotics Control contributed more than arrests.

 

Mr. Brown responded that Narcotics Control had been operating for about 14 years.  He said initially they operated with General Fund money, and then they were supplemented by funds from the federal Byrne Grant.  He said originally they had split their investigative services between Narcotics Control and general investigations.  When federal Byrne Grant funds materialized they explored the idea of a separate Narcotics Control program.  As the effort continued to be funded by Byrne Grant money the program was never folded into the General Fund.  Mr. Brown said with the current funding shortfalls it would be difficult to justify a conversion to the General Fund without showing some savings.  He noted that restoration of the grant money would not restore the narcotics task force to its current status.

 

Ms. Leslie pursued her original inquiry regarding the relevance of having police chiefs or sheriffs in Nevada’s rural jurisdictions to the proposed elimination of the Narcotics Control budget and activities.

 

Mr. Brown said that the elimination of the Narcotics Control budget was not removing the concept of a narcotics task force.  He said they were withdrawing the Division’s contribution.  He said local agencies could apply for the Byrne Grant and they had the ability to go forward with a narcotics task force.

 

Ms. Leslie asked if the Division of Investigation had consulted with the rural agencies before making its recommendation.  Mr. Brown said the Division had not consulted directly with the rural agencies.  Ms. Leslie asked if the Division had taken their proposal to the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association.  Mr. Brown said the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association had been aware of the proposal but that the Governor, his staff, and the Director of Public Safety made the decision.

 

Ms. Leslie noted that the Division of Investigation had not discussed the proposed removal of the task force with the agencies or the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association and asked if the Division had sought their recommendations or comment.  Mr. Brown responded that the agencies and Chiefs and Sheriffs Association were aware that the proposal was coming.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Brown if the Division would reallocate Byrne Grant funds to continue the task force if funds became available.  Mr. Brown responded that they were applying for the Byrne Grant.  He said money from the Subcommittee or any other source could help restore the Division of Investigation.  Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Brown to discuss whether or not the task force would have priority to use additional money to continue its mission.  Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.

 

Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee was of the understanding that there would no longer be a task force per se.

 

Mr. Brown responded that the Division of Investigation would withdraw its participation in the task forces around the state.  The task forces either would or would not be taken over by the local jurisdictions.  He said the Division would stay in the narcotics control business to the extent that it had the resources.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Brown to discuss the forfeiture funds.

 

Mr. Brown responded that the Department of Public Safety forfeiture funds totaled $1.7 million of which $850,000 was available to match the Byrne Grant if that were their direction.

 

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Brown to explain how the forfeiture money was derived.  Mr. Brown responded that the money came from narcotics cases.  Mr. Marvel asked if it came from narcotics cases from all over the state or just locally.  Mr. Brown said that the forfeiture funds came from state and federal sources.  Mr. Marvel asked if the funds came from rural Nevada, or Clark or Washoe Counties.  Mr. Brown responded they came from all the counties within Nevada.

 

Mr. Marvel stated that the Division of Investigation would lose the forfeiture money.  Mr. Brown said Mr. Marvel was correct.  He noted the Highway Patrol generated forfeiture money.  Mr. Marvel asked how the forfeiture money would be used.  Mr. Brown responded that that would be up to the Director of Public Safety.  Mr. Marvel said the Subcommittee needed to know how the forfeiture money was going to be used.  He said what was at issue was not what it would be used for but how it was going to be used.

 

Mr. Brown responded that if Byrne Grant funds were available and if the Committee, the Governor, and his staff found there were sufficient funds to carry forward the mission of Narcotics Control, then there was the possibility of using the forfeiture account as a grant match.

 

Mr. Marvel asked if the forfeiture money could be used to reconstitute what had been removed.  Mr. Brown said that to a degree it could.  Mr. Marvel remarked that they could close the budget with that.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch said that, for the purposes of the budget discussion, it was important to understand that funding by the Division of Investigation for the Narcotics Control efforts was split.  A portion of Narcotics Control was paid from General Fund money and a portion was paid from the Byrne Grant and forfeiture accounts.  He said the elimination of the positions discussed by Mr. Brown in Budget Account 3743 amounted to a savings of $3.2 million in General Funds that had been dedicated to Narcotics Control.  Mr. Kieckbusch said for the past 14 years a mixture of the two budget accounts funded the Division of Investigation’s participation in Narcotics Control.

 

Mr. Marvel noted that the forfeiture money was going to sit in reserve.  He asked if that were correct.  Mr. Kieckbusch responded that uses for the forfeiture funds varied.  He said there was no long-term plan for spending all of the $1.7 million.  Mr. Marvel pursued his point and reiterated that there was over a million dollars in the forfeiture account and it was going to sit in reserve.  Mr. Kieckbusch said he did not think that was the case.  Mr. Marvel said that was how it was shown and how the Subcommittee saw it.  Mr. Kieckbusch said he could not speak to the use of the money.  He said until this decision was made in The Executive Budget, a large amount of that money would have been used to match the Byrne Grant to maintain that portion of the Narcotics Control department.

 

Mr. Marvel asked what would be done with the forfeiture money during the next biennium.  Mr. Kieckbusch responded that no plan was in place.  Mr. Marvel said it appeared the forfeiture money would not be budgeted for anything.  Mr. Kieckbusch responded that Mr. Marvel was correct and that it was The Executive Budget decision for the money to remain in reserve until a plan was developed.  Mr. Marvel suggested that the money might revert to the General Fund.  Mr. Kieckbusch said if that were amenable to the federal government he thought it was a good plan.

 

Senator Rhoads said he represented eight rural counties.  He noted that he received a dozen weekly newspapers and each week there was a front-page article covering arrests made by the narcotics task force.  He said he did not think the rural local law enforcement agencies could manage without the narcotics task force.  He said narcotics issues would explode.  He said he hoped Byrne Grant funds would be returned to the Division’s budget and that they would reconsider restoring Narcotics Control.

 

Chairman Parks asked Mr. Kieckbusch if the Division had used forfeiture funds for equipment purchases.  Mr. Kieckbusch said the use of forfeiture money was very strictly governed.  Mr. Brown added that forfeiture funds could be used for a variety of purchases.  He noted that forfeiture funds used to support the Byrne Grant could mean reductions in other budget areas.

 

Chairman Parks noted that due to time constraints the Subcommittee would not finish the Public Safety budget and would revisit it again.

 

Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Kieckbusch if his Division was looking for alternative financing to continue the Narcotics Control program.

 

Mr. Brown replied that an ideal scenario would be to have the General Fund provide the primary source of funding for Narcotics Control and Byrne Grant funds for enhancement support such as equipment.  He said the Division always looked for ways to improve its work product and accomplish its mission.

 

Chairman Parks closed the budget discussion and opened the meeting to public comment:  He invited the budget presenters to return at a later date to continue the budget discussions.  He asked for public testimony.

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, introduced himself.  He said his district was extremely concerned over the potential loss of the narcotics task force.  He said the cooperative efforts between the narcotics task force and the local entities had been very effective in curbing drug traffic in the rural areas.  He said, as Senator Rhoads had noted, there was deep concern over drug trafficking in the rural counties, and that efforts to curtail drug-related activities would be severely hampered without the narcotics task force.  He concluded by saying he would take the opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee again when it rescheduled.

 

Assemblyman Tom Grady, Assembly District No. 38, introduced himself.  He said that he was deeply concerned for the rural areas, and that the value of the investigative function was not confined to the rural areas, but applied to Clark and Washoe Counties as well.  He said with $1 million or $2 million from the Byrne Grant and $400,000 from the forfeiture funds, Narcotics Control services could be restored in rural Nevada.  He said without the presence of the Narcotics Control Task Forces the message to the methamphetamine laboratories was simple:  “Wait until after July and then come on in.”

 

Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea, Assembly District No. 35, introduced himself.  He said he represented seven counties, four of which were in the northeastern region of Nevada.  He said his constituents would bear the greatest burden from the proposed cuts to the Nevada Division of Investigation’s budget.  He said that office closures in Winnemucca and Elko had resulted in a reduction of staff to two people that served the vast area covered by the five northeastern Nevada counties.  He said the proposed cuts ignored the need to control drug traffic in all of Nevada as well as the rural areas.

 

Senator Coffin asked the testifying Assemblymen if they had met or requested a meeting with the Governor to reorient the budget.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea said a meeting with the Governor’s staff was scheduled February 20, 2003.  He added that, in response to Assemblywoman Leslie’s question regarding recommendations and comments from the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, the sheriffs and district attorneys in the rural counties had been contacted and were present to provide input today.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the request to disband Narcotics Control was initiated by the Division of Investigation or through The Executive Budget.

 

Mr. Kieckbusch responded that the proposal originated with The Executive Budget and had been submitted to the Division for consideration.

 

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, Elko County, introduced herself to the Subcommittee and said she could testify at the present Subcommittee meeting or return to another scheduled meeting.

 

Chairman Parks said the Subcommittee would continue discussions on the Division of Investigation’s budget February 21, 2003, at 7:30 a.m.

 

Ms. Licht said she would come to that meeting.  She stated that she represented Elko County.  She said she came to Nevada in 1975 and lived in Baker.  She said the National Park Service was informed of $3,000 found scattered in the vicinity of a rest stop on Highway 50.  The money was never claimed.  She said she had also lived near the Paradise Valley area in Winnemucca where the notorious drug trafficker Claude Dallas lived.  She noted it took a long time to find Mr. Dallas.  She said she had also lived in the very sparsely populated rural areas of Elko County and that, absent the Nevada Division of Investigation, they would be overwhelmed by drug trafficking problems.  She thanked the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Catherine Caldwell

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

 

DATE: