MINUTES OF THE
subcommittee on general government
of the
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
March 28, 2003
The Subcommittee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman Sandra J. Tiffany at 7:09 a.m. on Friday, March 28, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Bob Coffin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Judy Coolbaugh, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Myla C. Florence, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
Martin A. Ramirez, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
Lynda Parven, Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
DETR, Client Assistance Program - Budget Page DETR-63 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-3258
Myla C. Florence, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation:
The Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation’s (DETR) Client Assistance Program (CAP) is a federally-funded program that provides information to individuals statewide regarding benefits and services under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and benefits and services under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This program provides assistance, advocacy, and mediation services to individuals seeking to access or re-enter rehabilitation programs offered by DETR’s Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR), Independent Living Advisory Council, and supported employment programs. CAP is required as a qualification to receive federal basic support under Title I, Section 110 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
The program resolves issues between vocational rehabilitation counselors and clients to avoid the need for a fair hearing. There is one director for the program who handles direct client services, and the number of persons being served remains relatively constant. In fiscal year (FY) 2002, 133 people were served. The clients’ level of satisfaction, for service received, was rated at 86 percent, which was a little below the performance indicator target figure. Enhancement unit E-275 may assist in improving performance because it will fund additional travel to Las Vegas.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage - Page DETR-65
An increase for in-state travel is requested in this decision unit to assist the growing number of Title I, Section 110 clients and other programs funded by the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration. It also includes funds for a shared leasing of a photocopy machine. The amount of the request is $1420 in FY 2003-2004, and $1420 in FY 2004-2005.
Senator Tiffany:
Where are the two positions for the client-assisted program based?
Ms. Florence:
Both positions are based in Reno.
Senator Tiffany:
When they travel to Las Vegas for interviews, which office building is used?
Ms. Florence:
Client interviews may be conducted at the client’s home, or at one of the Las Vegas’ offices, whichever is more convenient.
Senator Tiffany:
Since the majority of the State’s population is in Las Vegas, why does DETR not have a permanent position there?
Ms. Florence:
Currently we are recruiting for the director’s position. The opening is being advertised statewide. If the most qualified candidate is in Las Vegas, the position will be located there.
Senator Tiffany:
Does the fact DETR only has two positions working statewide indicate there is a limited need for these services, or is that function duplicated in some other type of service?
Ms. Florence:
The services are not duplicated. The intent is to have clients become independent of the vocational rehabilitation program, although the funding comes from that source. Adequate services are being provided with one direct service person and support staff.
DETR, Services to the Blind & Visually Impaired – Budget Page DETR-67 (Volume 2) Budget Account 101-3254
Ms. Florence:
The Bureau of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired (BSBVI) provides a full range of services to persons who are blind, deaf and blind, or severely visually impaired to assist them in achieving employment, independent living, and self‑sufficiency. Additionally, the BSBVI administers the Blind Business Enterprises Program statewide.
Looking at the performance indicators for FY 2002, 95 clients with case closures were placed in competitive employment, which was a little below the projected target figure. Thus far, in FY 2003, 56 clients have been placed. It appears BSBVI will not meet its target during this fiscal year.
Senator Tiffany:
Are the people placed going into the blind vendor program, or is employment provided at some other location?
Ms. Florence:
When the BSBVI says competitive employment, placement is made in a variety of locales, including the State and private sector. For FY 2003, the average wage of those placed is $11.54 an hour. The BSBVI does not subsidize these placements. That is what is meant by competitive employment.
Senator Tiffany:
Do the job developers working out of the BSBVI make the placements?
Ms. Florence:
The job placements may be through the job developers, employment services, or individuals in the Nevada Job Connect offices. The referral pattern varies depending on the person’s skills and competencies.
Senator Tiffany:
Are placements more frequently completed through BSBVI, or by an external organization?
Ms. Florence:
Generally, placement is made by the BSBVI. DETR has worked very hard to integrate the BVR staff with the Nevada Job Connect offices.
Senator Tiffany:
Out of the 36 positions in the BSBVI, how many are job developers?
Ms. Florence:
In this budget, there is one job developer.
E-325 Improve Pupil Achievement – Page DETR-70
Ms. Florence:
This decision unit eliminates a rehabilitation coordinator II position and associated operating costs for the Early Intervention Pilot Project (EIPP). This pilot project was developed to address the needs of visually impaired school-age children, who were preparing to make the transition from high school into the job market. The position was going to be funded by revenue generated from the sale of General Electric (GE) stock held in the BSBVI gift fund. When the EIPP was approved by the 71st Session of the Legislature, the stock was valued at $60.50 per share. Unfortunately, with the downturn in the stock market, the GE stock price has dropped to $26.98 per share. The BSBVI estimates, with the erosion in the stock value, the stock sale would not provide sufficient funds to support the program.
Senator Tiffany:
In the BSBVI account, how much of the additional funding request will be for client services versus non-client services? How many more people do you project the BSBVI can service with the additional funding?
Ms. Florence:
I believe you are referring to the increase requested in E-450 for a General Fund appropriation to maximize federal funds available for matching.
E-450 Reward Self-Sufficiency – Page DETR-70
Ms. Florence:
This decision unit recommends an increase in General Funds in the amount of $57,731 in FY 2003-2004, and $87,434 in FY 2004-2005. All of the funds will be used to match federal funds and together would go into direct client services, with a minimal portion distributed for non‑client service expenditures. No new positions are requested.
Senator Tiffany:
How many clients is the BSBVI currently serving, and how many more will it serve with the increase?
Ms. Florence:
The BSBVI projects 173 clients will be served in the upcoming year. There will be an additional 346 new clients served.
Senator Tiffany:
How many counselors are in the program?
Ms. Florence:
DETR will provide the information.
Senator Tiffany:
If the expanded funding is approved, DETR needs to provide the number of additional clients to be served. Is there a backlog of clients waiting for service? Is there enough demand for the service to justify the funding increase?
Ms. Florence:
The performance indicators will be impacted if the funding becomes available, and DETR would revise those indicators for FY 2004-2005 based on the increase.
Senator Tiffany:
Can DETR provide the staff with all the information?
Ms. Florence:
Yes, it can.
Senator Tiffany:
When the amounts of the General Fund reversions are compared from FY 1999 to FY 2002, the amounts have increased. What is the reason for the increases?
Ms. Florence:
The reason for the increases in reversions is that positions have been frozen. By not filling positions as they become available, there has been a corresponding decrease in expenditures for client services.
Senator Tiffany:
There is currently nearly $1 million in un-utilized funding, and DETR is now requesting more funding. Will DETR be filling positions and actually be able to use all of the funds?
Martin A. Ramirez, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation:
The Section 110 funding and other federal funds do not revert to the General Fund. The funds are for 2-year intervals, and unobligated dollars are moved forward to the next year. The only funds that actually revert are the General Fund appropriations.
Senator Tiffany:
DETR has General Funds un-utilized, but DETR is asking for more General Funds. Is more money actually needed from the General Fund for the match? Can DETR fully expend the dollars on client services?
Ms. Florence:
If the Governor’s revenue package is passed, if positions do not need to be frozen, and if budget reductions do not need to occur, DETR can fully expend the funds.
Senator Tiffany:
Given those circumstances, how many positions would DETR reinstate to handle client services?
Ms. Florence:
DETR currently has one counselor position vacant in this budget.
Senator Tiffany:
Will one more position make it possible for DETR to spend $1 million?
Ms. Florence:
Currently, there is a counselor and a manager position. The manager will be re‑classified into a counselor position, which will provide two counselors for direct client services, and the funds would be spent.
Senator Tiffany:
Is it possible for two counselors to spend $1 million?
