MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 30, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 30, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada; Mr. Douglas D. Dirks, General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System; Ms. Gayle M. Sherman, Chief of Benefit Services, State Industrial Insurance System; Ms. Susan Dunt, Workers' Compensation Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Nevada; Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association; Mr. Randy Day, Nevada Commissioner for Veterans Affairs (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. A.B. 346 - Authorizes state industrial insurance system to certify qualifications of persons with disabilities for certain state employment. Ms. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada, testified. She advised A.B. 346 would amend NRS 284.327, which allowed disabled persons to be appointed to classified state positions for a period of 700 hours, without being required to take a competitive examination. She stated, if such an individual successfully performed his job, the 700 hour period would be applied toward the probationary period required for the position and the individual could be retained in that position and attain the status of a permanent employee. Ms. Willis said, currently, only the rehabilitation division of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation could "...certify 700 hour clients." She referred to line 4, on page 1 of A.B. 346, and explained the language contained thereon would allow the State Industrial Insurance System (hereinafter referred to as SIIS), also, to refer individuals for the program. She said, presently, SIIS was required to refer its clients to the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation's Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation which could then refer those clients to the Department of Personnel. Ms. Willis contended A.B. 346 would facilitate appointment of injured workers (to classified positions with the state) and would streamline the process of such appointments by eliminating the requirement that SIIS refer its clients to the Personnel Department through the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. Assemblyman Bennett asked if Ms. Willis anticipated a deluge of referrals from SIIS. Ms. Willis replied she did not. She advised the Department of Personnel already dealt with SIIS' clients but said, because of bureaucracy, those clients were required to go through the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation in order to be referred to the Department of Personnel. Mr. Douglas D. Dirks, General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System, introduced Ms. Gayle M. Sherman, Chief of Benefit Services, State Industrial Insurance System, who then testified. Ms. Sherman addressed Assemblyman Bennett's question and stated the number of individuals who would be eligible for the 700 hour program, through SIIS, would be limited. She indicated, in order to qualify for the 700 hour program, an individual must be sufficiently disabled to be unable to compete in the testing process (for state positions). She advised such individuals were few in number. Chairman Bache asked what percentage of permanent, partial disability individuals who qualified for the 700 hour program would have. Ms. Sherman replied the percentage of permanent, partial disability such individuals had would vary. She used as an example an individual with a back injury. She advised such an individual's percentage of disability might be between six percent and fifteen percent but suggested chronic pain might impact the individual's ability to take tests. She suggested individuals who were blind, deaf or had lost a limb would be apt to have a percentage of disability in excess of 25 to 30 percent. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 346. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 354 - Authorizes director of department of personnel to adopt certain regulations regarding noncompetitive appointments of employees with certain disabilities. Ms. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada, testified. She stated A.B. 354 would amend NRS 284.305, which listed those instances in which jobs in the state's classified service could be filled without competition. She referred to lines 9 through 12 of A.B. 354 and indicated the purpose of the language contained therein was to add a provision which would cause NRS 284.305 to apply to state employees, certified by SIIS as having a permanent, partial disability, who, because of the severity of their disabilities could not return to the positions they held prior to being injured. She stated such an employee would be required to meet the qualifications for any position he sought and such position could be of the same grade or of a lower grade than the position he held prior to being injured. Ms. Willis advised the names of qualified individuals would be placed on appropriate hiring lists and certified to agencies as vacancies occurred within those agencies. She said, because they were being considered for reemployment, those individuals would receive preference in the hiring process. She stated, "The other types of appointments that are listed there are optional or at the discretion of the hiring agency." Ms. Willis contended expanding the existing statute to cover disabled employees who could not return to the positions they held prior to being injured could aid those employees in recovering from their injuries, would provide a streamlined process by which to return employees to work, and would create a benefit to the state by reducing workers' compensation expenses associated with providing injured employees with rehabilitative services and income maintenance benefits. She advised the proposal to cover such disabled employees under the existing statute was consistent with the Governor's executive order regarding workplace health and safety, which directed the executive branch of state government to be aggressive in pursuing a return-to-work policy. Assemblyman Lambert questioned whether or not the language contained on lines 9 through 12 was clear. She asked whether an individual who had a permanent, partial disability and who was able to remain in his present position would be able to seek a different position under the provision being discussed. Ms. Willis replied he would not. Mrs. Lambert asked whether Ms. Willis was certain the language being discussed was sufficiently clear to prevent an individual from doing so. Ms. Willis advised subsection 2 of Section 1 of A.B. 354 allowed the Department of Personnel to adopt regulations governing demotion, reemployment and reappointment of personnel and indicated the concern expressed by Mrs. Lambert would be dealt with through regulations. She explained, if an injured employee was able to return to the position he held prior to being injured, NRS 284.305 would not apply to him. Chairman Bache asked how many employees were being discussed and what employment areas those employees would come from. Ms. Willis deferred to Ms. Sherman to answer Chairman Bache's question. Ms. Gayle M. Sherman, Chief of Benefit Services, State Industrial Insurance System, testified. In response to Chairman Bache's question, Ms. Sherman advised, over the past two years, statewide, approximately 80 state employees were injured and unable to return to the type of employment they held prior to being injured. She said those state agencies which had injured employees who were unable to return to their previous positions were agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the University of Nevada - Reno, the Department of Prisons and other agencies which had a large number of positions requiring a high degree of physical ability but few sedentary positions. Ms. Sherman explained, at the present time, when an injured state employee was unable to return to his pre-injury position, it was necessary to retrain him and to find a job for him in private industry. She contended many such individuals were long-term state employees who had a vested interest in maintaining employment with the state and who were good employees. She contended A.B. 354 would enable such employees to retain employment with the state. Assemblyman Nolan asked whether the reemployment program being discussed was voluntary. Ms. Sherman replied affirmatively. Ms. Susan Dunt, Workers' Compensation Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, State of Nevada, testified. She said the Risk Management Division supported A.B. 354 as a means to complete the division's efforts to develop a policy for its early return to work program. She indicated, pursuant to the Governor's executive order, the Risk Management Division had been working with the Department of Personnel and SIIS to develop procedures both for returning injured state employees to work on a temporary, modified-duty basis and for returning such employees to permanent employment in different positions than the ones they previously held when they were unable to return to the positions they held before they were injured. Ms. Dunt said the Risk Management Division had encountered a roadblock in its attempts to ensure that employees with permanent disabilities were able to return to jobs for which they qualified. She advised, under current procedures, the Risk Management Division could only request state agencies to interview such employees. She indicated, sometimes, those agencies were concerned about hiring an employee with a prior injury and it was, sometimes, difficult to persuade them to do so. She contended the provisions of A.B. 354 would provide consistency and fairness in attempts to return injured employees to state employment. Ms. Dunt said the Department of Transportation, Department of Prisons and Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Divisions of the Department of Human Resources tended to be the agencies which had the greatest difficulty in returning injured employees to their former positions. She stated the Risk Management Division was also challenged to find alternative positions for employees, engaged in secretarial functions, who developed Carpel Tunnel Syndrome. Ms. Dunt advised, currently, injured state employees who were rehired by a state agency had no probationary period and said, "...within this regulatory process, we would hope to instill a probationary period so that an agency would feel that they had some flexibility if...that employee did not work out for them." Ms. Dunt suggested A.B. 354 would provide an additional tool with which to both provide a service for state employees and control workers' compensation costs. She contended for the state to pay to have injured workers rehabilitated in private industry jobs was not cost effective. Chairman Bache asked whether Ms. Dunt anticipated the probationary period for injured workers rehired by the state would be the same as that for new employees. Ms. Dunt replied she did not believe the probationary period had been determined and said that was something which would need to be addressed in the regulatory process. Mr. Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified. He said, "We would like to go on record as supporting this bill." He stated, prior to action taken by the last legislature, a number of state agencies had no such thing as "light duty" and specifically prohibited it. He advised, in the last legislative session, legislation was passed which led to the Governor's executive order to which previous witnesses had referred and those agencies were now required to attempt to find light duty (for injured employees). Mr. Gagnier declared, when it became time to adopt regulations, the State of Nevada Employees Association would oppose the probationary period referred to by Ms. Dunt. Assemblyman Freeman commented she believed legislators had a responsibility to ensure, when the legislature sent bills to regulatory agencies, those agencies had precise knowledge of the legislature's intent. She suggested it would be advisable to clarify the legislature's intent prior to passing A.B. 354. Assemblyman Krenzer asked whether regulations created as a result of A.B. 354 would have to provide for a probationary period. Mr. Gagnier replied it was not mandatory they do so but it appeared someone intended to propose there be a probationary period. Mrs. Krenzer suggested, if an employee was being rehired to do a job entirely different from the one he had previously done, a probationary period might be needed. Mr. Gagnier indicated the state's reemployment regulations contained a provision