MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Sixty-eighth Session January 27, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, January 27, 1995, Chairman John Marvel presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman Mr. John W. Marvel, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Mrs. Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Vonne Chowning Mr. Jack D. Close Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. Bob Price Mr. Larry L. Spitler COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Brian A. Nix, Department of Administration, Appeals Office Deborah A. Erickson, Department of Administration, Budget and Planning Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers Tracy Raxter, Department of Administration Hearings Division Rick Gimlin, Division of Industrial Relations Birgit Baker, Department of Business and Industry Punam Mather, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce VETERANS AFFAIRS - PAGE 1737 Mr. Randy Day, Nevada Commissioner for Veterans Affairs, addressed two one- shot appropriation items on pages 847 and 848. He reported the $215,000 on page 847 would be used to apply for federal government matching funds and was consistent with what they were doing with all other cemetery site projects. The commission needs to develop an additional 8 acres at the Boulder City Cemetery. In order to reduce water bills, Mr. Day said they intend to work with Boulder City, utilizing effluent from their water treatment plant in Eldorado Valley. Projects at the Fernley site include enclosing the pavilion, paving the entry road, and pre- burying vaults for bad weather burials. He stated the $215,000 is not a 50% match; the state's match will also include land, donated monies, donated equipment and donated time. The $42,000 request on page 848 is for the purchase of a backhoe for the Boulder City facility. The used backhoe presently in service is a 1965 model and not reliable enough for their present level of activity. He added they were averaging 6 to 7 burials per day and experiencing a great deal of maintenance problems. Referring to budget account 2560 on page 1737, Mr. Day explained this budget assists veterans and their families with claims against state, local and federal agencies; operates the Fernley and Boulder City cemeteries; and operates the guardianship program with 42 wards (down from 48). In response to Mr. Marvel's question regarding annual burials, Mr. Day stated they were approaching 1,000 in Boulder City (15% increase) and 325 in Fernley (11% increase). Mr. Day noted there were approximately 200,000 veterans in the state. Under performance indicators, Mr. Day explained item number 9 corresponded to the funds owed for the wards under the guardianship program (Exhibit C). The funds are presently invested in non-taxable municipal bond trusts, CD's, TD's and money market accounts. Mr. Marvel asked how many bank accounts they administered. Mr. Day said the agency administers 43 single accounts (for each individual) and a master account that is used for disbursements. Mr. Close asked how guardianship maintenance expenses were covered. Mr. Day indicated the wards were receiving benefits from a variety of sources, mainly from the Veterans Administration in the form of compensation or pension. He noted many of the 100% disabled are getting in excess of $2,000 per month in addition to social security. Mr. Day testified the 1993 Legislature passed a bill allowing the commission to charge a 5% fee if there was sufficient money in the estate. Mr. Fettic questioned the rationale for putting Veterans Affairs in the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Day said he could not answer the question and yielded to Mr. Jim Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. Mr. Weller stated a proposal was made to combine the Military and Veterans Affairs during the last legislative session. The Military remained alone and Veterans Affairs was forgotten, ending up in DMV. He said there is proposed existing legislation to combine the two again. Mr. Day admitted a joint accounting system could be awkward due to the Military being funded federally and his program being funded by the state. Mr. Fettic asked how Mr.Weller felt about combining the commission with Public Safety should the proposed reorganization be authorized this session. Mr. Weller commented he held a great deal of respect for Veterans Affairs and felt comfortable with whatever the Legislature decided upon. In reference to decisionment M-100, Mr. Day said the figures related to adjustments for inflation and maintenance. Under decisionment M-200, Mr. Day justified the addition of a full-time administrative aide at the Fernley cemetery and a management assistant I and claims representative in the southern office. He said during the second year they were requesting the addition of a grounds keeper due to the 8 acre expansion at the Boulder City Cemetery. He noted the base budget includes one additional grounds keeper (hired July 1) that was granted by the Interim Finance Committee. Referring to page decisionment M-300, Mr. Day explained the figures were adjustments to fringe benefits. Under enhancements, page 1739, Mr. Day stated an increase in travel was requested in order to cover the rural counties more effectively. He added this would enable them to attend more meetings in order to educate rural populations regarding the role of their commission. He stated the meetings were a good source for donations. Mr. Day indicated the Advisory Committee was also requesting an increase due to only being able to meet twice a year under the present budget. He advised the committee a bill is pending consolidating the existing three cemetery advisory committees. Ms. Tiffany questioned the frequency of Advisory Committee meetings and asked for justification of the additional funding. Mr. Day said the committee was meeting four times a year and only paid for two; he would like members to be compensated fully for their time. In response to Ms. Tiffany's question concerning meeting frequency, he maintained future meetings would be kept to four. In response to Mr. Spitler's question regarding board member salaries, Mr. Day stated they were paid $60 per day. Mr. Spitler noticed under the additional travel recommended there were no additional salary costs. He asked whether it was included elsewhere or left out. Mr. Day indicated board salaries were included in the base budget. The salaries were being covered; it was the travel costs that were not being reimbursed. Mr. Spitler asked whether the Boulder City Cemetery relied on the Jean Honor Camp and how had the commission made accommodations for its impending closure. Mr. Day stated it was not recommended in the present budget although an additional grounds person was requested for the 8 acre proposed development. He stated it had been suggested replacements come from the Indian Springs Honor Camp which would create problems with travel time. The mileage difference was approximately 30 miles. He remarked honor camp crews might need to work an additional day per week. Mrs. Evans asked for clarification of the burial fees. Mr. Day said the fee for spouses increased from $250 to $350 on July 1, 1994; there was no fee for veterans. He said the agency receives $150 from the federal government for certain veterans. Mrs. Evans asked how the interrment fees compared to ordinary cemeteries. Mr. Day responded burial fees at private cemeteries ranged around $4,500 and included the plot, the opening and closing. Mrs. Evans commented this gave families a great deal of incentive to utilize the veterans cemeteries. Acknowledging the upcoming demand due to the large population of veterans in Nevada (2,000), Mrs. Evans asked how much land was available. Mr. Day indicated 80 acres were available at the Boulder City (18 acres developed) site and 40 acres in Fernley. He noted mausoleum plans were being developed which will correspondingly cut down on space requirements. Mrs. Evans asked whether fees were comparable to veterans' cemeteries in other states. Mr. Day concurred; $400 was the upper limit for spousal burial. In response to the question of expansion, Mr. Day said the Fernley site was stable for another two and one-half years; Boulder City two years. He said the 8-acre development would have to be accomplished by January 1996. Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, said he was present at the request of Mr. Dini, chairman of the Audit Subcommittee in order to present testimony on outside ward funds (Exhibit D). He reported an audit was conducted in 1993 on $1.8 million of ward trust monies which was invested by the Commission on Veterans Affairs. He said his division is requesting a BDR proposing the creation of a trust fund in the State Treasury to account for all monies held on behalf of the wards. The transition date is suggested to be on July 1, 1995. He added transitory language will be necessary due to penalties for liquidating the current investments. He remarked both Mr. Day and the State Treasurer's office are in agreement on the recommended legislation. ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS MOVED TO REQUEST A BDR PROPOSING THE CREATION OF A TRUST FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL MONIES HELD ON BEHALF OF WARDS. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VETERANS HOME - PAGE 1743 In reference to budget account 2561, Mr. Day noted the zero balances. He said this was the Veterans Home account and monies flowing to this account were to come from the issuance of Veterans license plates. Due to the newness of the program (issuance began November 17, 1994), no activity can be shown until public awareness marketing efforts ensue. Assemblyman Allard asked about land for the Veterans Home. Mr. Day indicated 22 acres have been made available next to the new federal hospital in Las Vegas. He noted the long-term lease site ($1-5/year) was excellent and negotiations were in the works with the Department of Defense and Air Force. The property is presently owned by the federal government (Nellis Air Force Base proper). SECRETARY OF STATE - PAGE 77 Mr. Dean Heller, Secretary of State introduced his chief deputy, Mr. Dale Erquiaga. Mr. Heller reported he had been in office for three weeks and had requested Mr. Crews to perform an audit. He said areas of concern were cash management and how cash was handled. Mr. Heller reported his office had created a questionnaire to survey customers. The information will assist him in preparing readable and measurable performance indicators. The committee's attention was turned to page three of a report (Exhibit E) which outlined feedback from the business community and State Bar Business Committee. Mr. Heller turned the committee's attention to budget account 1051. Mr. Marvel, acknowledging Mr. Heller had not been in office very long, asked whether the agency could improve on their performance indicators. Mr. Heller indicated the areas they wanted to begin measuring were notarial, apostilles and certification turn-around time in addition to complaints against notaries within the state. Document turn-around and productivity were also going to be monitored closely. Mr. Close questioned the new costs associated with the Office of Attorney General. Mr. Heller stated the office had conformed to the budget instructions. All costs that were currently in the various agency budgets dealing with the Attorney General were to be removed from the operating categories and transferred to category 89. He concluded there were no new costs, it merely combined the cost allocation with the other costs incorporated into the budget. He offered to give Mr. Close a complete breakdown. Mr. Heller discussed the M-300 decision unit. He indicated the number of positions where the merit salary increases were frozen had been changed during this budget process compared to two years ago. He said the Program Assistant classification merit increases were provided this biennium whereas they were not last biennium. He yielded to Don Hataway of the Budget Office who explained the merit issues were looked at globally throughout the entire budget, not necessarily in individual budgets. He concurred there could be higher or lower turnover rates in a particular budget. Mr. Hataway noted the Budget division had examined turnover rates for all positions. Due to administrative aides not remaining in their positions for long periods of time, they did not see justification of budgeting merit increases for them. He said the list of position classifications recommended for no funding related to merit salary increases was changed - certain positions that had been frozen were unfrozen and there were certain positions that were unfrozen that are now frozen. He said this had been incorporated in the M-300 decisionment along with occupational studies and fringe benefit changes. He noted, in this particular budget, the positions listed were unfrozen and the additional costs were shown. Mr. Heller explained the enhancement category. He stated the budget grew 3% during the first year of the biennium and 5.7% in the second year. He noted 5 new positions were being requested; two of which were to be located in the commercial recording satellite office in Las Vegas. Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Heller to explain the expedite fee. Mr. Heller said it was instituted in order to allow the office to provide more rapid service upon request. He said customers are charged an additional fee for 24 hour service; it normally takes 7-10 days to complete a filing. Mr. Marvel asked whether this revenue source could fund more of the Secretary of State's budget. Mr. Erquiaga replied the 5 new positions were being funded from the expedite fee. Mr. Close asked how the expedite fees were determined. Mr. Erquiaga said the fee was based on the type of service provided. Fees range from $25 to $100; statutorily the secretary cannot charge more than $100. Mr. Marvel questioned whether the fee should be raised. Mr. Erquiaga stated from their standpoint it should not; the expedite monies generated approximately $120,000 per month. He stated that if fees were increased too much, business would slow down. Ms. Tiffany requested more information on the office's imaging system. Mr. Heller said after the present audit and subsequent clean-up, he would begin a business process re-engineering project. He stated the office would approach the Interim Finance Committee before the BPR was started. Mr. Marvel asked whether Mr. Heller wanted this added to the budget at this point. Mr. Heller said he did not have a time frame and would leave it up to the committee; he first wanted to complete the audit (estimated to take 4-5 months). Ms. Tiffany strongly encouraged Mr. Heller to proceed with the imaging system due to its all-prevailing impact. Mr. Heller guessed he would come back to the committee before the session was over and provide the committee with a dollar figure attached to its purchase. Mr. Price commented Mr. Heller had been doing a fine job and admired his policy of leaving his office door open, allowing Capitol Building visitors the opportunity to examine the architecture. Mr. Allard asked whether the expedite service areas were growing. Mr. Heller stated the commercial filings division was experiencing 15-20% growth. He added this was reflected in the performance indicators. Mr. Heller stated the other three positions would be located in Carson City serving the commercial recordings division, the notary public office, and administrative services. In reference to decision unit E910 Program Transfers, Mr. Marvel asked whether Mr. Heller approved of the transfer of a Computer Network Technician to the Department of Information Services. Mr. Heller said he felt comfortable with this recommendation. Ms. Guinchigliani referring to decision unit E-901 asked about the centralization of microfilm activities. Mr. Heller said his office had a good relationship with the State Library and Archives and the microfilming process was in place and operating smoothly. He pointed out the microfilmed documents remained the responsibility of his office; they continued the ownership. SECRETARY OF STATE SECURITIES DIVISION - PAGE 85 Mr. Heller stated unless there were questions from the committee on the base or maintenance budgets, the division concurred with the Governor's Recommendation. In reference to enhancements, Mr. Heller said the southern Nevada office, increased 8.4% the first year of the biennium and 3% in the second year. He said it was largely related to the enhancement section of the budget which calls for the creation of a satellite office in the northern part of the state. He stated one-third of security fraud investigations were related to northern Nevada. It was his opinion that having the presence of a staff member in northern Nevada would probably deter some security fraud activities. Mr. Allard asked Mr. Heller to justify the $2,750 fax machine under equipment replacement. Mr. Erquiaga said the cost was high due to the use of plain paper; they accepted facsimile filings and the fax becomes a permanent record. Mr. Allard stated the purchasing department's narrative indicated the most expensive fax machines to be $1,645 and questioned whether there were special additions. Mr. Heller said they would be making their purchase through State Purchasing and would check the figures more carefully. Ms. Guinchigliani asked whether their office had special dispensation for accepting facsimile filings. Mr. Heller stated certain statutes allow for facsimile filings and allow the office to file a signature which is not an original. Ms. Guinchigliani asked Mr. Heller for a copy of the statute so that she could review the information. HEARINGS AND APPEALS - PAGE 581 WORKER'S COMPENSATION HEARINGS RESERVE - PAGE 587 Mr. Bryan Nix, Senior Appeals Officer, explained his division's statutory responsibilities are to provide hearings in contested industrial insurance cases. The Hearings and Appeals Division is an independent agency, separate from the State Industrial Insurance System and Department of Industrial Relations. The division has 8 hearing officers; 5 in Las Vegas and 3 in Carson City. The hearing officers are lay persons, not attorneys, and conduct informal proceedings. At the initial level an attempt is made to resolve the dispute between the insurer and claimant or the employer. The appeals officer level is a more formal proceeding, much like a courtroom proceeding; it is a hearing on the record. Appeals from the hearing officers determinations are taken to the appeals officers if the case is not resolved and the appeals officers render a determination which is ultimately subject to appeal in the district court. In response to Mr. Marvel's question regarding the number of appeals that went to District Court, Mr. Nix replied there were 210; 51 in Carson City and 159 in Las Vegas. He indicated there were 24,000 requests for hearings in 1994 and approximately 17,000 appeals were taken to the hearings officer whereupon 7,000 cases went on appeal to the Appeals Officer. He concluded they were very effective with screening cases and keeping them out of the court system. Mr. Nix said two additional appeals officers were requested (one each for Carson City and Las Vegas) due to a 247% growth in caseload over the last two bienniums. Computer equipment has also been requested to ensure each hearings and appeals officer has their own terminal, a project begun 6 years ago and amounting to 8 computers. He indicated decision time had been shortened due to hearings officers being able to access information relevant to a particular file and taking more of a role processing their own cases. Mr. Arberry asked for clarification of vacancy savings; why were awards recommended in this budget account but not in related budget accounts (Nevada Attorney For Injured Workers). Mr. Nix yielded to Tracy Raxter, Administrator of the Administrative Services Division. He explained vacancy savings were included because the Budget Office had made the determination to include this item in all General Fund budgets. He said the Victim of Crimes budget account is a non- General Fund budget account and, therefore, not included. He maintained the budget is funded by employers through assessments. Ms. Janet Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Budget Division addressed a question posed by Ms. Guinchigliani regarding vacancy savings. She stated when the decision was originally made, the Budget Division decided to recommend vacancy savings only in the General Fund budgets. In most cases, in federal budgets where there are grant monies, it had always been necessary for agencies to appear during the fiscal year and augment their work programs to allow them to cover salaries, so it was decided not to recommend vacancy savings in those budgets. After the fact, however, the Budget Division determined it was an error on their part; budgets that are assessment funded do impact the General Fund and should have included vacancy savings. She admitted the error will have to be corrected. Ms. Guinchigliani acknowledged this account does not need to have a vacancy savings. She stated she would rather not have SIIS or anyone else establish a fee rate to charge employers for something that may not be needed at this point in time. She inquired whether the budget could be placed in a different fund so the Budget Office could maintain their consistency. Ms. Johnson said it was not possible because the fund number was established by the Controller's Office and was their method used to track cash. Mr. Marvel, noting there was a significant increase in the budget, asked Ms. Johnson how she determined the statewide cost allocation. Ms. Johnson said it was based on the level of several fund services provided to this budget in prior periods. The statewide cost allocation numbers are subject to change and will probably be changed before the end of the legislative session. She noted Mr. Hataway of their office was planning a presentation explaining the process on the following Friday. Mr. Nix explained in addition to 8 computers, the equipment request provides for 4 laser printers and a dedicated modem line for the exchange of information between Carson City and Las Vegas. He added there was a request for funding for the Department of Information Services to provide their agency with assistance in developing a software program that would make the information accessible. Mr. Marvel asked how often the agency's decisions were overturned by the District Court. Mr. Nix stated he was not certain because the court did not communicate with his office when a decision was rendered. He said his feeling, based on experience, was probably less than 20-25% of the time. Mr. Close asked about hearings scheduling. Mr. Nix noted the figures Mr. Close were alluding to in his budget document were not correct. He said 95% of the hearings before a hearings officer were generally scheduled within 3 to 4 weeks. He said the agency was well within the statutory time frames most of the time and would investigate the source of the information and provide the committee with a more accurate report. Mr. Close said he had the same question for the appeals office and requested these numbers also be addressed. Mrs. Brower asked for clarification of $9,993 in each year for training. Mr. Nix indicated hearings and appeals officers are responsible for interpreting workers' compensation law in addition to interagency contracts wherein they conduct hearings for various other state agencies. He noted most of the money is spent on attending courses at the National Judicial College involving administrative law matters or workers' compensation update. Part of the funds were used by attorneys employed by the agency to attend legal education courses to keep their credits updated in order to keep their licenses in place. Mr. Spitler, referring decision unit 176 Improved Work Environment, asked what information services had to do with safety equipment. Mr. Nix said much of the safety equipment requested related to equipment that attaches to computers in order to make the job place safer. Mr. Spitler asked the Budget Office whether this was due to an executive order by the Governor. Ms. Johnson said ergonomic equipment was considered data processing expenses. Mr. Spitler requested a copy of the Governor's Executive Order regarding the workplace health and safety program. Ms. Guinchigliani asked Mr. Nix for the types of issues heard at the hearings and appeals levels so the committee could identify patterns of problems within Nevada. Mr. Nix stated the statistics were presently being compiled in a historical format and could be supplied to the committee during the following week. Mr. Allard questioned the disparity in postage and insurance. Ms. Johnson said agencies were originally requested to include an inflation rate of 6% the first year and 3-1/2% the second. There were a list of items including supplies that were included in the list. Later in the budget process, in looking at the funding available and the levels that had been requested by the agencies, the decision was made not to fund inflation except for certain items such as utilities and insurance expenses (published in the definitions of the budget). Mr. Marvel asked whether the budgets were constructed prior to the postage increase. Ms. Johnson said the increase was included in the Governor's Recommendation. Ms. Tiffany asked whether nuisance suits or quality within the cases being handled could be broken out in the agency's performance indicators. Mr. Nix responded he did not have an easy answer. The division had not attempted to analyze last year's cases based on whether or not cases had merit. Ms. Tiffany reported most of her constituent phone calls related to DMV or Appeals Division. Mr. Nix thanked Ms. Tiffany for her suggestion. Mr. Guinchigliani questioned the effects of last session's declassification of hearings officers. Mr. Nix reported they had immediate turnover when the positions were declassified, however, the agency was going in a new direction at the hearings officer level. It was more of an informal proceeding which he believed could create other problems. Mr. Guinchigliani stated she was concerned about employees subjected to removal simply because they had awarded too many times on the side of an injured worker versus an employer. She stated she did not want people to be improperly dismissed for that reason. Mr. Nix testified employees had not been dismissed due to bias. VICTIMS OF CRIME - PAGE 589 Mr. Nix briefly explained the program. He indicated most of the assistance was applied toward victim's medical bills after their application had been carefully screened to determine financial need. He noted Nevada's program was unique in that it did not accept federal funding due to the ratio of visitors to the state's base population (1 to 40). Mr. Nix stated if tourists were victimized in Nevada, their home state would provide assistance. He added funds for the program were derived from fines levied by the court, penalties, bail bond forfeitures, restitution from criminals and third party lawsuits. Mr. Nix indicated some internal changes had been instituted to improve their delivery of services and payments made on claims. A 40% reduction in claims had been accomplished. Mr. Nix mentioned a bill was pending to permit the program to provide assistance to victims of hit and run accidents; the financial impact would be in the range of $60,000. An increase in the amount which could pay for funeral benefits was also requested. Nevada has one of the lowest limits in the country which is presently $1,000. The program has requested the figure to be raised to $2,500. He added they are asking (in exceptional cases where there is extreme violence and physical injury) payment of up to $25,000 be authorized rather than being limited to a $15,000 cap. Ms. Guinchigliani asked whether there was a board to control funding. Mr. Nix explained there are three compensation officers, one in Reno and two in Las Vegas. Their responsibilities include reviewing applications, meeting with the victims, and performing investigations to determine eligibility. If claims are denied the applicant can file an appeal to a hearings officer and the final source of review is the Board of Examiners. Ms. Guinchigliani questioned the time lines required by statute for processing claims. Mr. Nix said there were statutory time frames but could not recall whether it was 120 days or not. He noted claims were processed and appointments made as quickly as possible based on the needs of the victim. Ms. Guinchigliani reported getting calls from constituents who were confused and did not realize the program was for victims of violent crime. She suggested it should be clarified in some way. Mr. Fettic asked whether assistance was provided only to victims that were not insured. Mr. Nix stated the insured are assisted if their policies are not sufficient to cover the costs associated with their victimization. Other sources of revenue must be utilized or considered prior to payment from the fund. Mr. Fettic asked whether the fund received money from drug seizures. Mr. Nix said he did not think so; most of it was earmarked for police programs and other sources. Mrs. Evans asked how counseling centers became eligible to provide services under the Victims of Crime program. Mr. Nix stated the Board of Examiners had adopted policies for payment on psychological claims. They also have a policy cap on what they can pay for the type of counseling service rendered. He reported providers must be licensed, however, a policy is pending before the board that will approve payment to interns. Mrs. Evans stated the university counseling centers had been excluded because masters and doctoral students were working in supervised situations with psychologists. Mr. Nix stated that was the issue but not the correct characterization. The non-payment of interns was an oversight. He said payments were made up until the new policies were adopted by the board and as soon as they became aware of the problem they submitted a request for a change so the interns could be included in their fee schedule. He said he could not attest to it being adopted at the present time, but estimated passage by the next Board of Examiners meeting. Mrs. Evans asked that she be kept appraised of the progress on this issue. STATE INDUSTRIAL CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEY - PAGE 907 Ms. Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, explained the agency's name was changed a few sessions ago from State Industrial Claimant's Attorney to Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers and introduced Ms. Nancy Smith, their law office manager, and Ms. Deborah Erickson their budget analyst. She noted they are another component of the substitute adjudication procedure. Ms. Leeder reported the agency acts as counsel for injured workers. They do not provide any other types of law other than seeking the workers' compensation benefits. She stated her job was to try to avoid intimidation of the worker by preparing and presenting hearings to the appeals officer. She noted the agency must be appointed by the appeals officer; the hearings officer cannot appoint them. Ms. Leeder emphasized the agency assists people that are going to the hearings officer level. Due to state reorganization, the agency is part of the Department of Business and Industry and are in the consumer services cluster. Ms. Leeder described the popular bilingual informational pamphlets available through her office. She indicated the caseload has grown from 100 cases in 1978 (the first year the agency kept statistics) to 2,254 in 1994; their staff has increased from 5 to 25 (12 attorneys, the rest is support staff). Ms. Tiffany requested an explanation of the "not applicable" notation under FY 94 actual. Ms. Leeder explained the agency used to be appointed for hearings before the Department of Industrial Relations administrator. Due to a change in law the agency no longer does this. Projections have been made as to how many cases the agency might be handling. The agency's primary caseload is before the appeals officer but also appear in District Court and the Supreme Court. Ms. Tiffany remarked this was misleading and needed to be cleaned up. Ms. Tiffany asked how the number of hearings and decisions were calculated. Ms. Leeder said since 1991 inputting data has undergone a great deal of refinement; the program has a lot of bugs. The agency has been attempting to count the number of cases handled at the hearings level, how many decisions have been in favor and how many have been denying benefits to their clients. Ms. Tiffany said this was also a little vague and needed flushing out. She wanted to know how the number of hearings were calculated. Ms. Leeder said in addition to the computer count, their office had a master calendar for attorneys who indicate the type of hearing that took place that day. This information is input into a computer by their receptionist. Ms. Tiffany noted there was a large disparity between the actual and projected calculations. Ms. Leeder replied this was due to the continuance problem and their inadequate time for discovery. She explained she is trying to devise a revolving caseload statistic to remedy the problem. Ms. Tiffany suggested the committee needed to look at different indicators. She noted the figures looked misleading; caseloads appeared to decrease while staff was increasing, caseload calculations and projections were missing. She implied there may be a better tracking method for budgetary purposes; the committee wanted to examine quality and outcome. Referring to Replacement Equipment, Mr. Allard questioned the $3,200 fax machine. Ms. Leeder said this was the cost of two plain paper copies (one for each office.) Ms. Guinchigliani asked how they were coping with case overload. Ms. Leeder replied they were holding their own. This was due to private attorneys stepping into some cases, the increased use of computers and the development of forms. She added fewer cases were coming in, allowing them to spend more time on the backlog, however, the continuance problem still had to be addressed. Mr. Close asked about the productivity of half-time workers. Ms. Leeder said she was the half-time person (half-time in each office). She said the time required varied widely from case to case. Ms. Guinchigliani asked whether the agency had requested to equalize or begin to improve the salaries. Ms. Leeder responded it was part of the Unclassified Pay Bill and would not show up in the individual budgets. In regard to the unclassified positions, Ms. Erickson said the agency requested salary increases, however, she did not have the specifics as to what level was recommended in the Unclassified Pay Bill. She said she would supply this information to Ms. Guinchigliani. Ms. Guinchigliani asked Ms. Leeder to provide information regarding the types of cases and patterns of problem areas which were being experienced. Mr. Close questioned the eligibility of clients. Ms. Leeder said if Mr. Close was alluding to making a qualification of indigents, she thought it would not be economical. She indicated there was a required "finding of indigents" from 1977 to 1983, before N.A.I.W. would be appointed. Due to the amount of people qualifying because they weren't getting any benefits or two-thirds of their average monthly wage, it was halted by the Legislature. She said if they returned to that system, someone would have to amass the paperwork and make decisions; she estimated 95% of the people would qualify for their services anyway. In reference to enhancements, page 910, Ms. Leeder said the Improved Work Environment is an auto attendant which will ask, "do you have a case already with an assigned attorney; do you need advice?" Ms. Leeder indicated decision unit 720 would provide safety telephone headsets. The meeting adjourned at 10:35. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Janine Sprout, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Ways and Means January 27, 1995 Page