MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	April 24, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:05 a.m., on 
Monday, April 24, 1995, Chairman 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
Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple
Mr. Wendell P. Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association; Dennis Healy, Nevada 
	Correctional Association; Carol Thomas, Department of Personnel; Thom 
	Reilly, Department of Human Resources; Ruth Hart, citizen; Norton Pickett, 
	Dept. Of Business and Industry; Gary Yoes, SEIU; Sgt. Gary Wolf, Nevada 
	Highway Patrol Association; Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance 

ASSEMBLY BILL 379 - Increases amount of longevity payments to state employees 
and requires state agencies to pay fees for issuance or renewal of certain licenses 
required of certain state employees. (BDR 23-325)

Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), spoke in favor of 
A.B. 379.  The bill was introduced at the request of SNEA.   He noted the fiscal 
note in the book was incorrect and was actually the fiscal note for another bill, A.B. 
390.  The fiscal note was considerably less for A.B. 379.

The bill touches upon two issues and was in committee last session, Mr. Gagnier 
stated.  The first issue was licensing and the second was longevity pay.  They are 
both in the same bill because there were a limited number of bill drafts allowed and 
so they were combined.  

The first section of the bill deals with licensing.  The attempt was to recognize 
there are a number of employees who are required to have licensing or certification 
who did not have such a requirement when they came to work so there is an added 
expense but is no additional compensation for these people.  All of the highway 
maintenance employees and some of the maintenance people at the Department 
of Prisons are now required by the federal government to have commercial driver's 
licenses.  The cost for a first time license of this type is $100.  This bill would 
allow reimbursement for that license.  When this measure was sent to the Ways 
and Means committee in the last session, one of the problems was that it would 
affect doctors so there was an attempt to delete that portion of the bill.  Social 
worker certification was added a few years ago and that is another $100 that 
employees have to pay.  SNEA feels this needs to be reimbursed for the 
psychologists, social workers and those who are required to have a commercial 
driver's license.  There was a suggestion made to specify those who would be 
included in this measure and SNEA would have no trouble with that at all.

Section two of the bill was the proposal to increase the longevity pay for state 
employees.  Mr. Gagnier stated the amounts contained in NRS 284.177 for 
longevity pay have never been increased since the law was enacted in 1973.  Over 
20 years, these amounts have remained the same.  These are flat dollar amounts, 
not percentages.  He passed out a list showing the amount of longevity pay 
received for employees' years of service (Exhibit C).  Another handout reflected the 
results of a 1992 survey on fringe benefits (Exhibit D), showing average longevity 
pay for all Nevada cities and counties.  Nevada state employees were the lowest 
paid group in terms of fringe benefits in the entire state.  Currently, it is impossible 
to know the exact fiscal impact of this measure because the fiscal note is incorrect 
and the right one is missing.  Mr. Gagnier's rough estimate was about $250,000.

Assemblyman Ernaut wanted to give the committee a cost estimate.  He said for 
20 years of continuous service, one would receive $900 extra per year in two 
$450 payments.  Mr. Gagnier answered yes, under this bill.  At the present time 
it is less.  

Assemblyman Bennett asked what was the average length of service for a state 
employee.  Mr. Gagnier could not answer that exactly but suggested the 
Department of Personnel could.  He said it takes seven years to reach the top of 
the pay scale.  After that, they are topped out and no longer receive merit salary 
increases each year.  A little over 40% of current state employees are topped out, 
indicating that percentage of employees have in excess of seven years of service. 
 Mr. Bennett questioned whether people were being promoted from within.  Mr. 
Gagnier replied an employee who was promoted would normally go up two pay 
grades which is approximately 8.8%.  The promotional policy of the state has 
changed over the last few years.  

Assemblyman Neighbors was surprised Nye County was not included on the green 
sheet (Exhibit D).  In Nye County if a person retires or has 20 years of service, on 
their longevity pay scale the retiree would receive $4,000 per year; $2,000 a year 
for 10 years.  More important in rural areas, Mr. Neighbors had found when people 
were paid well and were trained they deserved the longevity pay they received.  
 Mr. Gagnier indicated the choice of governmental entities in the survey was made 
by the Department of Personnel, not SNEA.

Assemblyman Segerblom asked if commercial driver's licenses were issued without 
regard to what department they were working in.  Mr. Gagnier stated they were 
issued to individuals.  Mrs. Segerblom questioned if the state paid for the 
commercial license, would the employee give it up if they left state service.  No, 
Mr. Gagnier answered, it would be their license.  He also said there were a lot of 
very severe restrictions on employees required to have commercial licenses.  As an 
example they are now subject to random drug testing, despite Nevada law to the 
contrary.  If they are picked up for driving under the influence, they have a much 
lower blood alcohol rate allowed and would have their license revoked.

Mr. Ernaut stated a physical examination was required to obtain a commercial 
driver's license every two years and upon renewal of the license each time.  


Mr. Bennett questioned whether employees required to have commercial licenses 
were at a higher pay grade than other employees.  Mr. Gagnier said no, they were 
not.  Most of the people in state government who are required to have commercial 
driver's licenses are paid less than the average state employee.  Mr. Bennett 
wanted documentation for this. Mr. Gagnier was happy to oblige.

Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director for the Department of Human Resources, 
indicated the department was in favor of the bill as long as there was an 
appropriation attached to it.  The estimate on the licensure for the department 
would be approximately $82,000.  

Assemblyman Tripple referred to section one and asked if it could be inferred to pay 
for other licenses or certificates.  In Mr. Reilly's department, it would include an 
array of services such as social workers, mental health technicians, pharmacists, 
nurses and so forth.  Ms. Tripple went back to Mr. Bennett's observation and said 
those employees tend to be the ones with higher salaries.  Ms. Tripple wondered 
if it would include university professors as well. 

Mr. Gagnier said it would not apply to university academicians; it only applies to 
employees in classified service.

Carol Thomas, State Personnel, remarked they neither supported nor opposed these 
bills.  There would be a significant fiscal impact which has not been included in the 
executive budget.

Chairman Bache queried the whereabouts of the fiscal note for A.B. 379.  Ms. 
Thomas was not sure.  It was prepared but she did not know where it was.  Mr. 
Bache wanted to know if she had an idea of how much the fiscal note would be. 
 Ms. Thomas said for the licensure part the projected annual cost would be about 
$48,000 for initial licensure and approximately $64,000 for renewals.  For the 
longevity increase, the projected cost would be $855,000 for fiscal year 1996.  
That would go up to about $885,000 for fiscal year 1997.  

Mr. Ernaut said he did not follow the numbers.  Using simple math, he figured 
approximately 6,000 people were receiving longevity pay.  He felt that was high. 
 Ms. Thomas indicated in the last December payment there were 5,504 employees 
statewide who received longevity payments and that was 200 more than the 
payment before that.  Mr. Ernaut referred to Exhibit D and said if you take $158 
and times it by 5,504 employees, the result still would not be anywhere near 
$885,000.  Ms. Thomas replied this figure would be the increase in the amount of 
longevity paid last year.  The total amount last year was close to 3 million dollars. 
 This would increase that payment by $855,000 per year.  Mr. Ernaut still felt 
something did not add up between the state employees' records and her records. 
 She did not average out the amount each employee would receive.  Mr. Ernaut 
wanted to delve into the issue a bit more.

Mr. Bennett questioned if longevity pay was like a cash bonus or was it figured into 
the rest of an employee's benefits.  Ms. Thomas said it was like a bonus.

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, supported the longevity 
increase for state employees.  The universities and community colleges could not 
function without the essential employees who have been around a long time and 
are topped out in their grade.  He felt this would be money well spent for agencies 
to retain well-trained employees.

Dennis Healy, an associate with the law firm of Walter Tarantino in Carson City, 
 mentioned they represented a lot of state associations and wholeheartedly added 
their support for the bill.      

Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator for Service Employees International Union, 
demonstrated their solidarity with SNEA and recommended the bill to the full 
Assembly for passage.

Ruth Hart, a retired state employee, had one job classification for many years.  
When she topped out, she remained for twelve more years.  During that time, the 
only raises she received were the longevity payments twice a year.  She urged the 
minimum increase in longevity payments for state employees.

Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 379.

ASSEMBLY BILL 455 - Revises provisions governing sick leave for state employees. 
(BDR 23-800)

Dennis Healy, representing Nevada Corrections Association, spoke in favor of A.B. 
455.  He said the bill was revising provisions governing sick leave for state 
employees.  This would be a valuable bill to pass for all state employees.  Under 
the current system, after 90 working days of sick leave are accumulated, the 
amount of additional unused sick leave which he is entitled to carry forward to the 
next year is limited to one-half of the unused sick leave accrued in that year.  This 
bill would change that figure to 180 days of sick leave.  Upon retirement, currently 
an employee is entitled to be paid for unused sick leave in excess of 30 days.  This 
bill would allow the employee to be paid for all of the leave, including the 30 days. 
 Mr. Healy expressed how demoralizing it was for employees to work hard in state 
service, earn sick leave, not abuse the system and then have it taken away for no 
particular reason.


Lines 19-26 of the bill would lower the number of years of service required to be 
paid certain amounts of money.  These amounts would also be increased 
proportionately.  A state employee is vested after five years of service and is 
eligible for retirement benefits upon retirement.  This bill would bring the terms of 
sick leave reimbursement into line with that provision.  There is a cap on the 
reimbursement for each span of years of service so it is not open-ended.  All the 
caps would be increased by one-third.   

Sergeant Gary Wolf, Nevada Highway Patrol, spoke in favor of the bill.  He agreed 
with Mr. Healy.  He explained the concern of the Highway Patrol was the inability 
to replace officers in the event of serious illness or accident.  If a patrolman 
becomes ill or injured and has to remain on sick leave six or seven months, this bill 
would allow payment to this individual who could then leave service and then a 
new employee could be hired.  If they are unable to replace these people, as is the 
current practice, it creates an undue burden on the agency.

Mr. Healy felt this would also help alleviate any unjust use of sick leave by 
employees who want to burn it off rather than let the state take it.

Mr. Ernaut was not sure he agreed with the last statement on work ethics.  He felt 
the intent of the bill was good and it gave people incentive.  He did not understand 
lines 19-26 being calculated by the number of years of service.  He felt it should 
be calculated simply by how many sick days have been accumulated.  Mr. Healy 
agreed.  Mr. Ernaut said fairness and incentive to not abuse sick leave were the 
objectives of the bill and number of years of service should not enter into it.  Mr. 
Healy agreed once again.

Mr. Bennett asked if the Highway Patrol had long term disability.  Mr. Wolf 
answered only if they purchased that type of insurance from the private sector.  
The only provision available to state employees was SIIS.  Mr. Bennett questioned 
how long it took for SIIS to become effective.  Mr. Wolf replied one week.  He said 
the problem was not so much on-the-job injuries but illness, heart attacks and 
things of that nature.  This provision would act like a buy-out by paying the 
employee for unused sick leave and allowing replacement of the position.

Mr. Neighbors said when people call in sick, many times people are called back in 
and then they have to be paid overtime for the call-back duty.  This is not cost 
effective.  Mr. Wolf said this has happened and troopers have been called back and 
have had to work overtime; this has been costly.  Mr. Neighbors cited an example 
in Clark County where an employee could be rewarded with an extra day of annual 
leave for using a minimal amount of sick leave.


Carol Thomas was not opposed to the bill but wanted to make the committee 
aware of the fiscal impact.

Mr. Bache did not have a fiscal note on A.B. 455 and asked what it would be.  Ms. 
Thomas indicated approximately $780,000.  That would increase annually to about 
2 million dollars. Mr. Bache queried if there were regulations dictating the amount 
per day that would be paid for accrued sick leave. Ms.Thomas responded 1 1/4 
days per month were accrued for sick leave.  Currently an employee is only paid for 
accrued hours in excess of 240 hours.  Mr. Bache understood that but the cap for 
10 years of service would be $2,500 and if someone had 60 days of sick leave left 
as opposed to 90 days of sick leave left would they receive differing amounts and 
what would that break down to per day.  Ms. Thomas said the amount over 240 
hours would be paid according to their wage at the time of leave up to the cap.  If 
both those employees reached that cap they would receive the same amount.

Assemblyman Lambert expanded on Mr. Bache's question and queried when the 
employee is either terminated or retired and is paid, they are paid the amount of 
their salary at that time, rather than when the sick leave was accrued.  Ms. Thomas 
answered in the affirmative.


Norton Pickett, Chief Administrator for Mine Safety in Nevada, echoed some of the 
comments already made.  He stressed the positive aspects of incentive factor for 
individuals to come to work when they do not feel perfectly well and for those who 
have worked a long time.  As a supervisor for the state of Nevada for many years, 
Mr. Pickett has experienced many of the things Sgt. Wolf spoke of.  As people 
approach retirement age, he said, maladies of various kinds set in and rather than 
lose money or be subjected to the flat rate, some individuals have a tendency to 
use their sick leave because they know they will not receive benefits except the flat 
rate.  That is based on an hourly rating.  If an employee has accrued sick leave into 
the hundreds or thousands of hours and they know they will only be compensated 
for some of it, they tend to use it.  The average hours of sick leave equates to 662 
hours worth of benefits paid.  If the 240 hours are deducted, that amount is 
reduced considerably.  Rather than a flat cap buy out, perhaps a percentage of the 
base rate of pay that the person had earned sick leave under should be used to 
compensate the individual at the time of their retirement from state service.  The 
average compensation for accrued sick leave last year was $4,472.  The projection 
for this year would be $561,829.  A flat 25% of the base pay would be 
considerably less than what is being paid now and yet would create the incentive 
for an individual to not use sick leave unnecessarily and build it up for a buy out at 
the time of retirement.  If the figure was increased from 25% to 33% that would 
still equate to less than the average pay out under the present structure.

Mr. Bennett asked if an employee burned more than three consecutive days did 
they have to get a medical excuse to return to work.  Mr. Pickett indicated there 
was a provision in the bill to penalize an employee who deliberately abuses sick 
leave.  There are those who abuse the system and those who do not.  Those who 
do not, Mr. Pickett said, should be rewarded somehow.  Abuses generate hidden 
costs.  


Mr. Ernaut said that while he supported the concept of the bill, he cautioned 
against the argument that people were going to use sick leave inappropriately.  He 
said that was the worst stereotype of state workers and a disservice to them and 
their supervisors.  Quite frankly, Mr. Ernaut said, if abuse of sick leave was found 
to be happening, the employees indulging in such behavior would be deserving of 
discipline along with their supervisors.  He wanted to stop using that argument as 
it was unfounded.  People should use their sick leave for appropriate measures, not 
to get back at the state.  Mr. Pickett agreed with Mr. Ernaut and stated that was 
not the intent.  Mr. Ernaut told him he repeatedly said that and as had been 
previously discussed, that argument bore no consequences to this bill.  It was a 
managerial or administrative procedure and should be dealt with on that level 
regardless of the compensation.  Mr. Pickett emphasized the problem did exist.  Mr. 
Ernaut was concerned that if that situation truly did exist, it should be examined 
more thoroughly.  Mr. Pickett agreed.  Mr. Ernaut mentioned his company 
compensated their employees for unused sick leave at the highest wage ever 
earned.  As a matter of fairness, he felt, compensation should be paid on that basis 
rather than by a cap on the amount paid.  He also said the average of 15 days per 
year was too much at first.  Sick leave should be accumulated on a more gradual 
basis.  Mr. Ernaut remarked this was a fairness issue; they should be fairly 
compensated.  Mr. Pickett would welcome the same program Mr. Ernaut had in his 
company as compared to the state of Nevada.  Mr. Ernaut asked if Mr. Pickett had 
any comments on the average salary calculation for compensation.  Mr. Pickett 
could only use the average wage that had been paid which was $19.51 per hour. 
 It was Mr. Ernaut's assumption that an individual's sick leave was calculated at 
their final wage, not as an average.  He thought that was unfair.  The average 
would take into consideration the sick leave accumulated over the years rather than 
in the last year of an employee's term in service.  Mr. Pickett agreed again.  The 
point he was trying to make was the current structure was not the fair one it 
should be.  Mr. Ernaut retorted if this was not a fair structure, then why was this 
bill just merely amending the present structure.  Why not take the right steps 
instead of putting a band aid on it.  Mr. Pickett responded that was the reason the 
legislators were relied upon; to review these things and come up with a decision 
that would be fair to all.

Ruth Hart, retired state employee, felt the urge to testify once more.  She said 
instead of giving up six weeks or 240 hours of sick leave accrual, perhaps two 
weeks would be more appropriate instead of averaging everyone's salary; it would 
probably work out about the same.

Mr. Ernaut said there should not be a penalty.  On the other hand, it was not fair 
to compensate employees at their last wage, either.  He said the average wage held 
against the fact that there should not be a penalty would in the long run prove to 
be favorable.  Mrs. Hart pointed out a clerical person at a lower wage would still 
have earned the same amount of sick leave as a higher paid employee.  Mr. Ernaut 
insisted it was fair to average the person's wages over the years to calculate 
accrued sick leave payments.  Mrs. Hart said "we'll take it."


Mr. Gagnier responded to a few comments that had been made.  He said in 1975 
when the law was first passed, they had just been subject to news stories out of 
Clark County about a city official being given terminal leave pay in an astronomical 
sum.  Apparently this individual had never been ill.  Those employees in upper level 
positions who monitor their own sick leave and fail to record it were receiving 
extremely high payments upon leaving.  That was the reason for the caps being put 
into place; to stop that sort of thing. Most legislation is a matter of compromise. 
 Mr. Gagnier said they compromised in two ways on their original legislation.  One 
was the thirty day elimination which the legislators felt was necessary to prevent 
employees with very little sick leave from being reimbursed.  Mr. Gagnier said they 
have never argued that any measures passed would curtail abuse of sick leave.  
Those who abuse it will do so no matter what.  That must be addressed as a 
disciplinary issue.  Mr. Gagnier said they looked at sick leave as an insurance 
policy.  If one was fortunate and did not have to use sick leave, then they would 
receive a dividend.  The discussion of the use of sick leave in state government 
was, Mr. Gagnier felt, appropriate because the longer the salaries are out of whack, 
there is a definite increase in the use of sick leave.  Some agencies can be looked 
at, such as the Department of Prisons, where employees simply cannot face the 
day at times and call in sick.  The state of Nevada indeed had one of the highest 
rates of sick leave usage in the state because of stressful situations.  The 
Department of Prisons and the Department of Human Resources are the two  
agencies with the highest rates of sick leave usage.  Mr. Gagnier felt that was not 
a true abuse of sick leave, however.  He said there were problems in the system, 
a lack of pay raises for years and lack of staff for social workers and prison guards. 
 A lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Human Resources because the 
foster care social workers are so overburdened and have so little hope of getting 
more help that this was the last resort.  

Mrs. Lambert asked if these changes were made, would it affect the contributions 
to the catastrophic leave bank.  Mr. Gagnier said it could.  A number of employees 
who retire can use 80 hours to give to the catastrophic leave account rather than 
losing that time as only one half of what is accrued during one year can be 
transferred to the next for the employee himself.  If the number of hours allowed 
to be transferred is raised to 180, he supposed it could have some small impact on 
catastrophic leave, but that would be guessing.

Assemblyman Harrington questioned given the fiscal estimates, did Mr. Gagnier 
agree with them.  Mr. Gagnier was out of the room at the time.  Mr. Harrington 
iterated it would be about $1,220,000.  Mr. Gagnier did not know and said there 
was no fiscal note available; it would be pure guess work.  Whenever there is a 
fiscal note, Mr. Gagnier stated, you cut what they say in half for the general fund. 
 Half of their funds are general funds and the other half are federal or other types 
of fund sources.

Mr. Bennett asked if there was any sort of long term disability for employees in 
case of cancer or other catastrophic illness or injury.  Mr. Gagnier cited the 
institution of the catastrophic leave provision in 1991 which provided for this.  In 
order to qualify for catastrophic leave, all of the employee's own sick and annual 
leave must be used first and the doctor's criteria had to have been met.  Other 
employees may donate time to that employee.  It is a permanent benefit for state 
employees.  

Mr. Ernaut questioned how many people were penalized by the caps and the 30 
day non-compensation provision.  Mr. Gagnier did not have the foggiest idea.  The 
Department of Personnel could secure those figures from their computer because 
 those statistics would be kept there.  He would be delighted if the Legislature 
wanted to remove the caps entirely, but if that were to occur, the benefits would 
go primarily to the higher paid employees because they will exceed the caps most 
often.  If the caps are left in place and the 30 day provision is removed, the 
benefits would go to the lower paid employees.  Mr. Ernaut said as a matter of 
fairness and compensation, the amount of money made should not have any 
bearing on the compensation for sick leave.  Mr. Gagnier reiterated the original 
legislation was to have employees compensated for all their sick leave.  The current 
measure was a legislative compromise.


Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition to the bill.  She 
indicated the bill was a policy decision as to an exchange that occurred sometime 
back to put some caps on that since has become a perk that exceeds anything the 
private sector can do.  There are variations as to how the private sector tries to 
treat people who are ill.  There are two issues involved; sick leave for the purpose 
of being sick and sick leave for the purpose of compensation.  She felt some 
serious review was needed on the methods of overall compensation.  She urged the 
committee to reject the bill.  She was also surprised to see the bill was not referred 
to the Ways and Means committee due to the fiscal impact of A.B. 455.

Mr. Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 455.

Mr. Bache had a BDR to introduce.

BDR 27-162 - Authorizes preference for disadvantaged business enterprises in 
public contracting.

ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 27-162.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

There was also a request to have a bill draft request introduced from Clark County 
(Exhibit E).  

ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO REQUEST THE BILL DRAFT FOR 
	INTRODUCTION.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Bache noted the subcommittee meeting on the public records bills would be at 
1:30 p.m., chaired by Assemblyman Freeman.

Mr. Neighbors wanted to see a list of those people concerned with the licensing 
issue on A.B. 379.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 a.m.



 	RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Denise Sins,
Committee Secretary




APPROVED BY:





Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman






Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
April 24, 1995
Page