whereby a state agency could get a waiver from the Governor to allow it not to rehire an individual who ranked high on the reemployment list whom it did not wish to hire. Ms. Willis gave further testimony. She indicated she wished to respond to the comments concerning a probationary period. She indicated a probationary period (for employees who fell under the provisions of A.B. 354) would be similar to the probationary period for an employee who had been laid off. She said an individual (who had been laid off) who was named on a reemployment list must be hired unless the Governor issued a waiver. She advised individuals were placed on reemployment lists for any positions for which they qualified which were at or below the grade level of the positions they held at the time they were employed. Ms. Willis explained such positions could entail work those employees had never done before which was the reason a probationary period was provided. She said discussions had not yet been held regarding whether a probationary period would be required for employees who fell under the provisions of A.B. 354 or the conditions of such a probationary period but contended, under certain circumstances, there would be a reason to require a probationary period. Mr. Bache asked the length of the current probationary period for rehired employees. Ms. Willis replied the probationary period was either six months or one year depending on the grade level of the position for which an employee was rehired. Mrs. Segerblom asked if all state employees had a probationary period. Ms. Willis replied all classified employees did. Mrs. Krenzer commented she would not wish to see an individual who had been employed by the state for fifteen years be required to pass an additional one year probationary period. She suggested, even if an employee was rehired for an entirely different position from the one which he formerly held, he must have had some experience related to the new position in order to have qualified to be hired for it. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 354. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 357 - Defines "veteran" for purposes of provision governing preference points for veterans in competitive examinations for state employment. Ms. Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, State of Nevada, testified. She submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 357 (Exhibit C). She explained A.B. 357 would amend NRS 284.260, which provided extra points be given to veterans, disabled veterans and widows of veterans who took civil service examinations. She advised five points were added to the score of a veteran who successfully competed in a civil service examination, 10 points were added to the score of a disabled veteran and five points were added to the score of the widow of a veteran. She said, often, those points made a difference in whether or not a veteran, a disabled veteran or the widow of a veteran was eligible for a job. Ms. Willis stated, currently, NRS 284.260 contained no definition of "veteran" and said anyone who had been in the military service and who had not been dishonorably discharged must be given veteran's points. She referred to lines 12 and 13 of A.B. 357 and advised it was proposed true veterans be recognized by using federal criteria to define the term "veteran." She explained those criteria included that an individual must: have served more than 180 days in military service; have a service connected disability; or have been activated as a reservist during war or during a campaign similar to Desert Storm. She contended it was unfair to both veterans and nonveterans who applied for state jobs not to define the term "veteran." She said it created confusion when the state applied different standards than those applied by the federal government to something which was in fact a federal responsibility. Mrs. Freeman asked if local governments used the same guidelines as the state used with respect to giving extra examination points to veterans. Ms. Willis said she knew of no requirement by the state that local governments provide veterans the same preference the state provided. She explained NRS 284.260 pertained only to classified employees of the state. Mr. Bennett asked the total number of points it was possible to obtain on a civil service examination. Ms. Willis replied 115 points. Mr. Bennett asked if A.B. 357 provided the possibility of an individual receiving an additional 15 points. Ms. Willis indicated A.B. 357 did not provide additional points but merely defined who could receive the additional points which were already allowed. She said, currently, additional points were given to individuals who, it was felt, did not qualify as veterans. Chairman Bache asked whether the 115 points it was possible to obtain on a civil service examination consisted of 100 points for the examination itself plus the additional points allowed to individuals who were either residents of Nevada or veterans. Ms. Willis responded affirmatively. Mr. Randy Day, Nevada Commissioner for Veterans Affairs, testified. He indicated he perceived no problems with A.B. 357 although, he suggested, there might be some confusion regarding individuals who participated in the military reserves for training purposes only. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 357. Chairman Bache called for a motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of the committee through March 13, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED THE COMMITTEE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. A.B. 346 - Authorizes state industrial insurance system to certify qualifications of persons with disabilities for certain state employment. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED DO PASS A.B. 346. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 357 - Defines "veteran" for purposes of provision governing preference points for veterans in competitive examinations for state employment. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED DO PASS A.B. 357. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Williams commented he believed A.B. 357 to be a good affirmative action bill. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 8:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs March 30, 1995 Page