MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 19, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 19, 1995, Chairman Lambert 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: Denice Miller; Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Willis; Department of Personnel Chairman Lambert opened the meeting on Senate Bill 290. SENATE BILL NO. 290- Revises provisions governing certification of applicants for appointment to classified service of state. (BDR 23-918) Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, testified the statute they are proposing to amend is a "cornerstone" in the state personnel system. She said it is the basis for what is commonly known as "the rule of five." It requires that agencies consider only the top five applicants when filling a job. Those top five people are determined based on scores they earn in competitive examinations. The purpose of the law is to ensure that hiring decisions are based on merit. The problem is that merit is not being served. Because of the current limitation to only five applicants, they are required to break tied scores. There may be six to eight names on a list who have the top five scores, but only five people can be considered. Therefore, people with equal merit are being forced out of contention by a non merit factor, that is the breaking of tied scores. This is not only unfair to applicants, but it also deprives hiring agencies the opportunity to consider the most qualified. When those candidates cannot be considered, the public is deprived. She stated the key proposed amendments are contained in lines nine through 12. This would allow those who have demonstrated equal merit in the testing process, equal consideration for appointment. It would eliminate the current requirement to break tied scores and would allow for all applicants with the five highest scores to be considered when the scores have been calculated to the nearest hundredth of a point. The proposed language is a compromise that was reached with the SNEA. She believes it resolves the Department of Personnel's concerns as well as SNEA's. She then gave the committee a handout of examples. See (Exhibit C). She then went over the examples. Ms. Willis stated that Nevada is the only state in the west which requires agencies to consider only the top five people on the list. No other state is required to break tied scores. Mrs. de Braga stated last session there was a similar bill regarding the firefighters in Washoe County. At that time an opinion was expressed if a person had to be chosen from the top scores alone, minorities and women were at a disadvantage and also people with other factors besides the test scores, such as experience and on the job training. She asked if this has been taken under consideration. Ms. Willis stated this is a compromise and balance between the factors mentioned. This would expand the number of people who would be considered, which would help the problem. Mr. Bennett stated he was confused with the judging of each candidate. Ms. Willis stated the applicants with the same score would be ranked in the same category. This would constitute the top highest five scores. Mr. Bennett asked why include extra scores. Ms. Willis asked if they should stop at the five top candidates. Mr. Bennett said stop at the five top candidates, and if there is a tie below that, at the fifth level consider all candidates who made the base score level. Ms. Willis replied it could be considered. They are trying to ensure that the largest number of candidates be considered for employment and they are talking about scores that are scored to the nearest hundredth of a point. Mr. Bennett asked how many candidates there are on a typical score. Ms. Willis stated approximately 25. She said they are seeing more tied scores as the population increases. There are more applicants applying for state jobs. Ms. Tripple asked why they are taking out "written" for the notice requirement. Ms. Willis replied the written notice requirement is a 1953 requirement. Due to modern technology the need for a written notice is no longer necessary. It is much more expedient to process a request through other means. Most of the agencies have access to applicant tracking systems which certify eligibility lists. If they wait for written notice, it is not expedient. Ms. Tripple asked if there was a "tangible" record kept. Ms. Willis replied they do create a tangible record. Mr. Neighbors asked how much "weight" do they give to the exam itself. Ms. Willis replied it depends on the type of examination. Some are one hundred percent written, other are a combination of an oral and written, and some are a performance exam. Based upon the components of the job and what is required in the job, that will determine the weight that is given to a particular element. The combined scores would equal one hundred percent of the exam. Mr. Neighbors stated the only abuses he has heard, is where people have a good score on the examination and then during the oral examination, they were denied. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 290. WORK SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 204- Requires one commissioner of each housing authority to be tenant of project of authority. Chairman Lambert handed out proposed amendments to the bill. See (Exhibit D). Mr. Williams spoke in reference to the initiation of any authority, it takes care of the problem. Mr. Williams asked the amendment be expedited. Chairman Lambert stated since there was a clarification made on the bill there should be a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 204. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 495- Authorizes member of public body to have item placed on agenda for meeting of body. (BDR 19- 1628) Chairman Lambert asked the committee to review the proposed amendments for A.B. 495. See (Exhibit E). There was a discussion among the committee as to the amendments submitted. ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 495 WITH SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS #1, the first #2, AND #5. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION PASSED EIGHT TO FIVE WITH ASSEMBLYMEN TRIPPLE, BRAUNLIN, FREEMAN, HARRINGTON, AND KRENZER VOTING NO. SENATE BILL NO. 182 - Authorizes informal interim leasing of property acquired for public work. (BDR 28-701) Mr. Bache stated there were no changes to the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 182. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 507- Requires, under certain circumstances, proposed change in zoning regulation, restriction or boundary that affects property in area zoned for residential use be approved by referendum (BDR 22-1148) Mr. Harrington submitted amendments to the committee for perusal. See (Exhibit F)., He gave a brief synopsis of the proposed amendments. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON MOVED AMEND DO PASS ON A.B. 507 ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. Krenzer stated she could not possibly vote on the bill, due to conceptual change. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Harrington to explain the difference with the proposed amendments as to what is currently the law. Mr. Harrington replied in current law the developer in Clark County never has to notify neighborhoods, and this would cause them to do so. Currently there is no limitation on how often they can bring zoning attempts. Eventually the developer gets what he wants. Mr. Williams stated the amendments were not structured. He also had a problem with number two and the statement of one thousand feet, and what constituted a neighborhood. Mr. Nolan stated they do not vote on concepts. Mr. Harrington asked if he could have the bill in bill draft form, and would like to bring it back to the natural language and have them write up the amendments. Mrs. Lambert stated as a clarification, in Washoe County the developer does not notify within a thousand feet. And when they meet with the neighborhood, there are citizen advisory boards which the developer must go before. Mr. Ernaut stated if they are going to debate the philosophy of whether or not the people should decide on zoning, then that is what should be decided. The way the bill is written now, takes out the need to have the bill in the first place. THE MOTION FAILED. MR. HARRINGTON AND MR. NOLAN VOTING YES. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 507 ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON VOTING NO. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 555 - Revises amount of transportation allowance for public employees. (BDR 23-1802) Mr. Bennett read the amendment. Page one line 25,..."the State Board of Examiners shall annually adopt the amount for mileage reimbursement required by this section...." ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 555. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 332 - Creates Ponderosa County. Mr. Ernaut testified they had a very exciting meeting. They asked for more budgetary information from Washoe County and further research from the counsel bureau. This will be brought back to the committee. He said it was his plan to take a vote at the next sub-committee meeting and they will then have a recommendation to the full committee. ASSEMBLY BILLS NO 401 402 & 408 - Public records. Mrs. Freeman stated there will be a subcommittee meeting on those three bills on Wednesday morning at 8:00 a.m. ASSEMBLY BILLS NO. 444 & 506 - Affordable housing. Mrs. Krenzer stated the subcommittee had met and they had proposed amendment language which takes care of most concerns of the committee members. They have a work session posted for Monday upon adjournment of Government Affairs. Mr. Bache stated the "collective bargaining" bills are schedule for Thursday of next week. They have gone through them in detail and various people will submit possible amendments. Mr. Neighbors testified in regard to the Pahrump charter, there is a letter coming from the county commissioner indicating support for the size reduction map. He said the issue will have to be resolved at the ballot box. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Kelly Liston, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs May 19, 1995 Page