MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 14, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, Chairman Bache presiding in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman - excused GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Barbara Buckley, District 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denise Miller OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Michell Cohen, Deputy District Attorney Mr. Jeffrey Fisher, Attorney for Clark County Park Ranger Asso. Mr. Roy Michael, President/Clark County Park Ranger Employees Asso. Mr. Andy Anderson, President/Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs Mr. Lawrence McCullough, attorney Mr. Gil Montoya, President/Police Officers Association of the Clark County School District Ms. Ann Golanka, President/Southern Nevada Chapter of NOW Mr. Mark Balen, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada Danny Thompson, NV St AFL-CIO Assemblyman Barbara Buckley Ms. N. J. Pettit, employee of Community College of southern Nevada working with special population students Ms. Tracy Wilson, student Ms. Kim Beyers, student Mr. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director/SNEA Mr. Sam McMullen, Western Folklife Center Mr. Marvin Levitt ASSEMBLY BILL 142 - Revises provisions governing submission of employment disputes to arbitration. Mr. Mitchell Cohen, Deputy District Attorney for the Clark County District Attorney's Office, stated A.B. 142 was submitted at the request of Clark County. An amendment was requested to clarify the provisions of NRS 288.2l5, the statute governing the procedures for the arbitration of labor disputes between firemen or policemen and their local government employers. Mr. Cohen's written testimony in support of A.B. 142 is shown as (Exhibit C). Mrs. Lambert queried which categories were post certified and Mr. Cohen agreed to provide that information to the committee. Mr. Jeffrey Fisher, Attorney for Clark County Park Rangers Employees Association, speaking in opposition to A.B. 142, submitted a copy of the petition for a declaratory order (Exhibit D) which had been taken to the Employee-Management Relations Board. A.B. 142, according to Mr. Fisher, would reverse the decision of the EMRB and would withdraw police officer status from the Las Vegas city unit that is represented by the professional police officers. Therefore, he requested the bill be defeated in committee. Mr. Roy Michael, President of the Clark County Park Rangers Employees Association, reiterated remarks by Mr. Fisher, adding that rangers were post- certified officers with police officer status. Duties were to patrol facilities, deter, detect and investigate crimes committed in county parks as well as maintain responsibity for the safety of citizens within those facilities. He expressed fear that arbitration would be taken away from park rangers if A.B. 142 was passed and requested committee opposition to the bill. During ensuing committee discussion Mr. Fisher emphasized A.B. 142 was an attempt to strip park rangers of their police officer status under the local Government Employee Management Relations Act. He further explained they had always been an historically separate bargaining unit and if any sort of justice was to be achieved in collective bargaining they would need to have the availability of the enhanced dispute resolution procedures; otherwise they would be at the mercy of management. Responding to Mr. Bennet's inquiry as to membership, Mr. Michael said there were currently fourteen park ranger members in the union. Mr. Andy Anderson, President/Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, speaking in opposition to A.B. 142, stated the important questions pertaining to the bill were the definition of a police officer and the need or benefit of "last best arbitration". Under the proposed A.B. 142, the definition would exclude approximately 300 members of the metropolitan police department correction officers out of the "last best offer" concept. It would also take out approximately 142 city commissioned officers that were not police officers per se, although their duties were similar. Responding to Mr. Bennett's inquiry as to the wording in the bill, Mr. Anderson said a clarification would be in Line 10: If the words "police officers" were changed to "peace officers", that would eliminate any police vs. non-police. "We've got people out here that are called marshals that do the same thing as police. I think the lines l2 through 15 could be eliminated...keep the original language and change the police officer to `peace officer' and that would incorporate park rangers, incorporate corrections officers, and we don't have this distinction between a corrections officer and a police officer. We're all basically peace officers and it's our duty to enforce the laws." Mr. Harrington questioned the thinking behind granting teachers, firemen and police officers the "last best offer" and denying it to other county and city employees. The rationale under the "last best offer", according to Mr. Anderson, was to speed up the process, having specific time frames where disputes could be resolved quicker. Chairman Bache read through a list of officers. All stood to oppose A.B. 142. Mr. Lawrence McCullough, attorney, targeted A.B. 142 as special interest legislation. In his opinion a dangerous precedent was being set for the arbitration process which would remove a working arbitration tool designed to provide a more level playing field in the negotiation process for collective bargaining agreements. He emphasized it was a special interest attempt to narrowly define those who could participate in arbitration. Mr. Bache read a subsequent list of officers. Each one stated opposition to A.B. 142. Mr. Gil Montoya, President of the Police Officers Association of the Clark County School District, expressed the group's opposition to A.B. 142 and support for the Clark County Park Rangers. Ms. Ann Golonka, President/Southern Nevada Chapter of the National Organization for Women said she believed A.B. 142 was designed as a legislative solution to a specific labor problem with no regard for the havoc it would create in other people's lives. She urged defeat of A.B. 142. More names were read by Mr. Bache. All expressed opposition to A.B. 142. Mr. Mark Balen, representing the professional fire fighters of Nevada, strongly opposed any change in NRS 288.215 that would create changes in their bargaining bill. Mr. Danny Thompson, representing NV State AFL-CIO, also expressed opposition and stated passage of A.B. 142 would be a step back in the wrong direction. For further clarification, Mr. Cohen disagreed with Mr. Fisher's indication that the EMRB's decision probably would not be extended to any group beyond park rangers. The EMRB held that virtually anything became a law enforcement agency. They held that the employees of the Clark County Department of Parks and Recreation, which is what the Park Rangers are, were a unit of law enforcement. They relied on a statute passed last year (NRS 280.125) which held that because a metropolitan police department exists and was the sole law enforcement agency for the participating entities, those entities could have other specialized units of law enforcement. Mr. Cohen maintained the last best offer process had the advantage of speed but also had the disadvantage of having groups completely short circuit the negotiating process and go directly to fact finding. The County was not against arbitration. There was a general arbitration procedure which most local government employees follow quite successfully. If the parties were truly unable to resolve their grievances, there was the possibility of having an arbitrator resolve it for them. However, he stated they were in favor of negotiation and having the parties try to work through their differences. Mr. Mike Sheldon, Director/Department of Dentention and Enforcement for City of Las Vegas, expressed his strong opposition for A.B. 142 and deemed the last best offer as one of the best negotiating tools for labor and management. ASSEMBLY BILL 107 - Revises provisions governing temporary appointment of certain state employees. Assemblyman Barbara Buckley gave a brief overview of A.B. 107 and discussed the proposed language changes. She noted the change was mentioned to her by N.J. Pettit, an employee of the Community College in southern Nevada. Ms. Pettit had indicated individuals with disabilities at the college needed special assistance such as note takers, individuals to read books to blind students, etc, and once that individual rendered aid for 160 hours the person had to be terminated and another individual found, even if in the middle of providing assistance. Ms. N. J. Pettit explained she and twenty five administrators were sitting in wheelchairs presently in order to identify better with disabled individuals. She expressed a problem in not being able to hire non-student employees to serve as sign interpreters for the deaf, readers for the visually impaired, etc. due to the fact that employees can only work 160 hours. This was also a problem in the tutoring lab with high demand in such subjects as math, science and english. Ms. Pettit emphasized the fact that money for these services was already available either through federal grants or state money already in the budget. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Bennett, Ms. Buckley said to the best of her knowledge the amendment would not require payment of benefits because of the additional hours someone would be allowed to work. Ms. Buckley identified two students who would benefit from the passage of A.B. 107. Ms. Tracy Watson, with a hearing disability, told the committee she was majoring in business management and had been without an interpreter for her last two classes and needed help so she would not fail. Ms. Kim Beyers explained they sometimes have to wait two weeks for a note taker and when forced to take notes themselves, they fall behind. Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of SNEA, responding to a question concerning benefits, said a person must work 40 hours a week or more in order to be eligible for the state's health insurance package. Since there was no further testimony, Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 107. ASSEMBLY BILL 80 - Revises provisions governing certain grants of financial assistance made by commission for cultural affairs. Mrs. Segerblom explained A.B. 80 was a re-run of a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Marvel for the purpose of preserving Nevada's culture and historic places. The bill calls for $20 million over a period of l0 years and in no year may there be no more than $2 million spent. The list of organizations and projects are submitted under (Exhibit E). Committee discussion ensued. Mr. Bache alerted the committee that A.B. 80 was duly applied to Ways and Means and they would handle the money part of the equation. Mr. Sam McMullen, speaking in support of A.B. 80, expressed thanks from the Western Folklife Center and discussed the history of the bill. Positions on the Cultural Commission, he explained, were by virtue of the office held in trying to obtain a range of expertise across the board so that people would have the ability to evaluate what was truly a cultural or proper expenditure for the funds. Mr. Bennett said he would like to see something more specific and spelled out more on the lines of capital expenditures. Mr. Marvin Levitt, at the request of Mrs. Segerblom, gave an explanation of the bonding mechanism. He explained the bond laws as related to the state were contained in Chapter 349 of the NRS. He noted that the bill called for the issuance cost of the debt be paid from the proceeds of the bond. Since there was no further testimony Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 80. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Christine Shaw, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 14, 1995 Page