Ms. Florence:
The funds would be distributed to the entire counseling staff.
Senator Tiffany:
How many counselors are on the total counseling staff?
Ms. Florence:
There are 5.5 positions in this budget.
Senator Tiffany:
What additional comments does DETR have on E-325?
Ms. Florence:
The EIPP program was to be funded by the sale of GE stock held in the BSBVI’s gift fund. The approved position was not filled, since the value of the stock has so seriously eroded. The BSBVI is not comfortable in going forward with the project at this time.
Senator Tiffany:
Is BSBVI planning on future implementation of the EIPP?
Ms. Florence:
No, BSBVI will not be going forward with the program.
Senator Tiffany:
How are the students currently being served?
Ms. Florence:
At this time, with funding from the BVR, students between ages 16 and 21 are being served. The EIPP was to serve school-age children at the age 16 threshold. Federal fund use is not permitted below age 16.
Senator Tiffany:
Is DETR currently serving children above 16 with BVR funds?
Ms. Florence:
Yes, that is correct.
Senator Tiffany:
Are you implementing the age 16 to 21 program as a pilot program or is it ongoing?
Ms. Florence:
It is an ongoing program.
Senator Tiffany:
Has DETR looked at other possible funding sources, besides the sale of stock, to serve the school-age children under age 16?
Ms. Florence:
DETR is looking for other sources of funding. New grants may become available. Through President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative, which expands services to children with disabilities, program funding is a possibility.
Senator Tiffany:
Does DETR intend to look for more funds?
Ms. Florence:
If the opportunity is there, DETR will pursue it.
Senator Tiffany:
Can DETR provide an update on the feasibility of merging BVR with BSBVI?
Ms. Florence:
DETR provided the fiscal analyst staff with a status report reflecting activities that have occurred during FY 2001-2003. DETR has combined and standardized policies and procedures through the different bureaus. Case reviews have been completed for both BVR and BSBVI. Some positions have been re-classified to provide direct oversight for both programs. Where it has been administratively possible to integrate the services and management of BVR and BSBVI, it has been done.
DETR has elected to not combine the budgets to assure the blind community its funding will not be absorbed and re-directed to services under the BVR. There is a distinction between the populations to be served.
Senator Tiffany:
Will the BVR and BSBVI ever completely merge?
Ms. Florence:
To the extent DETR can merge the programs, it will be done. However, there is a need to have specialized services for the blind in terms of orientation, mobility instruction, and other specialized skills that do not necessarily relate to the general disabled population.
Senator Tiffany:
Why is being blind different from any other disability? Why are blind people treated separately?
Ms. Florence:
There are distinctions. In many states, a totally separate department handles blind services. The blind community has unique needs that are better served by dedicated funding, which is what DETR is continuing to do. DETR’s objective is to increase counseling services wherever possible through the integration of administrative functions.
Senator Tiffany:
For re-clarification, DETR will not be merging the BVR and BSBVI budgets.
Ms. Florence:
Yes, that is correct. DETR’s recommendation is to keep the budgets separate.
Senator Tiffany:
By merging all other functions, have client services been impacted in any way?
Ms. Florence:
Based on the case reviews and the quality of documentation, the accountability of client services for both programs has improved.
Senator Tiffany:
Is it just administrative functions that have been impacted, and not client services?
Ms. Florence:
Client services have improved due to the standardization of administrative functions.
Senator Tiffany:
How does the reclassification of bureau chief from an unclassified position to a classified position benefit the department?
E-805 Major Reclassifications – Page DETR-73
Ms. Florence:
This request for reclassification is to eliminate confusion. Currently, DETR has four bureau chiefs. Two of these positions are classified and two positions are unclassified. DETR is requesting all four positions be classified.
Senator Tiffany:
Why is it necessary to have all four positions classified?
Ms. Florence:
This action will provide equity among the positions. DETR believes the change will attract better candidates and ensure continuity of service for clients. The reclassification will equalize the positions with other comparable positions throughout the State.
Senator Tiffany:
Why does DETR have four bureau chiefs?
Ms. Florence:
Two of the bureau chiefs are in the Office of Community Based Services. When the office moves to the Department of Human Resources those two bureau chiefs will go there also.
Senator Tiffany:
Are the positions being moved, the ones that are currently unclassified?
Ms. Florence:
Those two positions are classified. The two remaining positions in the division are the ones that are unclassified, and the request is to reclassify those positions.
Senator Tiffany:
Is life skills training being eliminated from the department?
Ms. Florence:
There will be one position remaining to provide life skills training services. The prior position was 100 percent State funded. DETR believes the services can be provided through the remaining position, thereby reducing the impact on the General Fund.
Senator Tiffany:
Is the one position going to serve over 400 clients in life skills training, or do just a percentage of clients receive the training?
Ms. Florence:
The need for life skills training varies over the year. An individual may be served for a 3- to 4-week period, and then the regular staff provides continued support.
Senator Tiffany:
Does a life skills training class require at least 15 participants?
Ms. Florence:
This particular life skills training program is focused on modifications in the kitchen for cooking and other adaptation skills. It is not the traditional life skills training program.
DETR, Equal Rights Commission – Budget Page DETR-80 (Volume 2)
Budget Account 101-2580
Senator Tiffany:
Has the federal funding for the program been approved?
Lynda Parven, Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation:
As of today, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has not approved the funding.
Senator Tiffany:
What is the Nevada Equal Rights Commission’s (NERC) contingency plan?
Mr. Ramirez:
The commission’s contingency plan is to access the General Fund loan that was approved in the 69th Session of the Legislature. It permits the NERC to borrow up to 25 percent of the anticipated federal funding and other non‑General Fund revenue sources. Calculating the amount available for a loan, based on last year’s EEOC contract, it would infuse $120,000 to $130,000 into the program. There is enough immediate cash on hand to handle payroll and operating expenses through April 11, 2003. The agency has been working with the Los Angeles EEOC office to try to “fast-track” the payment voucher for the State.
Senator Tiffany:
Does the NERC have to go to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to get approval for the $125,000 loan?
Mr. Ramirez:
The NERC does not require IFC’s approval. The authorization is mandated by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353. It states the commission’s director can submit a work program to the budget office for approval, and the loan can be processed immediately.
Senator Tiffany:
Do the funds for the loan come from the Fund to Stabilize Operation of State Government?
Mr. Ramirez:
I do not know which fund is used for the loan.
Senator Tiffany:
If the funding is not immediately available from the EEOC, how will some of the open cases be impacted? Will the loan be enough to carry the cases forward?
Mr. Ramirez:
I believe the contract and funding from the EEOC will show up within the next 2 weeks, and the problem will be resolved. The EEOC can make a direct electronic transfer of the contract funds into the NERC’s account. The General Fund loan or advance will be enough to carry the commission through the lag time between the contract approval and the transfer of funds.
Senator Tiffany:
Are other states experiencing the same difficulties?
Mr. Ramirez:
I am sure other states are experiencing the same problems.
Senator Tiffany:
What positions were frozen to meet the Governor’s 3 percent budget reduction request?
Ms. Parven:
There was one position, a compliance investigator in Las Vegas, not filled. To cover the position, the NERC moved in another investigator to serve in an acting capacity.
Senator Tiffany:
What happens if the funding falls short, and funds are not available for the position? Does the agency plan on leaving the position vacant?
Ms. Florence:
If the Governor’s budget is approved, the problem is alleviated.
Senator Tiffany:
What changes has the commission instituted in the processing of discrimination cases that resulted in an increase of case closures by 30 percent in FY 2001‑2002?
Ms. Parven:
The commission has authority for 12 investigators, and 11 of those positions are filled. The commission made dramatic changes to the way cases were being processed. A case management system was instituted. Supervisory case reviews were started. A working manual was developed to provide investigators with a step-by-step method for handling the cases.
Senator Tiffany:
Was this the first time the commission had a policy and procedures manual?
Ms. Florence:
The commission had policy and procedures, but the information was out-dated and seldom followed. Ms. Parven took the administrator’s position 18 months ago and used her prior experience with welfare as a model to develop new policies and procedures.
Senator Tiffany:
If the commission fills two more positions, will the commission be able to process more cases?
Ms. Parven:
Absolutely; on an average, eleven cases a month are closed. The amount of case closures should increase, and the backlog of cases will decrease.
Senator Tiffany:
How much of the backlog will the commission be able to eliminate?
Ms. Parven:
A good portion of the backlog will be cleared, and cases will be closed in 270 days instead of 1500 days.
Senator Rhoads:
What three types of discrimination cases have the largest caseloads?
Ms. Parven:
Title VII caseloads are the largest. These include race, religion, gender, and national origin types of cases, with race having the most. The commission can provide a breakdown by number of each type of case.
Senator Tiffany:
The Legislative auditor made four recommendations to improve the NERC procedures: (1) develop procedures setting forth the guidelines and standards for investigating charges of discrimination; (2) establish case management procedures to control case inventories and track the progress and timeliness of cases; (3) develop procedures for supervising and monitoring cases; and (4) prioritize as outlined in the policy and procedures manual. What is NERC’s status on implementing the recommendations?
Ms. Parven:
The NERC has fully implemented the first three of the four recommendations made by the Legislative auditor. The fourth recommendation concerning the prioritization of discrimination cases will require a change in NRS 233.
Senator Tiffany:
What change in NRS 233 is required?
Ms. Parven:
The statute currently states an informal settlement meeting must be held on every case that is filed, and a full investigation is required. The system, known as “charge prioritization” used by the EEOC, will help reduce frivolous cases and direct more effort to valid claims. An A-B-C case rating system is used. A “C‑rated” case is of lowest priority and deemed to be frivolous. “A- and B‑ rated” cases are considered to be valid claims.
Ms. Florence:
The statutory changes to authorize prioritization of discrimination cases were submitted by the NERC in Bill Draft Request (BDR) 18-475.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 18-475: Makes various changes to provisions governing the Equal Rights Commission. (Later introduced as Senate Bill (S.B.) 450.)
SENATE BILL 450: Makes various changes to provisions governing Nevada Equal Rights Commission. (BDR 18-475)
Senator Tiffany:
What committee will be hearing S.B. 450?
Ms. Florence:
Government affairs will be hearing S.B. 450.
Senator Coffin:
The NERC used to be plagued with lawsuits within the commission itself. How many cases are still outstanding against the commission?
Ms. Florence:
The issues resulting in the cases referred to were well before Ms. Parven became the NERC administrator. The issues have been resolved. The staff currently has very high morale, congeniality, and job commitment. There is one case outstanding, and the Ninth Circuit Court is hearing it.
Senator Tiffany:
What check and balance system will the NERC put in place for determining if cases are actually frivolous and not valid claims?
Ms. Parven:
Training will be provided by the EEOC since it deals with the same issues. Basically, the intake person would make the first determination of validity. The case then goes to a supervisory level if the case is rated a C. If the case is rated an A or B, the investigation would go ahead because valid claims are represented.
Senator Tiffany:
Are the A, B, and C case ratings well defined?
Ms. Parven:
Yes, the ratings are well defined using EEOC’s guidelines. One person will never make a case rating decision. The intake person makes the first decision on rating, which is checked by the supervisor. A letter then goes out to the person who filed the claim to provide more information to the NERC.
Senator Tiffany:
The meeting is adjourned at 7:53 a.m.
Judy Coolbaugh,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Chairman
DATE: