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

March 11, 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 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, March 11, 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

Speaker Richard Perkins

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Sandra Tiffany

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Mark Krmpotic, Senior Program Analyst

Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst

Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary

 

Chairman Parks called the Subcommittee to order and opened the hearing on Budget Account 3706.  He recognized Ms. Crawford, and congratulated her on the recent accreditation of the Prison Industries Program.

 

PRISON MEDICAL CARE (101-3706) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-13

 

Jackie Crawford, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), stated she would present testimony on those budget accounts listed in Exhibit A.  She introduced the following NDOC staff to the Subcommittee:

 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel testified that the NDOC Medical Division was charged with providing basic medical, dental, and mental health care to all NDOC inmates.  The Division operated infirmaries, dental clinics, and mental health outpatient services at all major institutions and provided inpatient services at the Regional Medical Facility (RMF) located at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the inmate population served by the Medical Division in FY2002 was 8,301, and that excluded the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility, which was operated by a private contractor.  That figure also excluded medical services at Ely State Prison (ESP) and Ely Conservation Camp (ECC).  Mr. Rexwinkel indicated that a private contractor provided medical care at those two facilities while the NDOC operated the facilities from an operational perspective. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, there were 325.69 positions in the base budget for the Medical Division, and recommendations would provide for a net reduction of 111 positions, which he would review within each decision unit.  Chairman Parks asked for a general overview of the budget, particularly in the area of major issues, prior to a discussion of individual decision units.  The first major issue appeared to be the elimination of positions and mental health care delivery changes.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated he would review the proposed reduction in staff, and Dr. D’Amico would expand on the effect on the operation of the Medical Division.  

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the Medical Division had requested the elimination of the Registered Dietitian position, however, to assist with certified menus, $10,000 would remain in the budget for contract services, which might be provided through the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).  Also recommended for elimination were 2 part-time and 1 full-time Senior Psychiatrist positions; 3 Psychiatric Nurse positions; 13 Forensic specialist positions; and 1 Administrative Assistant position.  Mr. Rexwinkel further explained that decision unit E-605 also recommended elimination of 5 per diem Correctional Nurses, which would equal 1 full-time equivalent (FTE) position, and 1 Licensed Practical Nurse.  He stated those were the two proposed reductions, but the Division also recommended transfer of the psychologist positions, which provided mental health outpatient care at all facilities, to the proposed Correctional Programs Division, as depicted in decision unit E-954.

 

Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, NDOC, reported that the Medical Division had encountered a “rocky road” over the past five or six years, and had been in disarray.  The question at that time had been whether the Medical Division could continue to function as a state operation, and Dr. D’Amico stated the answer appeared to be yes, as had been proven over the past few years.  Dr. D’Amico indicated that Medical Division staff had gathered their medical expertise in an effort to initiate certain strategies and tactics that would make the Division work more efficiently and create a better-managed operation.  According to Dr. D’Amico, part of that effort was revealed in the proposed budget, however, he noted that the Division was running out of “tricks” and “hole cards,” so it had reviewed various aspects of its operation, and had undertaken some drastic measures in order to remain within budgetary constraints. 

 

One of the areas of particular concern was in the mental health arena, and Dr. D’Amico explained there had never been sufficient funding to build a counterpart in the southern portion of the state to the northern Regional Medical Facility (RMF).  He emphasized that such a facility was drastically needed and, hopefully, funding for that endeavor would become available at some point in the future.  Dr. D’Amico testified that the Medical Division operated in tandem with a mental health hospital in southern Nevada that was less than optimum, and the Division had reviewed its options for providing better mental health care to its clients throughout the state.  Dr. D’Amico reported that the operational facility within the RMF was second to none in the country.  He stated it was a very fine facility that housed approximately 60 inmates in need of hospitalization for mental health reasons, and also provided extended care facilities for both northern and southern clients.  Per Dr. D’Amico, the Medical Division had concentrated its efforts on continued operation from the RMF in northern Nevada, rather than seeking the funding for an additional facility in southern Nevada. 

 

Dr. D’Amico explained the plan had been to remove extended care patients from Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), which was not a hospital, and place those patients in unit two at High Desert State Prison (HDSP).  That unit would act as an extended care unit, and would house approximately 84 inmates.  Dr. D’Amico stated the Division had reviewed its operation in northern Nevada, and planned to utilize unit six at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) as a subacute facility.  He explained that unit had originally been constructed as a mental health facility prior to construction of the RMF; unit six would be open and operational with proper staff levels by July 1, 2003.  Dr. D’Amico reported that the Division had also considered housing patients deemed criminally insane in a unit in the NDOC’s maximum security facility, which was a common practice in most other states. 

 

With those plans in mind, Dr. D’Amico explained that only two psychiatrists would be needed in southern Nevada to oversee the outpatient care in the extended care unit, which would explain the elimination of the two part-time and one full-time psychiatry positions.  The elimination of three Psychiatric Nurse positions in southern Nevada was brought about by the retirement of one nurse and the reclassification of the remaining two nurses to medical nursing positions.  Dr. D’Amico informed the Subcommittee that the Medical Division had not suffered a loss in patient care with the elimination of those positions. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Dr. D’Amico stated the remaining scenario for the Medical Division pertaining to mental health services had been to retain three full-time psychiatrist positions in northern Nevada, which would provide oversight of the treatment at the Lovelock facility, and would provide inpatient care, intake, and extended care in northern Nevada.  He reported that the Medical Division had been operating under that scenario for approximately one year, and it appeared to be working quite well.  It would be optimum to conduct intake at only one facility, however, that was not possible because of financial constraints.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the intake process was still conducted at HDSP in southern Nevada, and patients were then moved to northern Nevada for evaluation, where they were housed in mental health units, and were moved according to their progress into subacute extended care, or extended care units.  That process appeared to work quite well with the existing number of psychiatrists, and Dr. D’Amico opined that the operation had improved.  He also informed the Subcommittee that there was a sufficient number of psychiatrist and psychiatric nurse positions in northern Nevada to meet the needs for management of patients.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie remarked that it appeared the NDOC was spread somewhat “thin” in the area of mental health care in southern Nevada and asked what would remain after budget reductions.  Dr. D’Amico replied that he did not believe health care was “thin” in the south, and explained there were two psychiatrists on staff, which was more than adequate to conduct the intake process, as well as provide oversight of outpatient care.  The psychiatric staff had been moved from SDCC to HDSP, which made it unnecessary to add staff.  Dr. D’Amico emphasized that there was a sufficient number of staff to handle the extended care facility at HDSP, which housed 84 clients.  Previous to the opening of the facility at HDSP, there had been approximately the same number of patients at SDCC, but Dr. D’Amico explained that the acute hospitalized patients had been moved to the northern facility. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked how many acute patients had been moved from southern to northern Nevada.  Dr. D’Amico stated it had been a transition over the past several months, and some patients in the north had been sent to southern Nevada.  Those patients would not necessarily require hospitalization or acute care for their mental illness, and were on medications which were delivered by the nursing staff; those patients were attended in the extended care unit.  According to Dr. D’Amico, the philosophy was to move mental health patients into the general population as soon as possible.  Ms. Leslie asked how many patients had been moved to northern Nevada.  Dr. D’Amico explained the numbers had basically remained the same, and it had amounted to the “type” of patient that had been moved.

 

Ms. Leslie asked Dr. D’Amico to provide written clarification regarding the mental health situation.  She asked how the current methods related to the 1989 court decree in the Taylor v. Wolff case regarding the level of inmate mental health services, and whether the intent of that decree would be met.  Dr. D’Amico said it would take an enormous amount of time to explain the entire decree in that case, however, he pointed out that the NDOC had not reduced staff with regard to providing mental health services.  Ms. Leslie stated if that were the case, the NDOC would remain in compliance with that decree.  Dr. D’Amico concurred, and explained that the compliance level was currently greater than it had been in the past. 

 

Ms. Leslie again asked for written information, and Dr. D’Amico stated he would provide a description of the Medical Division’s plan regarding how inmates in need of mental health care were moved throughout the system.  He testified that the total number of hospitalized mentally ill in the NDOC was approximately 100, and those patients were provided care in the northern area of the state at Ely State Prison (ESP) and the Regional Medical Facility (RMF).  Ms. Leslie requested a flowchart that depicted the information; Dr. D’Amico stated he would provide that information as soon as possible.  He explained that the strategy had worked very well for the Division, and had assisted in maintaining the continued level of care required by the court, albeit in a different manner. 

 

Chairman Parks commented that Subcommittee members simply wanted to ascertain the status of the Division.  He recognized Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the NDOC had utilized the “compassionate release law” that had been passed by the Legislature several years ago, and whether any of the acute care patients would qualify under that law.  Dr. D’Amico explained that under the current operation, compassionate release was confined primarily to patients that had probably no more than six months to one year to live.  When medical staff became aware of such a case, the doctor at that particular facility would write a letter explaining the medical circumstances, and an outside consult would then be required to verify the diagnosis.  According to Dr. D’Amico, once those two letters had been received, he would provide a cover letter and forward the material to the Director of the NDOC and the Assistant Director of Operations, either agreeing or disagreeing with the request, and verifying that the patient would no longer present a risk to society based on his medical condition.  Dr. D’Amico explained after that procedure had been followed, the Medical Division would no longer be involved in the case, and the Director and Assistant Director would assume control.  He noted there were other factors that came into consideration in those cases, such as the victims of the crime and residential placement programs. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the law had provided assistance to the NDOC and whether it was being utilized.  Ms. Crawford replied that four inmates had been released under the law, and there were currently two pending cases; she reported that the law had worked very well for the NDOC. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that medical care at Ely State Prison (ESP) had been privatized, and asked whether the high-care-cost patients were being transferred to the Regional Medical Facility (RMF).  She wondered whether that information would be included in the model provided to the Subcommittee by the Medical Division.  Dr. D’Amico explained that at the present time, the medical facility at ESP operated independently, and the NDOC contracted for those services.  When patients were in need of hospitalization that could not be provided within the system at ESP, those patients would be accepted at the RMF, with a daily charge to the contractor of $208 for hospitalization of each patient.  Dr. D’Amico stated that was termed a “treatment return,” and he explained when a patient was classified as an inmate who required housing at ESP became very ill, that patient would be transferred to the RMF, admitted and treated with the aforementioned charge to the contractor, and would ultimately be returned to ESP when medically able. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether the $208 daily charge was adequate, and also asked where those figures were located within the budget.  Dr. D’Amico stated a study had been undertaken, prior to the time he was employed as the Medical Director, regarding the amount that should be charged in cases where an inmate was transferred to the RMF, and a second study had been conducted to determine the cost of total medical care, which resulted in the method used to determine the $208 figure.  Dr. D’Amico believed that figure should be adjusted at least every two years.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that a review policy would make sense, because medical care costs continued to rise, and to maintain a stagnant figure over a period of time would not accurately reflect the actual cost to the NDOC.  She asked whether transportation costs were included in the daily charge.  Dr. D’Amico replied in the affirmative, and explained the intent was not for the NDOC to realize an income source from such transfers, but rather that it not incur a loss of revenue. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the Medical Division utilized the State Purchasing Division to order prescription medications.  Dr. D’Amico replied that the NDOC purchased all its prescription medications through the approved multi-state contractor.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the entire state of Nevada participated in that contract or only the NDOC for specific medications that were sent out to bid.  Dr. D’Amico replied that each agency ordered independently and there was not a bulk drop at a warehouse for pickup.

 

Chairman Parks referenced the requested written information that would be provided to the Subcommittee by the Medical Division, and asked whether it would address outpatient mental health needs, and the oversight provided for prescription medications given to inmates in need of mental health outpatient services.  Dr. D’Amico stated the procedure was very similar to the Director’s philosophy regarding the level of care provided within a penal institution; he noted that the same philosophy was applied regarding the mentally ill.  When patients were evaluated during the intake process, they would be categorized regarding the severity of their illness, with those considered severe and in need of hospitalization placed in the Regional Medical Facility (RMF). 

 

Dr. D’Amico explained that the prognosis for some patients allowed movement between levels.  He indicated that a system had been in place for quite some time at the RMF to categorize patients in an attempt to move them from the hospital setting into a subacute facility or an extended care unit.  Per Dr. D’Amico, those units would continue to provide patients with medications and counseling care, and would attempt to move patients into the general population where they would continue to receive outpatient care.  He testified that the outpatient care level often involved dispensing of medications, however, the inmate would be required to pick up his medications independently.  Dr. D’Amico emphasized that medications were dispensed under the control of a psychiatrist or psychologist.  He remarked that prescriptions would be refilled and rewritten for inmates according to need, until such time as they were either paroled or had served their sentence, at which time discharge planning would be provided via gate medications and placement assistance within the community. 

 

Chairman Parks referenced the requested reclassification of the Mental Health Coordinator position to a Correctional Programs Coordinator, and the reclassification of a Mental Health Coordinator position to an Assistant Director position, and asked for clarification.  Dr. D’Amico testified that there had been a change in course within the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) in an attempt to distance itself from the idea of locking up or warehousing patients.  The change was to provide better program management for inmates and a better prognosis that the inmate could return as a citizen to the community.  Dr. D’Amico explained there were many programs within the Medical Division such as sex offender programs, substance abuse programs, anger management programs, and behavioral counseling, which had come about as a result of the Taylor v. Wolff decree.  According to Dr. D’Amico, those programs continued with medical oversight.  He noted that many states had enacted correctional program divisions, which had become a very important part of corrections, where inmates were designated for appropriate programs during the intake process. 

 

Dr. D’Amico explained that approximately two years ago, the NDOC reviewed the structure of its Mental Health Division.  It was discovered that some areas had experienced “overkill” with positions that were not necessary and the operation could be streamlined.  Dr. D’Amico said the Mental Health Director position was then converted to the Program Administrator position to supervise psychologists and other members of the Medical Division, such as social workers, in order to make the programs more beneficial to the system in general. 

 

Per Dr. D’Amico, in the past the Medical Division budget had included all the programs, however, it had become very difficult to maintain control as programs expanded.  That had prompted the idea that perhaps a Correctional Programs Division with a separate budget would be a wise method of operation.  Dr. D’Amico pointed out that the position of Program Administrator would then supervise the budget for the proposed division, with medical oversight provided to ensure that reporting remained in line with the aforementioned court decree.  He reported that psychiatrists and psychologists from the Medical Division would continue to provide oversight for the “therapeutic” aspect of the programs, while the “program” aspect would be administered through the proposed division. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie opined that perhaps receipt of the requested flowchart would clarify the situation.  She stated she was concerned about the reporting requirements for psychiatrists, and assumed it would remain a doctor-to-doctor situation.  She also voiced concern regarding how psychiatrists would relate to the proposed Correctional Programs Division, as there appeared to be a significant potential for conflict.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the NDOC also believed the proposal might initially be confusing, and the Medical Division had moved forward very cautiously, however, he pointed out that the concept had been in operation for approximately one year. 

 

Dr. D’Amico assured the Subcommittee that he would continue to provide oversight of the required reporting for the sex offender panel, the anger management program, the substance abuse program, and provide oversight for the medical aspect, as had been the procedure in the past.  Dr. D’Amico advised that psychiatrists would prescribe the refills for medications, and would provide the oversight in that area; he noted that psychologists who worked in the programs arena would dovetail into medical care in some cases.  However, through receipt of the continual reports and his oversight, Dr. D’Amico explained that the process appeared to work quite well, and there had been no conflicts.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie asked whether the psychologists would be part of the proposed Correctional Programs Division.  Dr. D’Amico stated that when the Taylor v. Wolff decree was issued, the Legislature had been persuaded to add many psychiatrist and psychologist positions to the NDOC budget, which was understandable.  However, at the time he assumed the position of Medical Director, Dr. D’Amico explained that a review of the Mental Health Division indicated that staffing was somewhat “top heavy.”  Ms. Leslie stated that was quite interesting, because the complaint often heard by legislators from those being released from prison was that they had not been able to receive needed mental health treatment. 

 

Dr. D’Amico believed there were a number of individuals not being utilized in the proper area, and with reconstruction of the method of operation for mental health, some psychologists were placed in the programs arena under specific direction, which had helped a great deal.  He noted that programs were better run than they had been in the past, and there was better accountability.  Dr. D’Amico pointed out that the Medical Division was making use of positions that, quite frankly, had not been properly utilized in the past.  Ms. Leslie stated she would anxiously await the written report.

 

Chairman Parks indicated that in the interest of time, the Subcommittee would continue review of other areas and await receipt of the requested written material. 

 

Dr. D’Amico explained to the Subcommittee that the NDOC had established a committee of psychiatrists who met each month.  At those monthly meetings, staff from northern and southern Nevada communicated and reviewed patient charts and procedures, with the outcome reported to him.

 

Chairman Parks referenced the request to reclassify 52 forensic staff positions to custody staff classifications, and asked for a brief explanation regarding that request.  Dr. D’Amico explained that several years ago at Lake’s Crossing Center, a forensic specialist classification had been created, which addressed the custody aspect of the position, along with the ability to handle mental health patients.  During the era of a former director, explained Dr. D’Amico, the decision had been made to bring that position into the prison system, as it was a simple way to provide staff for the mental health area, with the Medical Division assuming the budget for those custody officer positions.  Dr. D’Amico reported it had worked well, and the classification had been expanded to the medical area, which created two classifications: (1) forensic medical; and (2) forensic mental health.  He explained that the Medical Division assumed the budget for both classifications. 

 

According to Dr. D’Amico, when he assumed the duties of Medical Director, it was noted that there appeared to be some difficulty in supervision amongst personnel within the Medical Division, and he had attempted to revise and streamline the supervisory aspect.  The forensic classification presented a particular problem, as most of the forensic positions had migrated into almost total custody positions, with staff performing custody duties.  Dr. D’Amico explained that at one time, the Medical Division had not been allowed to hire licensed practical nurses (LPNs), so forensic specialists, who were also qualified as LPNs, were hired in order to secure the needed medical capabilities.  Over the past four to five years, it had been discovered that placing some forensic classification positions under the custody chain of command appeared better for supervisory purposes. 

 

Dr. D’Amico reported that after close review, it had been discovered that the forensic specialist classification performed 98 to 99 percent custody duties, and the question arose regarding why the Medical Division continued to be responsible for budgeting for those positions.  He noted that if those positions were classified as custody officers, the Medical Division could then expand to include LPNs, which would assist in its operation.  According to Dr. D’Amico, the Medical Division operated with approximately 60 vacant positions year after year because it was difficult to locate LPNs that possessed the physical capabilities to qualify for employment as a forensic specialist.  There were also problems regarding salary, which became problematic when attempting to fill the positions.  Per Dr. D’Amico, when the situation was analyzed, it was believed that in streamlining the Medical Division there should be a clear demarcation between the duties of custody and medical staff, and it appeared the duties of the forensic specialist were almost totally within the custody classification.  Dr. D’Amico emphasized that the Medical Division wanted to concentrate on hiring proper medical personnel and maintaining a proper registered nurse (RN) and licensed practical nurse (LPN) mix within the system, while allowing custody to handle “custody chores.”

 

Chairman Parks asked whether further costs would be incurred by the reclassification of forensic specialists, including additional training costs, and would those positions be required to wear uniforms.  Dr. D’Amico pointed out that the forensic specialist classification was a custody classification, and personnel would have already acquired the required qualifications and training as custody officers.  The only addition imposed on that classification would be regarding the additional medical training; he reiterated that forensic specialists were already qualified as custody officers.  Chairman Parks inquired whether that classification would be made to wear uniforms.  Dr. D’Amico noted that the Medical Division did not control that aspect, and he would defer that question to the Director.

 

Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, NDOC, stated that by way of clarification, forensic specialists were not totally qualified as correctional officers at the present time and would require some additional training; however, it was the type of training that could be accommodated within the NDOC’s Training Division without significant cost.  That training would include weapons qualifications, but Mr. Whorton reported that forensic specialists had received the generalized training for correctional officers.  He stated there would be some costs relative to uniforms, however, the reclassification would make the pay for the forensic specialist classification comparable to that of correctional officers. 

 

According to Mr. Whorton, when correctional officers had received pay raises in the past, the forensic specialist classification had not been included and the proposed reclassification would provide some equity in terms of actual job duties.  He also indicated to the Subcommittee that when a forensic specialist was not available during the course of daily operation, the duties for that position would be assigned to a correctional officer.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification regarding the budget account that included training costs.  Mr. Whorton stated those costs were included in BA 3710.  Ms. Giunchigliani inquired whether the figures had been increased to include the additional training needs of the forensic specialists based on the reclassification.  Mr. Whorton explained that the NDOC had not made a significant change in the training budget because it would not require significant action to provide the needed training.  The reclassification would include some costs regarding ammunition and costs incurred in terms of time spent in training by the officers, however, the NDOC could accommodate that with a small amount of overtime in order to ensure that the reclassification occurred.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the Subcommittee would not consider BA 3710 during the current hearing, however, at some point she would like information regarding what monies had been allocated and what had been spent specifically on training over the last biennium.  Mr. Whorton indicated he would provide the requested information.  

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired whether forensic specialists were also LPNs.  Dr. D’Amico explained that many times the forensic classification in the medical area included custody personnel that would suffice as LPNs, and those positions were basically utilized as LPNs.  Since the proposed reclassification, several of the forensic personnel that were LPNs had elected to remain as LPNs within the Medical Division, so the Division would not suffer a loss of personnel because of the reclassification.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a flowchart that depicted what training was necessary in order to be classified as a forensic specialist in the medical field or a forensic specialist in the mental health area, and the different requirements for those two jobs.  Also, based on the reclassification, would the Legislature be asked to eventually supplement the budgets for the medical and mental health area based on the reclassification of the forensic specialists to correctional officers. 

 

According to Ms. Giunchigliani, the Committee on Ways and Means had heard testimony regarding proposed legislation to accomplish the reclassification, and one argument had surrounded the question of whether forensic specialists should wear uniforms after the reclassification to correctional officer.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that when dealing with mental health patients, confrontation would not be desirable, and the aim would be to defuse and decrease the opportunity for conflict.  There appeared to be other management issues that should be taken into consideration before the reclassification moved forward.  Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that the forensic specialist classification should have received the pay increases enjoyed by correctional officers, and that appeared to be an oversight.  She did not want to see a reclassification just to “fix” the pay issue, if that was not required.  If the Legislature should fix the pay, and the duties that were still needed included a blend of corrections with a mental health or medical background, she believed there would be more flexibility under the forensic specialist classification. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated information would be provided to the Subcommittee that depicted what positions were occupied, and what qualifications were required in either the medical or mental health forensic specialist classification.  He explained that in addition to Ms. Giunchigliani’s comments regarding uniforms, treatment of the mentally ill was not universal throughout the nation, and the NDOC was rather unique in its forensic classification.  Per Dr. D’Amico, other prison and jail systems throughout the country utilized specially trained custody officers.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the NDOC was in the process of expanding and providing outside training for its officers regarding how to handle mentally ill inmates.  He believed the issue regarding a specific classification was not important, as long as qualified psychiatric nursing staff was available, along with well-trained custody officers familiar with the mentally ill. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for information regarding the Ely State Prison (ESP) medical services contract.  He noted that the existing contract would terminate on July 1, 2003, and asked about the possible continuation of that contract.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the current contract with Correctional Medical Services (CMS) for medical care at ESP would expire June 30, 2003.  At the present time, a request for proposal (RFP) had been prepared through the Purchasing Division and vendors would apply for that contract.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the current contract would not be renewed.  He reported that the Purchasing Division would assign a committee to review the responses to the RFP and award the contract to a vendor.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked how many providers engaged in prison medical services were available in the Ely area.  Dr. D’Amico stated the ESP medical operation included: 

 

 

Mr. Marvel asked how many organizations in the Ely area could provide medical services to correctional facilities.  Dr. D’Amico stated he was unaware of which companies had responded to the RFP, however, he believed that CMS would re‑bid for the contract; he stated he did not know how many other vendors would bid on the contract.  Mr. Marvel asked how many vendors throughout the United States provided such medical care.  Dr. D’Amico stated that one major company, Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS), operated in the Las Vegas area and handled the various county and city operations, however, it was his understanding that PHS would not bid on the ESP contract.  Dr. D’Amico indicated he would be a member of the committee to review the responses to the RFP, but he was not yet aware of the companies that had responded.  It was his understanding that two additional bidders had responded to the RFP along with CMS.  

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether there was a plan in place should the bids not prove competitive.  Dr. D’Amico explained that the experience with privatization in Nevada had been less than optimal.  Originally, it was thought to be an excellent idea for an outlying area such as Ely, where it was difficult to hire staff, and the NDOC had gone to the outside sector.  Dr. D’Amico believed it had proven very beneficial in some respects, however, within the last few years, the NDOC had found that it was not quite as beneficial as it had been in the past.  According to Dr. D’Amico, the NDOC Medical Division had developed a very high level of care, which included a great matrix of operations and qualified personnel.  The Medical Division believed it was operating at a better level than what had been observed in the privatized institutions. 

 

Dr. D’Amico stated the Medical Division had been instructed by the Director to create an action plan in case the Legislature would not approve privatization within the NDOC.  He assured the Subcommittee that the Medical Division had action plans that would address both of the current private contracts.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. D’Amico to provide copies of those plans to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff, so the Legislature would be aware of what might occur.  Dr. D’Amico advised that the plan had not been distributed to persons other than the fiscal staff of the NDOC, and a request could be made to the Director regarding further distribution.  Ms. Giunchigliani requested that a copy be provided to Tracy Raxter, Program Analyst, LCB, or Chairman Parks, because if something should occur after session had ended, the issue would be considered by the Interim Finance Committee.  She believed that since the Medical Division had a contingency plan in place in the event there were no competitive bids in answer to the RFP, which might have an effect on the budget, the information should be provided to Mr. Raxter.  Dr. D’Amico assured the Subcommittee that the Medical Division was more than capable of taking over medical services at ESP should such action become necessary. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the time line for proposals in response to the RFP, and when the NDOC would have an answer regarding the potential for a successful contract.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the closing date for proposals was March 20, 2003, and the NDOC planned to have the proposals evaluated by March 28, 2003.  However, the proposal process was under the control of the State Purchasing Division, and the NDOC was unsure of the exact schedule.  Mr. Rexwinkel said the NDOC had requested that the procedure be expedited in order to evaluate the proposals, and as previously indicated by Dr. D’Amico, the Medical Division had a plan in place in the event a successful proposal was not submitted.  The Medical Division had been rather “close” regarding that plan, as it did not want to corrupt the proposal process and divulge the anticipated costs for medical service at ESP.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the Medical Division would like to ensure that it received the best possible proposals, and would remain fairly “close” regarding its plan until March 20, 2003.  Chairman Parks asked Mr. Rexwinkel to notify the Legislature if assistance was needed to complete the evaluation.      

 

In review of the Medical Division budget, it appeared that there was level or flat funding in the budget request for the Ely medical services contract, and Chairman Parks noted that there appeared to be no allowance for inflationary increases.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that was correct, and the budget contained no allowance since there was no other proposal available at the present time, and the amount for inflationary increase was unknown.  The rate per inmate remained the same as it had been in the past at $9.42 for the first 1,000 inmates, and that included ESP and ECC; the rate over 1,000 inmates was set at $2.32.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that was the cost included in the budget, however, it was well known that medical costs had been inflating, and the NDOC anticipated that there could be an increase.

 

Chairman Parks asked whether a cap on outside medical costs would be implemented with the new contract, or whether the $300,000 cap would be continued.  Dr. D’Amico reported that there was no cap on the Ely medical services contract.  When that contract had been rewritten and CMS took over the medical operation at ESP, no cap was negotiated on that contract; he reiterated there was no cap on the Ely medical services operation.  That had come as a surprise to Dr. D’Amico, however, he stated a cap had not been written into the contract with CMS.  Chairman Parks stated that would mean there would be no feature in the RFP regarding a cap, and asked whether it would be set through an informal agreement.  Mr. Rexwinkel pointed out that the cap was usually part of the contractual agreement after the vendor had been awarded the contract, and was not usually included in an RFP.  According to Chairman Parks, the budget would not close for approximately six weeks, and the answer to the question regarding a cap would be necessary to facilitate that closure. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding the pharmacist positions referenced in decision unit E-805.  Dr. D’Amico explained that it was becoming more and more difficult to find ways to save money and operate in a cost‑efficient manner in medicine.  The Medical Division had suffered some waste in the pharmaceutical area, and had been able to control some of the outside medical costs.  Dr. D’Amico reported that the Division had created some operational strategies and had created a tight matrix of operation.  He indicated that the Medical Division was constantly seeking ways to stay within the budget.  Dr. D’Amico stated that approximately five years ago, the Medical Division was tasked with handling the pharmacy services as a state operation rather than a private operation, and several legislators had asked about mail order and unit dose for pharmacy.  At that time, Dr. D’Amico stated he believed such action would not be necessary, and inside operation of the pharmacy could be arranged, which had been done.  He explained that some computer capabilities had been realized, and two regional pharmacies had been initiated which seemed to work quite well and created savings. 

 

Dr. D’Amico reported that in groping for ways to continue streamlining the operation over the past two years he had reviewed methods for unit doses and automation of the system in an effort to streamline the pharmacy operation.  He had been investigating the pharmacy operation in other states and hospitals, and noted there was a great push in pharmacy to automate as much as possible.  Dr. D’Amico stated the Medical Division had requested an RFP to ask for outside assistance rather than approaching the Legislature each session for additional money for computers.  That RFP had been issued, and there had been some vendor response, however, it had not been decided whether that contract would be awarded.  Dr. D’Amico indicated when the Governor asked the NDOC to cut 3 percent from its operations, the Medical Division had two pharmacists and a pharmacy tech position that it felt could be eliminated in light of the anticipated automation; that was the current status of the pharmacy. 

 

Chairman Parks asked what would occur with the existing pharmacist positions if a contract were successful, and also asked whether all the positions were currently filled.  Dr. D’Amico advised that when the Medical Division relinquished the two pharmacy positions, one in the north and one in the south, and one pharmacy tech position in the south, it was left with one pharmacy position and one tech in the north, and one pharmacy position and one tech in the south, along with a pharmacy director’s position.  Dr. D’Amico reported that the current pharmacy director had indicated a desire to retire in the near future, and there was a question regarding whether that position would be retained.  If the pharmacy were automated, the NDOC would no longer require on-site pharmacists and pharmacy techs, and would take advantage of mail order or unit doses with a contract pharmacist in both northern and southern Nevada to provide for emergency medications.  Dr. D’Amico stated that would eliminate the need for a pharmacist to count pills, and the division could create a pharmacy therapeutic committee and obtain computer capabilities.  If the contract were awarded to a vendor and the pharmacy director retired, that would mean the loss of a pharmacist and pharmacy tech position.

 

Chairman Parks asked about the possibility of hiring a contract pharmacist and whether that could be separate from the pharmacy contract.  Dr. D’Amico explained that when outside services were contracted, it was usual and customary for the vendor to provide the service.  The vendor, by state law, would be required to possess a local pharmacy contact.  Dr. D’Amico reported that at the present time, the contractor in Ely operated via a mail order system.  Also, he pointed out that Prison Health Services (PHS), which contracted with the jail systems in Clark County and Las Vegas, operated with local pharmacists.  Dr. D’Amico reiterated that would be the vendor’s responsibility, and the action plan should include a pharmacist in the price of the contract.  

 

Mr. Rexwinkel noted that Dr. D’Amico had previously discussed measures he had taken over the years to reduce costs of medical care for inmates.  Per Mr. Rexwinkel, the per-inmate cost in FY1996 had been $3,243, which had grown by FY1998 to $3,500, and in FY2002, the cost was down to $3,348.  Over that six-year time frame, the cost per inmate had only grown by approximately $100.  Mr. Rexwinkel emphasized that the NDOC had searched over the years for every possible way to reduce costs and keep the per-inmate cost down while providing quality services to its inmates, and it appeared the NDOC had been successful in that endeavor.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that the mail order pharmacy had simply been another attempt to control costs. 

 

Decision unit 101 requested inflationary increases for outside medical costs which included prescription medications, and Mr. Rexwinkel stated that the inflationary factor had been derived from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid, Office of the Actuary, and was based on the actual costs. 


Chairman Parks referenced the performance indicator regarding the total cost of catastrophic cases, and noted there was a substantial projected increase for FY2005; he asked for clarification.  Dr. D’Amico reported that medicine had changed over the years, and a simple hospitalization several years ago could have resulted in a $3,000 bill, while today a simple hospitalization could result in a $15,000 bill; he advised that costs had gone “sky high.”  The performance indicators measured a catastrophic event as a $10,000 event, and Dr. D’Amico believed that indicator should be reviewed because the usual and customary charge for hospitalization in today’s market was almost at $10,000.  Dr. D’Amico stated that in actual utilization, a catastrophic event might be considered at a higher level, and that indicator might be changed in the future because the cost for almost every hospitalization would be at least $10,000.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether medical inflation had been included in the budget account for medical services at Ely, or had inflation not been computed for that account.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained that inflation had not been computed within the Ely medical budget, as medical services would be provided by an outside contractor, and there were no figures on which to base an inflationary increase.  Typically, stated Mr. Rexwinkel, any increase in the budget would be based on an increase within an existing or known contract that would take effect over the next biennium.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she understood that, but since the contract was going out to bid, it should be possible to compute inflationary costs by utilizing the figures that the current contractor had expended on medical services and applying an analogy to those figures.  Dr. D’Amico believed there could be a “rethinking” on the part of vendors when privatizing medical services at a facility such as ESP.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that vendors should be advised that part of what they should “rethink” would be to provide information regarding inflationary costs. 

 

Dr. D’Amico explained that Correctional Medical Services (CMS) entered into its contract “blind” without a cap, and outside medical costs had increased to over $800,000, which caused CMS to threaten to break its contract.  According to Dr. D’Amico, the vendor for the ESP contract should take into consideration the fact that there would be increases in the cost of medicine, and their bid should include a cap or at least a consideration of inflationary costs.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the RFP included a cap.  Dr. D’Amico stated that no plans had been made as yet regarding a cap, and the NDOC was waiting to see which vendors would offer proposals. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the RFP process had been initiated through the Purchasing Division; Dr. D’Amico replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the bid had already been let; Dr. D’Amico replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Dr. D’Amico to provide information regarding the numbers pertaining to the cost of inflation because she believed that vendors would underbid if that question were not asked. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification regarding the $10,000 figure for catastrophic cases.  Dr. D’Amico advised that he had inherited that figure when he assumed the duties of Director of Medical Services, and had assumed that the NDOC would determine a figure greater than $10,000 as the catastrophic figure in its performance indicators.  He stated he had not revised the $10,000 figure, however, fully intended to consider a revision.

In closing, Ms. Crawford remarked that the state of Nevada probably had one of the best prison medical systems in the nation.  She commended the Medical Division and its staff for what had been accomplished, and the amount it had been able to cut back in operating costs.  Ms. Crawford emphasized that Dr. D’Amico and his staff had done an outstanding job.  She informed the Subcommittee that there were many pending lawsuits throughout the nation, however, the lawsuits in Nevada were much less because of the quality of care.  The staff had worked very hard to reduce costs and at the same time deliver a quality service, and Ms. Crawford wanted that fact to go on record.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3706, and opened the hearing on BA 3761.

 

SOUTHERN NEVADA WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (101-3761) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-41

 

Mr. Rexwinkel explained that Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility (SNWCF) was a privatized women’s prison located in North Las Vegas, and was the primary facility in Nevada for female offenders.  He noted there were also two conservation camps for female offenders at Jean and Silver Springs.  The SNWCF was an approximately 500-bed unit that could handle 565 inmates in total, and had opened in September 1997. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the question surrounded what would occur if Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) decided not to continue with its contract, which contained automatic renewal provisions with the first automatic renewal provision in October 3, 2004.  At that point in time, stated Mr. Rexwinkel, providing CCA gave sufficient notice, it could terminate its contract.  He stated that to his knowledge such action had not been taken, and the contract with CCA remained valid, and it was providing the service at SNWCF. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel pointed out that the amount contained in the budget would address the increases built into the contract with CCA at 3 percent per year.  The NDOC had provided information to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff which stipulated that, based on projections and staffing, should CCA decide not to continue its contract, and the NDOC had to assume operation of the SNWCF in October of 2004, the NDOC would require an additional $2.2 million to complete that fiscal year. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel indicated there had been some question as to whether that money should be mapped within the NDOC budget, however, it was noted that a valid contract remained in effect with CCA.  If CCA did not renew its contract, Mr. Rexwinkel stated the Legislature would once again be in session in FY2005 and the NDOC could request a supplemental allocation at that time to complete the fiscal year, or it could approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for the necessary funding.  According to Mr. Rexwinkel, if the contract were not renewed or not awarded to another vendor, the NDOC would definitely be required to return to the Legislature or the IFC, as it would need funding for staff.  He indicated that the NDOC had initiated an RFP process and had received proposals, which had been evaluated; however, since there was no funding to provide for another contractor at the current time, that RFP had been cancelled by the Purchasing Division. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding the transfer of female inmates to the conservation camps, and the Contract Monitor position, which was located on-site and monitored contract compliance. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who had withdrawn the aforementioned RFP, the Purchasing Division or the NDOC.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the Purchasing Division cancelled the RFP because in order to proceed, it would have been necessary to make an award to one of the vendors, and there was no funding for such an award at the present time.  The initial attempt of the RFP had been to obtain proposals to ascertain whether the NDOC could negotiate a better contract.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that in the past, CCA had expressed a desire to either receive additional compensation under its contract or, perhaps, not continue its contract. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated she could not see how CCA could remain in business if it did not make a profit, and noted that the contract had been in question for quite some time.  It appeared the earliest CCA could break its contract and turn the operation over to the state would be October 2004.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the 3 percent in the budget would be adequate to cover what CCA perceived as the cost to run the SNWCF, or was that the cost as perceived by the NDOC.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained the 3 percent was the inflation that was built into the existing CCA contract.  The NDOC believed it would need an additional $2.2 million to take over the operation of the SNWCF.  Mr. Rexwinkel testified that amount would include the hiring of correctional staff for training purposes at least one month prior to the takeover.  He opined that perhaps the cost would be approximately the same if another outside vendor took over the operation.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated in FY2003 the NDOC was budgeted for 547 inmates at the SNWCF.  In order to assist with the 3 percent budget reduction scenario and other issues, such as utility costs and increased health insurance, the NDOC made an effort to reduce the number of inmates at the SNWCF to 447; the facility had been operating at that level for several months.  Per Mr. Rexwinkel, in order to maintain that count, inmates were classified appropriately to either Jean or Silver Springs Conservation Camps. 

 

Chairman Parks stated there had been a recommendation to reduce the inmate population at SNWCF by 24 inmates from the average population level of 489, and he noted that the population had peaked at 564 inmates at one point.  Mr. Rexwinkel believed that was correct, however, noted that figure was an anomaly, and the population had gone down.  He explained the female offender level was quite high during that time frame, which had stabilized somewhat. 

 

Chairman Parks asked how many female inmates were currently classified as minimum custody, but housed at the SNWCF.  In response to Chairman Parks’ question, Mr. Whorton stated he was unaware of the actual number, and parenthetically, he did not believe there were many inmates at the facility with minimum custody.  There was a built-in disincentive with private contractors regarding such issues, because contractors wanted to keep as many inmates as possible in the facility, whereas the NDOC wanted to reduce the costs and, therefore, transferred inmates out to other facilities.  Mr. Whorton reported that the NDOC had made a deliberate effort to facilitate those transfers.  The NDOC had sent its own staff to talk face-to-face with inmates, and had sent its medical staff to evaluate the situation in order to transfer appropriate inmates out to minimum custody facilities.  Mr. Whorton stated if there were any inmates at SNWCF with a minimum classification, they would be few in number and in all probability, those would be inmates with medical issues that could not be managed at a conservation camp.

 

Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding the vacancy of the Contract Monitor position.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that the Contract Monitor position had been an issue brought before the February 2003 Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting.  The position had been reclassified from an Administrative Services Officer I to a Correctional Caseworker Specialist II based on the duties required by the CCA contract.  He was unsure about the status of the current recruitment effort to fill the vacancy.

 

Mr. Whorton explained that the NDOC was in the process of reviewing the requirements for the Contract Monitor position and evaluating the type of recruitment that should be done, either internal or external.  He believed that decision would be made in the very near future so the NDOC could begin recruitment almost immediately.  Mr. Whorton stated the NDOC had requested the reclassification of that position because it was important for the person who filled the position to review operational issues such as classification, the grievance process, the disciplinary process, and be the NDOC’s eyes and ears at the SNWCF.  According to Mr. Whorton, that would create an efficient operation for both the SNWCF and the NDOC because of the issues that had arisen with classification in the past.  Mr. Whorton stated those areas would not be addressed if the position dealt strictly with fiscal reporting.

 

Chairman Parks stated when he had toured the SNWCF, concern had been voiced regarding the adequacy of the medical services provided at the facility, and whether services were offered routinely in accordance with the contract requirements.  He noted that Mr. Whorton had stated the decision would be made in the very near future regarding how the Contract Monitor position would be filled.  Mr. Whorton wanted the Subcommittee to understand that the NDOC had not simply “turned that institution loose,” and was not providing supervision.  Warden Sherman Hatcher in southern Nevada visited the SNWCF and observed the operation for the NDOC.

 

Chairman Parks asked about the debt service costs of the facility.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained that the debt service was being paid from the Department of Corrections, Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility (SNWCF) budget.  Per Mr. Rexwinkel, the Treasurer’s Office had refinanced that debt at least twice, and as a result of those refinancing efforts, it was his understanding that there were sufficient savings to pay the debt service for the next two years.  Mr. Rexwinkel suspected that at some future point, the debt service would once again be included in the NDOC budget; however, it appeared that there was sufficient money set aside at the present time in the Treasurer’s Office to address the debt service.

 

Chairman Parks asked if the current contractor, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), were to no longer provide service after October 2004, would a payment be due to the vendor at that time.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated he was not aware of any payment that would be due at that time, and he assured the Subcommittee that he had reviewed the contract.

 

Chairman Parks remarked that over time, the NDOC had included a number of work programs within the SNWCF, and he asked whether there was a current work program within the facility, such as repackaging for retail sales stores.  Ms. Crawford advised that the NDOC did have a packaging program available, along with educational and self-help programs at SNWCF, however, an outside work program was not available at that facility.  The NDOC compensated for that lack of outside programming through the conservation camps, where inmates with a minimum custody classification were transferred.  Ms. Crawford opined that overall the NDOC was being very fair and equitable regarding programming at SNWCF.

 

Chairman Parks asked whether the repackaging operation was an ongoing program.  Ms. Crawford reported that the repackaging program was ongoing, and employed approximately eight women, which was not a large workforce.  Chairman Parks asked whether the NDOC was pursuing other possible programs for the female population.  Ms. Crawford stated the NDOC was in pursuit of programs for that population, and she believed additional programming was needed for female inmates, however, space seemed to be a problem in securing additional industries.  Ms. Crawford assured the Subcommittee that did not mean the NDOC was not looking, and she believed there were additional programs that could be initiated.  Ms. Crawford noted there was further opportunity for industry through grant funding, and advised that Mr. Skolnik was processing a card-sorting program. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel congratulated Ms. Crawford and Mr. Skolnik, along with the various NDOC staff, for Nevada becoming one of six states that received accreditation of its Prison Industry Program.  He emphasized that all involved parties were deserving of credit for attaining that goal, and Mr. Marvel stated he was very proud of that accomplishment.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3761, and opened the hearing on BA 3738. 

 

SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL CENTER (101-3761) –

BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-58

 

Chairman Parks stated the major issues in the Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) budget centered around the elimination of two positions at the facility and the reorganization of the transportation function.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel explained that two positions had been eliminated in decision unit E-605, a maintenance repair worker and a correctional caseworker.  Both of those positions had been vacant in the early part of the fiscal year, and the maintenance repair worker was a new position that had never been filled and had been frozen in the budget reduction scenario.  Mr. Rexwinkel pointed out that since the position had never been filled, it was decided that it was not necessary.  Chairman Parks asked whether the elimination of the maintenance worker position would result in a decline in preventative maintenance activities.  Mr. Whorton reiterated that the maintenance position had never been filled, so there would be no decline in maintenance activities.  He reported that the NDOC was very active in its preventive maintenance program, as detailed in the budget. 

 

Chairman Parks asked whether the NDOC had performed a comprehensive analysis of the maintenance staffing efforts at all the facilities.  Mr. Whorton did not know whether it could be called a comprehensive analysis of staffing efforts, but the NDOC had developed preventive maintenance plans at all its institutions.  He explained that the budget reflected a significant increase in maintenance activities in an attempt to maintain and retain the existing facilities in constitutional condition.  Mr. Whorton reiterated that he did not know of any remarkable action that had been taken in terms of analyzing maintenance staff. 


Chairman Parks asked about elimination of the caseworker position and the ratio of inmates to caseworkers within the institutions.  Mr. Whorton stated he would provide a written response to that question, which would depict the projected population for the biennium, projected staff levels, and the ratio.  Chairman Parks reiterated that the Subcommittee’s concern was whether the NDOC was in compliance with legislatively-authorized staffing requirements. 

 

Per Chairman Parks, the other issue within the SDCC budget surrounded the reorganization of the transportation function.  Mr. Whorton stated the NDOC proposed reorganization of the transportation function at both SDCC and High Desert State Prison (HDSP).  In reality, explained Mr. Whorton, the entire transportation function was centrally supervised, with the northern and southern transportation sections managed by a correctional lieutenant.  The NDOC believed reorganization would be important in order to avoid confusion and operate efficiently and effectively. 

 

According to Mr. Whorton, over the past two years problems had been experienced in transporting inmates to court and managing the orders to produce an inmate in court.  Mr. Whorton noted that it had been necessary for him to appear and make apologies to the court because of the confusion.  Mr. Whorton stated the NDOC wanted to ensure that the transportation function operated properly, and inmates were transported to where they were supposed to be when they were supposed to be there.  He explained the NDOC wanted to avoid situations such as had occurred in the past, where a team from SDCC transported an inmate to the hospital for a consultation, and a HDSP team had arrived for the same purpose.  Per Mr. Whorton, the transportation function could work more efficiently and more effectively, which was the intent of the proposed reorganization. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the inflationary increase for food included in decision unit E-500, and whether such increases were included in the budgets for the remaining NDOC facilities.  Mr. Rexwinkel replied in the affirmative, and stated the inflationary increase of 1.8 percent on food and bakery was included within all facility budgets.  He explained that increase was based on information from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  A review of past budgets indicated that the price of food had been inflating, and Mr. Rexwinkel believed the increase for food was appropriate, and he noted that the NDOC had not requested an inflationary increase for clothing or other issues, although there would be inflation in supply items.  The inflationary increase on clothing appeared to have leveled out over the past few years, however, stated Mr. Rexwinkel, food continued to increase, and he suspected that the inflationary increase might be greater than the budgeted 1.8 percent. 

 

Chairman Parks inquired whether there were further questions and/or comments regarding BA 3738.

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated there were two decision units in the SDCC budget that required clarification.  The description of decision unit E-720 within The Executive Budget included shelving and other items, however, the $679 was actually for a camcorder or video recorder to video inmate cell extractions and crime instances, which would assist the NDOC in litigation support.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that decision unit E-731 included metal shelving, which had been a requirement of the Fire Marshal’s Office.  The amount requested by the NDOC in The Executive Budget was $88,852, but Mr. Rexwinkel explained that the cost of shelving for 200 cells would be paid through the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program grant.  He stated the appropriate figure within the budget should be $63,050.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3738 and opened the hearing on BA 3751.    

 

ELY STATE PRISON 9(101-3751) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-65

 

Mr. Rexwinkel informed the Subcommittee that Ely State Prison (ESP) was the NDOC’s close custody institution located approximately nine miles outside the city of Ely, and operated with an emergency capacity of 1,008 beds.  The first phase of the institution was opened in July of 1989 and the second phase opened in 1990.  Mr. Rexwinkel indicated that decision unit E-710 included a large allocation for the second year of the biennium to replace the phone system at ESP.  The phone systems in most of the NDOC’s institutions were antiquated, stated Mr. Rexwinkel, and the 13-year-old system at ESP continued to experience significant problems; the cost to replace the system would be approximately $288,000 in the second year of the biennium. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the NDOC had also requested a reduction of 14 correctional officer positions at ESP.  He explained those positions were not being deleted according to specific posts, but ESP had functioned for many years with several vacancies in correctional officer positions, mainly because of recruitment difficulties.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that he had recently spoken with the warden at ESP, who indicated that at one point there were 60 vacant correctional officer positions, and he had still managed to operate the institution within the personnel budget. 

 

Chairman Parks stated the concern of the Subcommittee was that the NDOC met the recommended staffing level required to cover the various posts throughout the institution, and he asked whether that could be done with the proposed reduction of 14 officer positions.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated that ESP was a maximum security institution and could operate without those 14 positions. 

 

Mr. Whorton stated the proposed elimination of 14 positions was not tied to specific posts, and the NDOC would evaluate which posts it would modify and where it would change staffing levels, which would amount to minor adjustments.  He indicated they utilized pull and shut down posts to manage staffing.  Mr. Whorton noted that two years ago, ESP was operating 40 positions short, and presently there were 16 correctional officer positions frozen at ESP.  In reality, the elimination would actually provide two additional positions.  Mr. Whorton stated, to make the situation perfectly clear, there were approximately 11 people on military leave from ESP, however, the NDOC did have the capability of overlaps because the difference between military pay and state pay was such that the NDOC did not have to make up the difference. 

 

Chairman Parks stated the major concern of the Subcommittee was one of safety and security, and he wanted to ensure that the elimination of those positions would in no way compromise the safety and security of ESP. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani echoed the Chairman’s statement regarding the safety and security of the facility, and asked that the NDOC provide a copy of its posting chart, which indicated exactly where the 14 positions would be eliminated.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that such information had been provided for the other institutions, and the Subcommittee would like to make a comparison.  She asked whether the vacancy savings of $1.3 million was correct.  Mr. Whorton stated he was unsure of the exact amount.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the NDOC would reach that dollar amount with the elimination of the 14 officer positions.  Mr. Whorton explained that under normal circumstances, the NDOC experienced a turnover of correctional staff at ESP similar to that of its other institutions, and the rate at ESP was not particularly remarkable. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the percentage of turnover at ESP was higher or lower than the other facilities.  Mr. Whorton believed it was approximately the same, and advised that a recent review revealed the rate at ESP was comparable to the overall state rate.  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that would make it even more difficult to realize a vacancy savings, and asked how the NDOC projected to reach the savings of $1.3 million.  She asked the NDOC to provide a plan for the vacancy savings, along with the post assignment chart.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3751 and opened the hearing on BA 3762.

 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON (101-3762) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-71

 

Mr. Rexwinkel informed the Subcommittee that High Desert State Prison (HDSP) was located approximately 40 miles north of Las Vegas and 9 miles south of Indian Springs.  He explained that both the first and second phases opened in September 2000 with an emergency capacity of 2,016 beds.  Mr. Rexwinkel testified that the NDOC would not request many changes in the HDSP budget, however, would request the elimination of nine correctional officer positions.  One of those nine positions was included in the canine program, which had been eliminated on a department-wide basis, and the remaining eight correctional officer positions were slated for unit eight, which had been closed.  Mr. Rexwinkel said the NDOC did not anticipate opening unit eight at HDSP over the next biennium and, therefore, the eight correctional positions were not needed.  He further explained that eight correctional officer positions would not have been sufficient to staff unit eight. 

 

Per Mr. Rexwinkel, other budget issues surrounded equipment, buildings and grounds maintenance, and the transportation reorganization, which would move the transportation officer positions to BA 3710.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the budget also contained a request to transfer forensic specialist positions from medical into the HDSP budget, decision unit E-944. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for clarification regarding the continuation of the program to house Wyoming inmates, and asked for an update regarding the status of that program.  Mr. Whorton explained that the NDOC currently housed Wyoming inmates in unit seven at HDSP, with a few of those inmates housed at the ESP, for a total count of 112.  Mr. Whorton stated that Wyoming had slowed the rate of transfer of inmates to Nevada because of an improvement in the situation with its contractor in Colorado.  Wyoming did intend to deliver more inmates to Nevada, however, Mr. Whorton stated the number remained to be seen, and those inmates would continue to be housed at medium security institutions. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the Wyoming inmates being housed at ESP.  Mr. Whorton stated that approximately 15 inmates had been transferred from Wyoming to Nevada specifically for housing at ESP.  Those inmates had been a significant management problem for Wyoming, and since space was available at ESP, the NDOC believed it was appropriate to house those inmates and realize the additional revenue.  Chairman Parks asked whether Wyoming paid more money per inmate for housing at ESP.  Mr. Whorton stated the rate remained the same, but it was still greater than the cost of housing an inmate at ESP, so the NDOC still realized a profit.

 

Chairman Parks noted that the NDOC had received a three-year, $1.5 million demonstration grant, and asked for an update.  Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, explained that those federal grant funds had been released approximately ten days ago.  The grant had been awarded on July 16, 2002, however, a problem had arisen due to Congress taking a break without completing the federal budget, and the money had been delayed.  Ms. Holmes stated the NDOC had initiated recruitment for the program officer and the two caseworkers that would run the program, and a section of one unit at a southern facility had been renovated to facilitate the moving of inmates into that unit.  Ms. Holmes indicated that the NDOC expected to schedule the first advisory committee meeting during April 2003, which would consist of the NDOC and representatives from those agencies that had partnered on the grant. 

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3762, and opened the hearing on BA 3725.     

 

INDIAN SPRINGS CONSERVATION CAMP (101-3725) –

BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-101

 

Mr. Rexwinkel stated the Indian Springs Conservation Camp (ISCC) was located adjacent to Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) and close to High Desert State Prison (HDSP), and was first opened in 1982, with a capacity to house 248 inmates, with a staff of 23.  According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the budget did not include many requests, however, decision unit E-720 requested $17,784 for metal tank boxes, to comply with a Fire Marshal’s requirement. 

 

With no further comments forthcoming, Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3725, and opened the hearing on BA 3708.   

 

OFFENDERS’ STORE FUND (240-3708) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-138

 

Mr. Rexwinkel indicated the Offenders’ Store Fund was a companion to Budget Account 3763, Inmate Welfare Account.  He explained those were both special revenue funds and received no General Fund appropriations.  According to Mr. Rexwinkel, BA 3763 received funding from BA 3708, the Offenders’ Store Fund, which contained the operations of the stores and canteens, and was used to purchase and resell inventory.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that another major revenue source was from the inmate telephone system, and several staff positions were also budgeted in BA 3708. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the NDOC had experienced some difficulties in BA 3708, particularly with the inmate phone system contractor, MCI-Worldcom, which had filed bankruptcy.  That bankruptcy resulted in a significant shortfall of approximately $426,000 owed to the NDOC in telephone commissions, which had been tied up in the bankruptcy.  Mr. Rexwinkel acknowledged that the final amount to be received by the NDOC was unknown at the present time.  He explained that MCI-Worldcom had been making payments since July 2002, and the NDOC continued to receive phone commissions. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Rexwinkel reported that the NDOC had experienced a degradation of telephone revenue, which was due in part to circumvention of the contracted phone system by inmates and their families.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the NDOC was reviewing the situation to determine how to prevent the circumvention of the inmate phone system and increase the revenue, and had been working with MCI-Worldcom on that issue. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the inmate store was not producing the same level of profit because the inmate count had been reduced, so the revenue anticipated by NDOC had also been reduced.  Mr. Rexwinkel reported that the number of staff in BA 3708 had been reduced from 62 to 53.5.  That reduction included a Management Analyst IV position, an Internal Auditor position, and other positions associated with more direct services.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the NDOC was currently managing without that staff, as the reductions had been made as part of the reduction plan to ensure that there was enough money in the fund to transfer sufficient amounts to the Inmate Welfare Fund.

 

Chairman Parks asked about the reduction in staffing that included the Auditor III position, which would leave the budget with no auditor position to review large transactions.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated it was true that there was no longer an auditor position, but neither were there auditor positions anywhere else in the Department.  The NDOC performed its internal control reviews with segregation of duties, along with other staff that assisted in those reviews.  He stated the person performing the work would not be the person asked to audit the work, and the NDOC would “make-do” through segregation of duties and utilization of other staff. 

 

Chairman Parks stated the concern surrounded the large amount of cash handled through BA 3708.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the account included all canteens and stores, and handled a significant amount of cash; he reported that store sales in FY2002 were approximately $7.6 million. 

 

Chairman Parks referenced the Casa Grande Transition Housing program, and noted it appeared that the Department did not intend to include that facility as part of the inmate telephone system.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated he was not quite sure how that situation would be handled.  The Casa Grande program would require a telephone system, and the NDOC would continue to discuss that situation. 

 

Chairman Parks commented that the inmate telephone system was the number one complaint he received from constituents, and it was widely felt that the inmate telephone system was considered unfair.  Mr. Rexwinkel indicated that the inmate phone system and inmate calling had to be very well controlled.  The NDOC did not want to allow inmates to place calls to victims or other parties, and restricted calling privileges to legal counsel, family members, or select friends that were monitored and controlled by the NDOC. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel explained that the NDOC conducted call recording and monitoring, and concurred that the system was quite different and more costly than the average system.  He stated those records had to be maintained for an extended period of time, since they were used by the NDOC’s Inspector General’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and others that utilized the recorded call system in adjudication of cases.  Per Mr. Rexwinkel, much effort had been put into the inmate phone system, which generated revenue of approximately $3 million per year. 

 

Whether that was appropriate or inappropriate, Mr. Rexwinkel stated that funding for BA 3763, Inmate Welfare Account, was based on revenues received by BA 3708, Offenders’ Store Fund, in order to pay indigent inmate costs.  He explained that saved General Fund dollars, and if the inmate phone system was restructured to reduce the rate, the necessary revenue would have to be allocated from another source, such as the General Fund. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel reported that the Director of the NDOC struggled with complaints about the inmate phone system every day.  According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the system did function well, even though there was some degradation of revenue.  He explained that the NDOC believed it had discovered the problem and would take steps to make corrections.  The NDOC had been working regularly with MCI regarding how to resolve the problem.    

 

Chairman Parks asked whether the NDOC had made any effort to provide information regarding how the system worked to the individuals who were billed for the calls.  Information he had received suggested that most persons believed the system was a “big rip-off” for the users.  Mr. Rexwinkel concurred that the phone system was expensive, and he stated if he were placing or receiving a call from an institution, he would probably complain about it himself; he reiterated that calls did cost a great deal of money.

 

Ms. Crawford stated the cost was painful, and she could understand why families believed they were being “ripped-off.”  From the day she had assumed the position of Director, she had been working on the inmate phone system.  Ms. Crawford explained that the phone system had become a revenue stream, and there were a number of security issues that the NDOC was required to maintain regarding that system.  Ms. Crawford concurred with the suggestion to educate the clientele regarding use of the system.  She informed the Subcommittee that the NDOC was considering a card debit system, which would assist inmates in learning to manage their phone time and not impose on their families.  Ms. Crawford stated that a result of the card debit system would be a reduction in complaints because the responsibility would be placed on inmates to purchase the card and to manage their phone time.  However, Ms. Crawford stated phones had been installed and could simply be dialed to initiate collect calls.  Ms. Crawford opined that the inmate’s phone time could be better managed, along with the amount of money being expended by their families. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel said the NDOC had finalized plans for the debit card system, however, plans were finalized at the same time that MCI-Worldcom filed for bankruptcy, which had caused the NDOC to cancel the plan for that system.  He further explained that the MCI-Worldcom contract would expire on June 30, 2003, and a Request for Proposal (RFP) had been issued; he stated he would provide a copy of that RFP for Subcommittee perusal. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the catalog commissions and inmate package program.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained that the NDOC did have an inmate package program that was initiated twice per year, where inmate families could order from a private catalog or vendor, and have food or clothing sent to the inmate.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the program was conducted through a private contractor, and the NDOC had determined that it should receive a small commission from that program, as the program initially had not generated any revenue.  He noted that the NDOC currently received a small commission to cover its costs and to provide additional revenue to BA 3763, Inmate Welfare Account. 

 

Per Mr. Rexwinkel, an RFP had also been issued for the package program, even though the NDOC commission had already been initiated with the permission of the State Purchasing Division.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained the RFP process took time to complete, and the NDOC wanted to commence with receipt of a commission from the program.  He stated the notice of intent to award had recently been issued on the RFP. 

 

Chairman Parks asked whether the package program was only conducted twice per year rather than an ongoing program.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained the program was operational only twice per year, during the Christmas period and again during the summer months. 

 

Chairman Parks stated it appeared that The Executive Budget did not include the funds from that revenue source, and asked whether those funds were folded into another line item or budget account.  Mr. Rexwinkel said the revenue was part of the Offenders’ Store Fund, however, an additional line item could be added to account for that revenue. 

 

Chairman Parks referenced the request under decision unit E-710 for replacement equipment, and Mr. Rexwinkel acknowledged that there was always equipment, such as ice machines and microwaves, that required replacement.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming regarding BA 3708, Chairman Parks closed the hearing and opened the hearing on BA 3763.

 

INMATE WELFARE ACCOUNT (240-3763) – BUDGET PAGE CORRECT-143

 

Mr. Rexwinkel testified that BA 3763 received its funding primarily from the Offenders’ Store Fund, BA 3708.  The account included funding for a literacy program through a project grant from the U.S. Department of Education.  Mr. Rexwinkel commented that the NDOC would request transfer of the four academic teacher positions into BA 3711, which was the account for the proposed Correctional Programs Division, and would be funded through the General Fund.  

 

Mr. Rexwinkel noted that he had previously reviewed the shortfalls within BA 3708 with the Subcommittee, which would cause a reduction in the amount of money transferred into the Inmate Welfare Account to address the requirements of that account.  Mr. Rexwinkel referenced A.B. 389 of the Seventy-first Session, which required that certain payments be made from the Inmate Welfare Account, primarily to reimburse the Medical Division, but also to address gate money, medical copays and cremations for indigent inmates, and property damage caused by indigent inmates. 

 

According to Mr. Rexwinkel, the medical costs could include inmate self‑inflicted injuries, inmate-to-inmate injuries, and non-required recreational injuries.  There had been some major injuries in that area, and Mr. Rexwinkel commented that one such case involved an inmate who was sitting in the dugout at a baseball game when he was hit in the head with a bat and suffered substantial brain injury.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated those were the type of accidents that could occur when inmates participated in recreational activities. 

 

Mr. Rexwinkel advised that in the copay category created by A.B. 389 of the Sixty-eighth Session, copays continued to increase.  He explained the NDOC was behind in reconciliation of those accounts, and had requested repayment from past years.  Mr. Rexwinkel explained that in total, during FY2002, $839,000 had been paid out of BA 3763; in FY2001, $1.6 million had been paid; and in FY2002, $1.4 million had been paid.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the account contained huge numbers in that category, and if the Inmate Welfare Account did not pay those costs, they would be paid through another funding source, presumably the General Fund.  Mr. Rexwinkel added that the NDOC had eliminated two staff positions from the budget, which resulted in the overall reduction of 12 positions from BA 3708 and BA 3763 combined.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the internal “train-to-train” or “teacher-to-teacher” type of program which apparently had been working well, and she asked what had occurred with that program.  The program consisted of inmates who taught other inmates.  Ms. Crawford explained that program would continue, and the four literacy teachers or specialists assisted in that program, as they were certified teachers; the NDOC could not simply certify an inmate per se, and allow that inmate to teach.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the origin of the teachers and their certification.  Ms. Crawford stated they were actually literacy teachers who were able to assist the inmates because, quite frankly, many of the inmates within the NDOC could not read or write, and were not able to enter the education programming until such time as they were brought up to the appropriate level. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the salaries being paid to those teachers.  She also asked about the literacy standard, and noted in the past the standard had been established as eighth grade, which was not accurate based on Nevada Revised Statutes.  Ms. Holmes explained that legislation passed by the Legislature in 1993 concerning NRS 209.393, set the standard as that required by the school district for eighth grade students, and that was the standard used by the NDOC.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated eighth grade students versus an eighth grade reading level were totally different.  Ms. Holmes stated changes to the standard would have to be approved by the Legislature.  Ms. Giunchigliani said it should never be assumed that a child in the seventh grade would be at a seventh grade reading level because the two absolutely did not have any relationship in any way, shape, or form. 

 

Per Ms. Giunchigliani, the NDOC had a regulation that appeared to be very broad and did not match the standard in NRS Chapter 209, and it was her understanding that the NDOC was in the process of reviewing that standard.  Ms. Holmes stated the administrative regulation (AR) had not been reviewed since 1994 and AR 850 was in the process of being rewritten.  She indicated the regulation had been considered by the Administrative Regulation Modification Committee on two occasions, and the NDOC was in the process of initiating those changes.  Ms. Holmes explained that change would be bound by the language contained in NRS 209.393, and should there be a change in the wording of that chapter, the NDOC would work that language into the administrative regulation as well. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the budget for salaries of the certified teachers, and the amount of the exact salary.  Mr. Rexwinkel stated the total personnel costs for the four teachers for FY2005, which would encompass one full year, would be $284,796, which would include health insurance and other benefits such as personnel and payroll assessments.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked for clarification regarding the “certification” for those teachers as most teachers were “licensed,” and she wondered about the terminology.  Ms. Crawford stated it was probably semantics.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether those teachers were under contract to a particular district, or under contract with the NDOC.  Ms. Crawford stated the teachers would be under contract with the Department of Education. 

 

Currently, stated Ms. Giunchigliani, those that provided education did so through districts.  Ms. Crawford stated the districts did not provide assistance, which was why the NDOC had brought in the literacy program.  It was Ms. Crawford’s understanding that the literacy teachers would be employees of the NDOC, and they would provide the literacy preparation for students.  It would be nice if the Department of Education would absorb those positions, however, Ms. Crawford stated, apparently that could not be done.  Ms. Giunchigliani indicated that for the cost of $284,000 there would be four people allegedly teaching literacy, but the NDOC also had a “train-to-train” program that apparently worked well.  She noted that there did not appear to be a measurement regarding whether those teachers were pre- or post-testing those individuals to determine the gains made. 

 

Ms. Holmes noted that the “train the trainer” program was administered by the four literacy specialists, and they utilized the same program as that utilized by school districts and community colleges.  A number of inmates received by the NDOC possessed high school diplomas or General Education Diplomas (GEDs), however, could not meet the eighth grade literacy test.  Ms. Holmes stated even when an inmate had received a diploma but could not meet the eighth grade proficiency test, the NDOC suggested that inmate join the literacy program.  She noted that school districts had begun to offer literacy programs within the past year, but when the NDOC program was initiated several years ago, school districts did not offer literacy programs as part of the adult basic education.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was not in the curriculum, which was probably why it had not been offered. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the four specialists were currently employed at the NDOC, or would the request be for an additional four positions.  Ms. Holmes explained those four positions had been funded through a grant when there was no other literacy program available, and the NDOC was now asking that the positions be moved from grant funding to General Fund dollars, because the grant was due to expire in August 2003.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that with the current budgetary shortfalls, the issue should receive further review.

 

Chairman Parks asked the NDOC to explain the request to consolidate expenses of the nine existing inmate law libraries into one category, and explain how that would allow for improved tracking of those particular expenses.  Mr. Rexwinkel did not know if it would allow for improved tracking, but the NDOC would continue to track those expenses through the state accounting system, however, there would not be separate General Ledger accounts for each library.  He reiterated that the NDOC would conduct internal tracking within the state accounting system.  Mr. Rexwinkel noted it was not really a major issue for the NDOC, and if the expenses were not consolidated under one General Ledger, the process would continue as presently done.  The NDOC believed consolidation would ease the workload of the accounting system, and Mr. Rexwinkel explained it was an attempt to reduce the workload.  Chairman Parks stated the Subcommittee would take that under advisement.

 

Chairman Parks closed the hearing on BA 3763, and noted that would also conclude the budget hearings for the NDOC.  Chairman Parks thanked NDOC staff for their presentation, and asked whether there was other testimony to come before the Subcommittee regarding the NDOC budget accounts.  With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Parks opened the hearing for the Department of Public Safety, and indicated the Subcommittee would commence with BA 4713, Highway Patrol.

 

PS, HIGHWAY PATROL (201-4713) – BUDGET PAGE PS-55

 

Colonel David S. Hosmer, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), introduced Captain Mark Malloy, who had prepared the budget for the NHP, and Lynda Kunter, Management Analyst 2, NHP.  Col. Hosmer stated The Executive Budget recommendation for BA 4713 for FY2004 was $55,468,700, and the recommendation for FY2005 was $54,540,270.  The staffing level for FY2002‑03 had authorized 571 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and Col. Hosmer explained that the budget request before the Subcommittee requested 11 new FTE positions in FY2004, 10 of which would be utilized in dispatch centers, and 1 budget analyst position.  Also of note, stated Col. Hosmer, was that The Executive Budget recommended the elimination of 8 FTE vacant positions in FY2004, which were in the Trooper II classification. 

 

Per Col. Hosmer, the Subcommittee was well aware of the mission of the NHP, which was to reduce the frequency and severity of motor vehicle collisions on the primary and secondary highways of Nevada, and provide assistance to the motoring public in emergency situations. 

 

Chairman Parks noted there were several issues of interest to the Subcommittee within BA 4713, and asked for information regarding decision unit E-279, the highband radio system.  Col. Hosmer testified that in the Las Vegas valley, there were certain areas where the hand-held radios did not work properly, in that the radios did not have sufficient wattage to reach the transmission towers to relay the calls.  Part of the problem was with construction of the new freeway areas, where roadways had been lowered and sound walls constructed, which made line-of-sight radio transmission more difficult. 

 

Col. Hosmer advised that the NHP had commenced review of those problems in November of 2002 to determine the correct “fix.”  One of the proposed methods to fix the problem would have been a very expensive $3.2 million simulcast program.  Col. Hosmer advised that the NHP began researching other alternatives and it was suggested that mobile extenders should be considered, which would allow the hand-held radio to “talk” to car radios, and thereby boost the wattage.  Col. Hosmer reported there could be problems with extenders, and at the present time he was not prepared to advise the Subcommittee that $800,000 for mobile extenders would be the proper fix for the problem.  Col. Hosmer proposed that since the NHP was conducting an in-depth investigation regarding the appropriate fix, perhaps the Subcommittee could set aside the $800,000, and the NHP would approach the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) with a complete written report and recommendation regarding the proper fix before any monies were spent. 

 

Chairman Parks asked whether the problem was strictly within the Las Vegas metropolitan area.  Col. Hosmer stated that was the primary problem area.  Col. Hosmer acknowledged that the Subcommittee might have concerns regarding how the problem would affect officer safety.  He noted the NHP had identified the areas where problems existed and had advised troopers not to make stops in those areas, if at all possible.  There were ways to circumvent the problem where NHP officers would remain safe until the proper fix had been determined. 

 

Senator Rhoads asked whether the problem with the hand-held radios also existed in rural Nevada.  Col. Hosmer testified that, to his knowledge, there had been no major communication problems experienced in the rural areas at the present time. 


Chairman Parks noted there were more urban interchange designs with below grade-level roadways being built in the Las Vegas area.  He explained that type of construction was much preferred as far as containing noise and other problems that persons living nearby normally experienced. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether Col. Hosmer’s testimony regarding freeway construction was, to his knowledge, the basis of the problem with the hand-held radios.  Col. Hosmer explained that freeway construction and sound walls were a contributor to the problem, but were not the only problems.  He had been told that an additional two to three towers around the Las Vegas valley would help the situation, which would also be a very expensive fix at $250,000 per tower.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the situation was similar to use of cell phones and the towers used for those calls.  Col. Hosmer replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that it appeared other cell towers would not provide assistance and could actually interfere with transmissions.  She suggested that perhaps billboards placed along freeways would be a natural spot to utilize for assistance with transmissions, and perhaps local governmental entities could be approached to ascertain whether that would be possible, at least as a temporary fix. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani commented that during the 2001 Legislative Session, it was reported that the “dead zones” were basically minimal and repairs to the system could be made, but now it appeared that was not possible.  Col. Hosmer explained he had been given many different items of information regarding prices, and the figures to address the problem ranged from $800,000 to $1.9 million.  He had instructed his staff to compile a report as soon as possible so that within the next four weeks a solid, comprehensive report would be available for the Legislature. 

 

Col. Hosmer informed the Subcommittee that he had recently met with a representative from Motorola in the hopes of compiling a report for the money committees before the end of session.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated the Legislature needed to know what was causing the problem with the radios.  If the sound walls along freeways were only a contributor, the primary problem with hand‑held radio transmissions needed to be determined.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there were other groups, organizations, or agencies that used hand-held radios or something similar.  Col. Hosmer explained there were 21 separate agencies that utilized the NHP system, and all were experiencing the same problems.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether anyone had identified the primary cause at the present time.  Col. Hosmer stated he had not received information that he felt he could intelligently relate to the Subcommittee. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether Motorola was the original contractor; Col. Hosmer replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether Motorola had identified any particular problem, other than requesting additional money for something that should have been delivered in the first place.  Col. Hosmer emphasized that Motorola was working with the NHP to identify the cause, and had also proposed that simulcast would assist with the problem, which would be an approximate $3.2 million fix. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what had been included in the original contract with Motorola.  Col. Hosmer stated he had been told that the system was not designed to work with hand-held radios when the RFP process had been undertaken.  That was part of the study Col. Hosmer would initiate regarding the history of the system.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that would be helpful in an effort to alleviate the possibility of repeat errors.  As part of the planning, perhaps the NHP should be sure that local law enforcement could also communicate, and Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that would be part of Col. Hosmer’s review.  Perhaps there would be a mechanism that would force all parties to sit down at the table and discuss the problem regarding communications as a group and produce a recommendation; Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that would be part of Col. Hosmer’s plan. 

 

Col. Hosmer explained that the NHP had already contacted the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), which had installed an 800-megahertz system.  There had been discussion about long-range planning and how the system could achieve inter‑operability with all entities throughout the state.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the NDOT’s system was working.  Col. Hosmer stated that it appeared both systems worked pretty much the same as far as the coverage aspect, and he believed the NDOT had a few less towers than the NHP. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the problem appeared to be only in the Las Vegas area, and if it was not a problem in the rural areas where there were great distances, the question was what caused the problem.  She stated she did not feel additional money should be expended, however, the Legislature wanted to ensure that NHP officers were protected.  Col. Hosmer stated part of the problem appeared to be the electronic interference and building interference in the Las Vegas area. 

 

Chairman Parks stated that it would be crucial for the NHP to provide the needed information within the next month if the Subcommittee were to address the issue. 

 

Chairman Parks asked for information regarding decision unit E-277, which recommended adding ten dispatch positions in Las Vegas.  Col. Hosmer reported that one of the duties of the requested positions would be to assume the role of “call-takers,” as there was not sufficient staff currently to address that need.  He explained that most law enforcement agencies had progressed to staffing on each shift that could handle the telephone traffic, which would allow the dispatcher to concentrate on the radio traffic with troopers in the field.  Col. Hosmer stated that, unfortunately, there was no state classification for call‑takers so the NHP had requested ten dispatcher positions.  That would also allow the NHP to rotate staff between dispatchers and call-takers, which would add some variety to the job and lessen the stress or “burnout.” 

 

Chairman Parks noted that he had read a newspaper article recently which stated that the new sheriff in Clark County was proposing to place officers on light duty in the dispatch area, and asked whether the NHP had contemplated such action.  Col. Hosmer conveyed that the NHP had utilized troopers in that capacity in the past, but unfortunately, that practice involved two different job qualifications.  According to Col. Hosmer, at times it became a burden to bring a trooper on light duty up to speed to run a computerized dispatch and learn the intricacies of the highly trained dispatch position. 

 

Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer to briefly comment on the vacancies in positions and the turnover rate; he noted that it appeared 6 of the 18 existing dispatch positions were currently vacant.  Col. Hosmer believed 2 of those positions had recently been filled, which would leave 4 vacant positions at the present time.  The NHP attributed much of the turnover and vacancies to the fact that once dispatchers were trained, they often left to work for other agencies. 

 

Col. Hosmer disclosed that after the opening budget overview before the Legislative Commission’s Budget Subcommittee, information regarding pay disparities had been provided to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.  He explained that through the State Personnel Department, the NHP was researching methods to upgrade the dispatch position classification.  The reclassification would cause problems, explained Col. Hosmer, because of the problem in meeting salaries in the Las Vegas area, but not in Elko or Reno; those areas did not experience the same turnover rate because of salary disparity. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the stress of the job and the turnover caused by that aspect rather than the pay issue.  He asked whether stress would be more of an issue in an area such as Las Vegas rather than Elko or Carlin.  Col. Hosmer believed that would be true, and indicated the new NHP building previously authorized by the Legislature would go a long way toward alleviating the stress.  The new building would be a very nice facility, and he believed pay was not always everything about a job.  Currently, explained Col. Hosmer, the dispatchers were located in very tight quarters with very few windows, and the environment in the current facility was not conducive to reducing stress.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Col. Hosmer whether he believed those positions could be filled given the salary issue and the stress of the job.  Col. Hosmer stated he was hopeful that the positions could be filled, and he believed there would be a better chance of filling those positions once the NHP had moved into its new building next year.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that salary competition had always been a problem. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for information regarding sworn and non-sworn staff, where that staff had been located prior to the current session, and any changes that had been made, such as sworn individuals who were in-house and perhaps should have been out on the road and had now returned to the field.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not know if there had been a balance of staff or any actual staffing changes, but said visual information would be helpful so the Subcommittee would have some comparisons to review.  Col. Hosmer explained that the NHP had conducted a manpower allocation study approximately eight months ago, and that information would be provided to LCB staff.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated that information would be helpful. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked how many NHP cadets were lost to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) or other police organizations.  Col. Hosmer indicated that at the present time, there were approximately 60 vacancies statewide in sworn positions.  Some of those vacancies were because of routine retirements and medical retirements, and Col. Hosmer explained that the NHP was not losing troopers in droves of 20 or 30.  The problem area was with the three- to seven-year officers who had received the training and had become a rich commodity for the other agencies. 

 

Mr. Marvel asked about the salary discrepancy between the NHP and the LVMPD.  Col. Hosmer believed that information had been provided to LCB staff.  Mr. Marvel asked about loss of staff to the Henderson Police Department.  Col. Hosmer noted that Henderson also recognized that the NHP provided some of the best training in the world and wanted to “grab” NHP troopers.

 

According to Col. Hosmer, the entry-level salary for an NHP dispatch manager was approximately $30,000.  The salary of the dispatch manager in North Las Vegas was in the $45,000 range; the salary at LVMPD for the same position was approximately $70,000; and the salary at the Reno Police Department was above $40,000.  Col. Hosmer commented that the salary for an entry-level dispatcher at NHP was below $25,000, and the entry level at the Henderson Police Department was approximately $47,000.  Col. Hosmer explained that the entry‑level salary for troopers was approximately $32,500, and the salary for officers in Boulder City was approximately $44,000; he reiterated that the NHP was the lowest in the salary comparisons.  All other law enforcement entities contacted by the NHP had been very forthcoming with information, which allowed comparison on an “apples-to-apples” basis.  Col. Hosmer stated he had provided the information regarding salary comparisons to LCB staff. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that in Las Vegas the NHP dispatchers also handled calls for other agencies, such as the Parole and Probation Department, along with others.  She asked whether that would raise a question regarding positions that might be funded via Highway Fund dollars, and whether that would be a constitutional issue.  Col. Hosmer concurred, and stated there were certain times and shifts where 51 percent of the actual dispatching was for other agencies.

 

So that Highway Fund dollars would not be jeopardized, Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there was a funding schedule or cost allocation plan that the Subcommittee should consider.  Col. Hosmer advised that the Parole and Probation Department currently paid the salary for one dispatch position.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the other entities.  Col. Hosmer testified that there were 21 agencies outside the Department of Public Safety that utilized some level of dispatching through the NHP. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the expense to develop a cost allocation plan, and how that could be accomplished in order to assess other agencies for use of NHP dispatching, as Highway Fund dollars should not be used for that purpose.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Col. Hosmer to provide estimates of the dispatch time each agency utilized, as there might be another plan that would apply, but the Subcommittee would need to review the estimates.  Col. Hosmer stated that Captain Malloy had indicated a portion of that information was currently available, however, without review of the information, it seemed the ballpark figure was $2,000 per radio; that was the amount that was cost allocated to other entities for radios that utilized the NHP system.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Col. Hosmer to provide the exact information to LCB staff, and perhaps percentages could be applied in a cost allocation plan.  Col. Hosmer emphasized that the NHP would be happy to work with LCB staff regarding that issue.  

 

Chairman Parks referenced decision unit E-605, which recommended elimination of eight sworn trooper positions that had been vacant for six months, and asked for clarification.  Col. Hosmer replied that those eight positions had been designated as the “double-dip” positions, approved by A.B. 555 of the Seventy‑first Session, which the NHP had never been able to fill.  The NHP and the Governor’s Office believed elimination of those positions would be a good offset to the cost of additional dispatchers. 

 

Chairman Parks asked about the response time to high emergency calls in the NHP’s Southern Command.  It appeared that the time frame had gone from 10.5 minutes in FY2001, to approximately 12 minutes in FY2002, and to approximately 18 minutes in FY2003.  Col. Hosmer explained that the time frame was beyond the control of the NHP, and workload would drive that time frame.  He pointed out that on a rainy day in Las Vegas, when the oil came to the top of the roadway and floated on the water, NHP troopers had responded to as many as 100 accidents in a 24-hour period.  Clearly, stated Col. Hosmer, such instances dictated the response time, rather than a set response time on a day-to-day basis.  Col. Hosmer testified that the Las Vegas Southern Command was carrying the brunt of the vacancies and was shorthanded, which would also negatively impact the ability to respond.

 

Given the adverse conditions and vacancies, Chairman Parks opined that elimination of eight sworn officer positions from the budget would appear to be a move in the wrong direction.  Col. Hosmer pointed out that the eight positions in question had been vacant for approximately two years, while the vacancies he referenced within the Southern Command had been vacant for approximately six months.  According to Col. Hosmer, the dispatch center was in critical need at the present time, and in an effort to offset the costs of additional staff for the dispatch center, it was believed that elimination of the eight sworn officer positions would be best, as those positions had never been filled and had been vacant for over two years. 

 

Col. Hosmer advised that the state of Oregon was experiencing severe budgetary problems and was laying off numerous state troopers, and he would be sending NHP and Training Division staff to Oregon specifically to recruit NHP candidates to fill positions in Las Vegas.  He stated the NHP would take as many recruits as it could handle through the academy to address those vacancies. 

 

Chairman Parks noted that sergeant positions were budgeted within the NHP at a ratio of 1:7, and asked whether that would vary within the requested budget.  Col. Hosmer disclosed that he was actually attempting to reduce that ratio.  He explained that when he assumed his current position with the NHP, he had determined where changes were needed and had noted the need for additional supervision in the field at the first-line level by increasing the number of sergeants.  Col. Hosmer stated that approximately seven or eight sergeant vacancies would be filled immediately, and he believed at the present time the ratio was probably close to the 1:7 figure. 

 

Referring to decision unit E-710, Chairman Parks noted that the NHP had requested $2.4 million in FY2004 and $2.2 million in FY2005 to replace various types of equipment, and asked Col. Hosmer to provide further information regarding that request.  Col. Hosmer explained that the request primarily dealt with replacement of vehicles such as motorcycles, patrol cars, and utility vehicles for commercial enforcement officers; he noted that vehicles were the largest item in the funding request.  According to Col. Hosmer, since the budget had been constructed and submitted, he had asked three of the NHP’s majors to review the budget.  Because of budgetary problems, not necessarily within the Highway Fund but overall problems, approximately $180,000 had been identified for items which the NHP would like to have, however, could function without.  Col. Hosmer stated that information regarding the reassessment of the budget would be provided to LCB staff. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani remarked that approximately 100 vehicles had been requested by the NHP over the last biennium, and asked how many would be requested in the upcoming biennium.  Col. Hosmer replied that the request would be for 65 vehicles.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many officers actually used the vehicles, whether there was a ratio of officers to vehicles, and how many troopers were assigned full-time vehicles.  Col. Hosmer stated the ratio was 1:1 at the present time. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many vehicles were currently in the NHP fleet.  Captain Malloy explained that the NHP had authorized one vehicle per sworn position with 5 percent for spare vehicles, and vehicles for commercial vehicle safety inspectors, radio technicians, one vehicle for the management review team, and vehicles authorized for civilian use.  The total count was approximately 532, and Captain Malloy stated the NHP also had specialized vehicles such as motor homes used by commercial inspectors.  In review, Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the current number of NHP vehicles was approximately 532, approximately 100 vehicles had been replaced by the 2001 Legislature, and the current request was for 65 replacement vehicles, at a cost of approximately $3.6 million over the biennium. 

 

Apparently, stated Ms. Giunchigliani, 60 vehicles had been transferred to local governmental entities since the 2001 Legislature, and she asked Col. Hosmer to address that situation.  Col. Hosmer explained that early in his employment with the NHP, it had been discovered that one small local county had received 54 vehicles from surplus.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether those vehicles had been received by Storey County.  Col. Hosmer replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out that the Storey County law enforcement entity was only comprised of approximately eight officers.  That action was of concern to the Legislature, and even though there were interlocal agreements, the transfer of those vehicles appeared to be an abuse of the process.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed that action was attributable to the administration, or Col. Hosmer’s supervisor, in allowing that transfer to occur.

 

According to Ms. Giunchigliani, a legal opinion had been issued regarding the situation, which indicated the transfer violated the constitutional issue because of the Highway Fund dollars utilized to purchase the vehicles.  She was concerned about the situation, and stated that future vehicles approved for purchase by the Legislature should be returned to the State Purchasing Division for surplus rather than local governments, and any monies received for those vehicles should be repaid into the Highway Fund.  Even more importantly, stated Ms. Giunchigliani, vehicles purchased should include all the necessary parts and equipment, which had not been the case in the past, and officers had been forced to wait weeks for the standard equipment to be installed.  She asked who had let that contract, as it appeared the contract had not been processed through the Purchasing Division. 

 

Col. Hosmer explained that the fleet manager involved in the transfer of vehicles to Storey County had resigned when the investigation was initiated.  The current process was that every vehicle, even if it was being transferred to another state agency, was transferred through the Purchasing Division; he reiterated that the process was currently conducted under the control of the Purchasing Division. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about other equipment transfers, such as night goggles transferred to the Washoe County School District.  Col. Hosmer informed the Subcommittee that the NHP had no night goggles to surplus.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she had been informed that the night goggles had been transferred from the NHP.  Col. Hosmer emphasized that the NHP had no night goggles to surplus out, and apparently that transfer had occurred through the “Federal Assistant Liaison Connecting Officials of Nevada – Networking Equipment Support Team (FALCON’S NEST)” program.  Ms. Giunchigliani opined that perhaps the FALCON’S NEST program should also be reviewed, and stated the situation was “ugly” as far as she was concerned. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani believed the situation reflected on Col. Hosmer, who had not been in his present employment at the time the vehicles were transferred, and she believed that the administrator should be the person held accountable for that type of mismanagement.  Even more importantly, Ms. Giunchigliani stated she was concerned that law enforcement would be perceived as circumventing the laws, when they were the ones who were supposed to be upholding the law.  According to Ms. Giunchigliani, her statement was not meant as an attack on any one person, but she wondered about the situation that had allowed such transfers to occur.  She opined that perhaps there was more than vehicle transfer involved, which was what the Legislature had to determine. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how money would be replaced in the Highway Fund for the vehicles transferred to Storey County.  Col. Hosmer indicated that the NHP had contacted the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office and asked how those vehicles could legally be returned to the NHP.  The response from the AG’s Office was that the NHP could not recover the vehicles as the titles had been signed over to Storey County.  Col. Hosmer emphasized that the NHP had not attempted to recover those vehicles. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding that the Department of Defense was investigating the situation because of the FALCON’S NEST connection.  Col. Hosmer replied in the affirmative.                               

 

Dave Kieckbusch, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Public Safety, explained that the transfer of the vehicles was done just as he and Director Kirkland had assumed their current positions.  He and the Director absolutely and totally agreed that the transfer of any vehicles, much less that number of vehicles, outside the system was inappropriate and unacceptable, and they had aggressively pursued that transfer.  Mr. Kieckbusch stated that as a result of that entire process, not only had the fleet manager resigned, ultimately every employee involved in that particular operation was no longer working for the state.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what could be done internally to ensure that such a transfer did not occur again.  She was unaware of the procedures utilized by Public Safety, but believed something must have occurred since a red flag had not been raised, and the transfers had been allowed to move forward, and that had not simply occurred over a one-year period.  Mr. Kieckbusch stated that was very true, and based on available information, such transfers apparently had been occurring for years, pretty much at the whim of whoever was allowed to make that type of decision.  However, he noted even that process had fluctuated, because basically there had been supervising mechanics signing off on titles and giving those vehicles to other entities, certainly with the knowledge of the former administration; however, he could not speak to that and could not talk about what might or might not have been known in the past.  Mr. Kieckbusch indicated that certainly, when he and the Director had learned about the transfers, they had put a dramatic and drastic halt to that process immediately, and then followed up with an audit and inspection. 

 

Mr. Kieckbusch reported the issue of the night goggles was an issue of surplus military equipment, and he was unsure whether those goggles had ever been in the custody of the state.  Ms. Giunchigliani said, based on her research, she did not believe those goggles had been in the custody of the state.  Mr. Kieckbusch stated that transaction had been funneled through two local deputies, one from Douglas County, who had been prosecuted, along with another deputy.  He emphasized that the Department of Public Safety had initiated that investigation via the Investigation Division, and reiterated that the Department initiated the investigation that brought the Department of Defense investigators into play. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked whether there were rules, policies, laws, or statutory changes that the Legislature should deal with, such as when a person falsified a document or turned items such as vehicles over to local governments, to enable the cost to be recaptured and the money reverted to the Highway Fund.  Mr. Kieckbusch stated that, from the Department’s perspective, the Attorney General’s (AG’s) opinions issued several years ago had been reviewed, and the rules had been in place, but simply had not been followed.  According to Mr. Kieckbusch, any time a piece of equipment was purchased through the Highway Fund, it stood to reason and was common sense that any proceeds as a result of the sale or disposal of that property should be returned to the Highway Fund.  That was basically as stated in the AG’s opinions, and that was the policy of the Department of Public Safety.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated it was her understanding that the proceeds could not be recaptured from the transfer of the vehicles because the titles had been signed over.  Col. Hosmer indicated that was what the NHP had been told.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked that the Department of Public Safety check with the AG’s Office to ascertain whether the state could pursue return of the proceeds, which would be very helpful, and perhaps with every vehicle repayment, a new one could be purchased for the NHP. 

 

At the very least, stated Col. Hosmer, the NHP could explore the possibility of requesting that the Attorney General notice Storey County that when it disposed of those vehicles, that money would be returned to the Highway Fund.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether any action had been taken against Storey County, because it was unconscionable for the county to be that irresponsible to take 54 vehicles for seven to eight officers in its entire jurisdiction.  She asked whether there was any means to legally pursue that aspect.  Col. Hosmer stated the NHP would explore that possibility with the AG’s Office.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the Commissioners in Storey County were aware of the transaction.  Col. Hosmer believed that they were aware of the situation.  Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that perhaps “everyone got a car.” 

 

Chairman Parks asked Col. Hosmer to provide further information to the Subcommittee regarding the eventual disposition of the vehicles, since it appeared to be obvious that not all vehicles currently remained in Storey County.  Col. Hosmer stated he was sure that an extensive report had been prepared which he would make available to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.     

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani believed the same type of circumstance was occurring with the Investigation Division trade-ins as well, which involved another budget account where the money had not been returned to the proper account.  She noted that the Subcommittee should also review that issue, and she would have LCB staff pursue the matter with the Department. 

 

Chairman Parks informed the audience that because of time constraints, the Subcommittee would be forced to reschedule the hearings for the remaining Public Safety budget accounts.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked, based on the entire aspect of increased home security and the threat of ratcheting-up of alert levels, whether the NHP could provide a budgetary figure regarding the impact on law enforcement, at least on its troopers, when the alert levels fluctuated.  She explained that the Legislature would like to ascertain the possibility of approaching the federal government regarding the unfunded mandate to the states, and seek needed assistance.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Col. Hosmer to provide that information to the Subcommittee.  Col. Hosmer stated in the ten-week period following September 11, 2001, the alert level had been “ratcheted way up” for security at Hoover Dam, but the federal government had reimbursed the NHP for those costs.  He explained that an increase in the alert level to “orange” would not cause the NHP a significant number of identifiable problems.  Col. Hosmer stated his commanders had already determined the costs associated with an increase in the alert level to “red.”  Ms. Giunchigliani asked Col. Hosmer to provide that information to the Subcommittee.

 

Chairman Parks informed the audience that the next meeting of the Subcommittee would be scheduled for March 20, 2003.

 

With nothing further to come before the Subcommittee, Chairman Parks adjourned the hearing at 11:05 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Carol Thomsen

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman David Parks, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman

 

 

DATE: