MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 12, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 9:11 a.m., on 
Monday, June 12, 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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Wendell P. Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:

Kathie Milone-Levenberg, Veterans' Advisory Commission; Randy Day, 
	Commission for Veterans' Affairs; Kathy Apple, MH/MR Commission; Ande 
	Engleman, Freedom of Information; Archie Pozzi, American Legion; Cynthia 
	Pyzel, Deputy A.G., Human Resources; Ben Duncan, Veterans' Advisory 
	Commission; Ted Deems, NCOA	


SENATE BILL 161 - Consolidates office of Nevada commissioner for veteran affairs. 
(BDR 37-154)

Kathie Milone-Levenberg, Veterans' Advisory Commission, strongly advocated the 
passage of S.B. 161.  Consolidation of the office of the Nevada Commission for 
Veterans' Affairs was necessary for the proper chain of command, she explained. 
 There is one commissioner who should be responsible for all veterans throughout 
the state of Nevada.  The Commissioner should make policy decisions and the 
Deputy Commissioner should make the day-to-day, on-site administrative  
decisions.  This is the proper and correct structure of the department.  Mrs. Milone-
Levenberg said this change should have been made a long time ago.  The Deputy 
Commissioner will be conducting veterans' business in southern Nevada under the 
supervision of the Commissioner.  Even in the military there is a proper chain of 
command and Mrs. Milone-Levenberg advocated the passage of S.B. 161 to ensure 
this for veterans in Nevada.

Assemblyman Segerblom asked if it would be necessary for the Commissioner and 
the Deputy Commissioner to live in the same area.  Mrs. Milone-Levenberg replied 
it would not be necessary.

Assemblyman Tripple queried if the Deputy Director was going to take care of 
affairs in the southern part of the state, who would take care of the rest of the 
state?  Mrs. Milone-Levenberg responded the Commissioner would.  The way it 
was set up at the present time, the Deputy Commissioner can hire people and 
purchase items.  She indicated it would be better for those responsibilities to be 
under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner only.  Ms. Tripple reiterated the 
Commissioner would handle all of the state except for southern Nevada.  Yes, that 
is correct, Mrs. Milone-Levenberg answered.

Chairman Lambert wanted a comment on the make-up of the board.  Mrs. Milone-
Levenberg stated she supported the change but had no other comments.

Randy Day, Commissioner for Veterans' Affairs, passed around a handout on his 
position (Exhibit C).  He pointed out the offices of Commissioner and Deputy 
Commissioner were separate and distinct and how this bill would consolidate the 
duties associated with each position and eliminate the problems that have arisen 
in the past due to overlapping of those duties. 

Ben Duncan, Veterans' Advisory Commission, agreed with all previous testimony.


Ted Deems, Coordinator for the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the 
United States of America, provided written support for the measure (Exhibit D). 
 

Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 161.

SENATE BILL 163 - Revises membership and duties of Nevada veterans' advisory 
commission. (BDR 37-152)

Kathie Milone-Levenberg spoke in support of the veterans' desire to have members 
of the cemetery committee on the advisory commission.  She emphasized they 
could provide necessary information on the status of the cemeteries, in both the 
northern and southern parts of the state.

Assemblyman Bennett liked both bills but felt perhaps they were being short-
changed in section two, subsection 2b. where a subsistence allowance of $56 per 
day was indicated for travel expenses rather than the actual government per diem 
rate.  Mrs. Milone-Levenberg told him they would have no objection to an increase 
in the per diem rate.  They try to keep their expenses as low as possible.  Mr. 
Bennett said the rate varies from city to city, but there were not many places one 
could go for $56 a day.  That was true, Mrs. Milone-Levenberg replied.  They try 
to cover the rest of the expenses themselves.

Mrs. Lambert questioned section four of S.B. 161 and said it covered the same 
section of law as section one of S.B. 163.  If both bills were passed 
simultaneously, would they have a problem with the drafters taking out section 
four of S.B. 161 because of the duplication in language. Mrs. Milone-Levenberg 
mentioned whatever was necessary to clean up the bill and speed its passage 
would be all right with her and the veterans' commission.

Mrs. Segerblom questioned in view of cutting the representative members of 
nationally recognized veterans' organizations down to three, how would that 
decision be made?  Mrs. Milone-Levenberg told her the Commissioner would 
respond to that.

Randy Day, Commissioner, replied the change required one member from each of 
the cemetery advisory committees would be appointed to the advisory commission 
and the Governor would appoint the others.  


Archie Pozzi, representing the American Legion, said in the original hearing on these 
two bills on the Senate side, all five of the nationally recognized state commanders 
were in attendance.  The Senate committee did not like eleven members on the 
advisory committee so it was changed to seven.  There were conflicts with that so 
the five commanders sat down and ironed out their differences.  The contents of 
both S.B. 161 and S.B. 163 are the agreed upon results of that discussion, along 
with the input of the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and his 
assistants.  All the veterans' groups agreed to the amendments and these bills were 
produced.  He urged passage of both bills.

Assemblyman Neighbors thanked Mr. Pozzi on behalf of Nye County.

Mrs. Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 163.

Assemblymen Bache and Lambert wanted to wait a day to check on the 
technicalities of a possible amendment of the duplicate language in the bills and 
then a vote would be taken on both measures.

SENATE BILL 283 - Provides exception to requirement for open public meetings for 
certain meetings of commission on mental health and mental retardation. (BDR 39-
856)

Cynthia Pyzel, Deputy Attorney General for the Division of Mental Health and 
Mental Retardation, presented written testimony in support of S.B. 283 (Exhibit E). 
 This bill was to clarify under what circumstances the review of denial of clients' 
rights could be exercised.  

Under Nevada law, the reporting of instances of denials of clients' rights to the 
Commission on Mental Health and Mental Retardation is required.  This is done in 
the public as well as the private sector.  The intent of the bill is to clearly state 
these reports and other such quality assurance reports to the Commission are 
confidential, not open to public inspection and to allow the Commission to review 
the reports in executive session when they meet.  The statutes are currently silent 
as to whether such reports are confidential.  In the past, the Commission has 
reviewed these reports in executive session during their regular meetings in order 
to protect the confidentiality of their clients and prevent unnecessary 
embarrassment to either clients or staff.  If the Commission did not have a way to 
protect the confidentiality of these reports, mental health institutions, both public 
and private, would be less inclined to liberally interpret and report denials of rights.

Ms. Pyzel stressed this legislation was needed to allow the Commission to fulfill its 
statutory directive of providing a thorough review of denials of rights and other 
activities relating to client care without running afoul of the public records laws or 
open meeting laws of the state.


Assemblyman Freeman wanted some examples of clients' rights.  Ms. Pyzel 
mentioned the most frequent one was the right to be free of seclusion and 
restraint.  If a patient behaves in an out-of-control fashion and needs to be 
restrained for their own safety or the safety of the unit, a description needs to be 
reported in detail as to the cause and need for seclusion and/or restraint of the 
client.  The facility is also required to indicate the steps taken prior to the 
intervention and how long the intervention lasted.  Another right is the one enabling 
the client to wear their own clothing.  If that person is an escape risk, they may 
have to wear identifiable clothing so they are less likely to roam at large should 
they get out.  Visitation is another right.  If a client has trouble with a spouse that 
could cause emotional problems, visitation of that person could be curtailed for a 
period of time if it interfered with the stabilization and mental welfare of the client. 
 The Commission carefully reviews these instances to be sure there is a clinical 
need for the denial of that right.  Another review the Commission performs is that 
of medication.  All clients' rights are specified in the statutes and the Commission 
carefully follows these in every regard.

Mrs. Freeman questioned private psychiatric hospitals and their treatment of 
patients.  She had concerns about the practice of holding executive sessions and 
the benefits to the clients' mental health.  She wanted to wait for the rest of the 
testimony before asking more questions.  

Assemblyman Harrington mentioned if all the confidential information was available 
to attorneys, lawsuits would abound or the knowledge would not be made public 
at all.  He felt the executive sessions were very valuable.

Mr. Bennett said although the name of the client would be deleted, that was all the 
Federal Privacy Act would allow.  He said this bill was an attempt to exceed that 
act and if a case went to federal court, would it stand up against federal law.  Ms. 
Pyzel told him the Federal Privacy Act was not specific to public or private 
psychiatric review.  She said there was a rational basis for making this exception 
as extensive as it was and it would be upheld in federal court.

Assemblyman Krenzer did not understand parts of the bill and had some concerns 
about the denial of clients' rights, care and treatment of clients and private 
hospitalization.


Kathy Apple, nurse representative of the Commission, mentioned the legislature 
embodied the Commission as the entity to provide public scrutiny of mental health 
care; that was their role.  She said the reporting form was very detailed, and as a 
nurse advocating client rights, she said requiring those records to be made public 
would violate clients' rights.  As a body, the Commission's role was to act as a 
watchdog over public and private facilities to ensure they were doing what they 
were supposed to be doing.  

Mrs. Krenzer reiterated they were acting on behalf of the public as a watchdog to 
protect clients' rights.  She agreed confidentiality was an issue in client care and 
would think about it some more.

Ms. Apple supported the bill.  She had been on the Commission four years, which 
was comprised of two physicians, one who was a psychiatrist, a nurse, a 
psychologist, a social worker and two consumer members.  Not only did the 
Commission function professionally as a multi-disciplinary team review, there were 
also two consumers to balance the whole review because they ask common sense 
questions the others may not.  Investigation and intervention strategy could also 
be addressed in these Commission meetings which was of extreme benefit to the 
clients.  

Mrs. Lambert pointed out there was nothing in the bill to require these reports to 
remain confidential.  Mrs. Pyzel answered that was an oversight and an amendment 
would be needed.

Ande Engleman, speaking on behalf of Freedom of Information, opposed the bill. 
 She said the bill did nothing to keep records confidential.  She claimed the measure 
would exempt the Commission from the requirements of noticing their meetings, 
keeping minutes of those closed meetings or from taking action in public so there 
was a record of the meetings.  Under the current Nevada open meeting law, any 
information required to be confidential by statute remains confidential, even in a 
public meeting.  Ms. Engleman said the types of things the Commission would be 
discussing do warrant a closed session.  The law is clear that any documents 
relating to those closed meetings are confidential and remain that way.  Since 
1977, when that provision was put into Nevada's open meeting law, there has 
never been a breach of those documents.  

Ms. Engleman was not certain exactly what the Commission wanted to keep 
confidential that was not already kept confidential except for perhaps a case where 
a patient had been mistreated.  If a patient was mistreated at a hospital and later 
wanted a copy of the minutes of the closed meeting where her case had been 
discussed, she may seek redress for having been mistreated by that hospital.  Ms. 
Engleman alluded to whistle blower laws and those who report activities such as 
mistreatment are protected from losing their jobs.  She questioned what the 
Commission was trying to do because she did not think this bill did it.

Ms. Engleman said the Parole and Probation board was exempt from Nevada's open 
meeting law.  There have been no checks and balances on that board which has 
caused some severe problems.  There are also a lot of exemptions for the 
Department of Social Services from the open meeting laws as well and this, too, 
has been problematic.  She had very serious concerns about boards and 
commissions being exempted from Nevada's open meeting law and having no 
checks and balances on the performance of those commissions and boards.

Mrs. Lambert turned the gavel over to Co-Chairman Braunlin as she had an 
appointment with the Governor.

Mrs. Freeman indicated the clients' rights and confidentiality were being addressed 
in the measure, not protection of people's jobs.  Confidentiality is the big issue and 
if it is not addressed here, how would that be fixed so that not only would the 
client be protected, but their records as well.  Mrs. Freeman requested Ms. Pyzel 
to come up to speak again.  Mrs. Braunlin allowed Ms. Engleman to comment first.

Ms. Engleman mentioned testimony had already been heard that the client's name 
would be deleted and kept confidential; that was covered in other statutes.  What 
was being referred to was the possibility of a particular scenario being discussed 
in a meeting where a client might become identifiable.  Ms. Engleman was not sure 
who would be able to identify anyone, however, as those records would already 
be confidential under Nevada's open meeting law.  She felt the issue that needed 
to be addressed was the public records law, not the open meeting law.  

Mr. Harrington said the two goals to be achieved with these laws were patient 
confidentiality and effective peer review.  To obtain an effective peer review, all the 
information has to be available to avoid confidentiality conflicts.  As far as both 
those things, Mr. Harrington asked Ms. Engleman if she believed in peer review as 
a worthwhile process.  He also questioned whether she was concerned about the 
technicalities of the bill or did she disagree with peer review.  Ms. Engleman was 
not certain that the Commission did peer review.  She understood they were to 
represent the public's view and without a system of checks and balances, who 
checks the Commission or the board?  She thought some things were good about 
peer review and others are not.  Ms. Engleman was concerned about government 
intervention in the peer review process because of the constitutional right to 
privacy which says the government is not supposed to get involved in certain 
things.  


Cynthia Pyzel clarified the Commission typically meets in public session.  They are 
subject to the open meeting law, they craft their agendas in accordance with the 
terms of the open meeting law and conduct their meetings in compliance with that 
law as well.  When they go into executive session, they conduct that in terms of 
the open meeting law by keeping minutes and appropriate records.  This is a highly 
professional body of client advocacy.  She indicated it was not clear these would 
be personnel sessions as the Commission is not the employer of the people in the 
psychiatric facilities.  The Commission is an appointed body and they do not have 
the direct employer/employee relationship with those people, so it is not certain the 
exemption or exception to the open meeting law would apply in this case.  That is 
the type of review they were seeking; a full, frank discussion could be held and 
appropriate action would then be taken in a public meeting where everything would 
be recorded.

Mr. Harrington questioned whether they had peer review of their doctors and 
nurses or were their activities being overlooked.  With respect to the issue of 
clients' rights, they did have peer review, Ms. Pyzel replied.  Mr. Harrington asked 
what kind of action would be taken against those facilities or individuals where 
discrepancies were found.  Ms. Pyzel responded the Commission was empowered 
by law to inquire and take action on behalf of the clients.  By virtue of the 
professionalism in that area, they have had compliance when the Commission has 
taken note of something and has had to go in and speak to people on disputed 
issues.  Therefore, Mr. Harrington surmised, if that information is made public and 
the flow of information to the Committee is shut down, they will not be able to 
give the effective oversight necessary for the psychiatric facilities.  That is 
absolutely correct, affirmed Ms. Pyzel.

Ande Engleman indicated the open meeting law did not refer to personnel sessions. 
 The open meeting law talks about closed meetings to discuss any person.  The 
exemption to open meetings within the open meeting law is used by boards all over 
the state to review complaints against peers in a peer review session.  She 
reemphasized the requested exemption was very broad and would prohibit any sort 
of checks and balances on the Commission.  


Ms. Tripple was concerned that the District Attorney's office said they could not 
carry on the procedures they had been and yet Ms. Engleman said these sessions 
have already been approved by the law.  So why did the District Attorney's office 
feel these actions were not appropriate?  Ms. Pyzel responded it was not the 
District Attorney's office it was the Attorney General's office and it was 
specifically felt there was a lack of direct, clear permission to go into executive 
session to review these denials of rights as a body and clarification needed to be 
sought.  Ms. Tripple pointed out Ms. Engleman did not seem to think there was a 
need for that.  Ms. Pyzel replied if she had asked Ms. Engleman for an Attorney 
Generals' opinion, maybe there would have been a different result.  She did not 
believe it was as clear as it needed to be under the open meeting law and that was 
why further refinement was being sought through this measure.  They want to 
make sure they are proceeding according to the law and protecting clients' rights 
at the same time.

Co-Chairman Braunlin closed the hearing on S.B. 283.

Mrs. Braunlin had a BDR to introduce from Mr. Ernaut, whom she requested to 
explain as it was a late introduction (Exhibit F).

BDR 42-2131 - Permits election of directors of fire protection districts without 
precincts.

Mr. Ernaut indicated the bill drafters had lost the original bill draft and that was 
why this was before the committee today.  He said it was a simple bill.  Mr. Ernaut 
explained there were three fire protection districts in Nevada, all in Lake Tahoe, that 
elect their members.  There is an antiquated law in place that requires those 
members to be elected from precincts rather than at large.  The precinct election 
makes no sense in the fire protection districts because it is not contiguous to 
precinct boundaries.  All the bill does would clarify that the members could be 
elected from the boundaries of the fire protection district rather than the precincts. 
 It was just a clean-up bill with no opposition. Mr. Ernaut mentioned he would 
speak with his bosses to make sure this BDR introduction was all right with them.

ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 42-	2131.

ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Bache said as long as he obtained the agreement of both speakers there would 
not be a problem with the introduction of the bill.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

ASSEMBLY BILL 332 - Creates Ponderosa County.

Mr. Ernaut reported on his subcommittee on A.B. 332, the Ponderosa County bill.

After a tremendous amount of testimony, emotion and work on the budgets, it was 
the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee that the numbers just did not add up. 
 He said there were two creatures of statute that were funded by sales tax in what 
would be Ponderosa County.  Those would be the Incline Village General 
Improvement District and the Fire Protection District.  The responsibility of 
Ponderosa County to fund those would be just under one million dollars each year, 
and that would be solely through sales tax.  Unfortunately, only about 16% of their 
budget is predicated on sales tax.  So, if there was ever a downturn in sales tax 
collection, which there has been in the last three or four years, they would have to 
rely on other sources.  Since they have such a small tax base, there would either 
be a severe increase in the property tax or an extreme decrease in services.  There 
were other problems in the budget as well.  Therefore, the unanimous 
recommendation of the subcommittee was to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Mr. Neighbors said there were good arguments on both sides of the issue, but in 
view of the fund balances and the fiscal impact of the gaming license tax that is 
divided equally among all 17 Nevada counties, this would create a financial 
hardship on the remaining counties.  Mr. Neighbors was also in favor of an 
indefinite postponement of the bill.

Ms. Tripple commended Mr. Ernaut for his tremendous job of balancing both sides 
and his sense of fair play as Chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Bennett indicated the proposed budget for Ponderosa County would not cover 
any extreme emergencies that could occur.  He concurred with the other 
subcommittee members.

Mr. Ernaut thanked all the other subcommittee members for their support in the 
often trying process of hearing all sides and issues involved in A.B. 332.  He felt 
it was handled well.

ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 332.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Bache said there was a problem with the amendment on A.B. 202 and wanted 
to rescind previous action taken on the bill and to indefinitely postpone it.  He 
called on Mr. Ernaut to comment.

Mr. Ernaut wanted that bill but could not get the amendment right.  There was not 
much use in pursuing it at this point. He regretfully but wholeheartedly supported 
the move to rescind and indefinitely postpone the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO RESCIND THE AMEND AND DO 
	PASS ACTION OF 5/1/95.

ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Harrington said he wanted to get some representation directly from the Tahoe 
area on the TRPA board at some future time.

THE MOTION FAILED 9-1.  ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED NO.

There were not enough committee members present to pass the motion to rescind 
the action of May 1, 1995.  They would vote again tomorrow.

Mrs. Braunlin offered her subcommittee report on A.B. 602.  There would be a 
work session on that on Wednesday.

Co-Chairman Braunlin adjourned the meeting at 10:17 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
June 12, 1995
Page