MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session June 8, 1995 The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, June 8, 1995, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Senator Bob Coffin Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dean A. Rhoads Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ernie Adler Senator Mark James STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Miles, Fiscal Analyst Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration Naomi Smith Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Darrel R. Daines, State Controller, Office of the State Controller Andria Daley, Chairman, Comstock Historic District Commission Louise Driggs, Concerned Citizen Ronald M. James, Administrator, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts Don McBride, Member, Comstock Historic District Commission John Copoulos, Architect Dean Haymore, Planning Administrator, Storey County Jeanne Block, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Community College Foundation Chuck Briggs, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada Community College Foundation Don Bush, President, Comstock Arts Council Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County Christina Chandler, Representative, Eighth Judicial District Court Lupe Gunderson, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Beatrice Franklin, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Thomas P. Wright, Commissioner, State Board of Parol Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Thomas P. Chickory, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Michael R. Harris, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Jesse D. Scott, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Carlos Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Nancy Tiffany, Unit Manager, Pre-Release Program, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Peter English, Deputy Chief, Operations, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Senator Raggio opened the meeting and turned the committee's attention to Senate Bill (S.B.) 207 and indicated the Assembly has amended the funding amount from $54,400 to $50,520. SENATE BILL 207: Makes appropriation to state gaming control board for system which allows payment of taxes electronically. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CONCUR WITH ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NUMBER 703 TO SENATE BILL 207. SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AND MATHEWS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Raggio opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 234. ASSEMBLY BILL 234: Makes appropriation to division of water planning of state department of conservation and natural resources for office equipment and computer hardware and software. Naomi Smith Duerr, State Water Planner, Division of Water Planning, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, came forward and testified one-half of the requested $91,160 in funding will be expended on a Geographic Information System (GIS) and associated hardware and software. The remaining funds will go toward the purchase of office equipment, furniture, and computer equipment which are needed for the division's new offices. Senator O'Donnell asked why the agency needs a GIS. Ms. Duerr replied the two items most requested from the agency are data and maps and noted most agencies utilizing maps in their operations are changing to a computerized mapping system. She said the GIS request has been scaled down because the agency will try to build on maps already created by other agencies. Senator O'Donnell questioned how often the division will use the GIS program. Ms. Duerr responded the system will be phased-in and she expects the agency will be using it on a weekly basis. Senator O'Donnell noted other agencies have the GIS program and inquired if the division could utilize another agency's program. Ms. Duerr replied the in-house computer equipment request has been scaled down because the division will be able to connect with other agency systems. Senator Raggio commented it is his understanding the GIS was approved in 1991, but not purchased due to budget constraints. Ms. Duerr responded, "That is correct sir." Senator Rhoads asked whether the funding request is already included in the Executive Budget. Ms. Duerr answered, "Yes, it is." Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 234 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 184. ASSEMBLY BILL 184: Makes appropriation to division of water resources of state department of conservation and natural resources for certain costs of litigation involving stream systems of Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers. Peter G. Morros, Director, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) reflecting the division's litigation expenditures over the last 22 years. He said the account is maintained to offset expenses related to water litigation primarily on the Truckee, Carson, and Walker rivers. The state is currently involved in 14 lawsuits on these three rivers. He indicated the $150,000 appropriation will help maintain a balance of $250,000 to $300,000 in the account. Senator Raggio asked who provides the department with legal representation. Mr. Morros replied the attorney general's office provides representation in the majority of the cases, however, outside counsel is being utilzed for several ongoing cases regarding the Truckee River. He said the department tries to avoid hiring outside legal counsel to handle lawsuits, but outside counsel is retained for cases argued before the United States Supreme Court. Senator Raggio inquired whether the balance forward in this account still totals $148,000. Mr. Morros answered the $148,000 balance was as of January 1995, and disbursements have been made from the account since that time. Senator Raggio asked who is responsible for overseeing the account. Mr. Morros replied, "I am." Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 184 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 220. ASSEMBLY BILL 220: Makes appropriation to budget division of department of administration for development of requirements for integrated financial system. Darrel R. Daines, State Controller, Office of the State Controller, stated A.B. 220 is a one-shot appropriation bill which provides the Department of Administration $165,000 to conduct a "requirements definition" for an integrated financial system. He stressed the state is in dire need of an integrated financial system, but the Legislature has denied the funding request numerous times. In the Assembly, he was unsuccessful in amending the bill to replace the Department of Administration with the Office of the State Controller. He maintained the responsibility for a study should be placed with the controller's office since the function of the controller's office represents approximately 80 percent of the needs of this particular system. The state needs a new accounting system, so he will not oppose the bill or request an amendment unless the committee believes it can be accomplished before the end of this legislative session. He noted, once the accounting requirements are determined, the state will need to spend several million dollars to implement the system. He indicated the controller's office has qualified personnel who are capable of installing large accounting systems and who can help with continued program development. John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, assured the committee and Mr. Daines the department has no interest in controlling the outcome of the study and will work closely with the controller's office in the development of the requirements. Senator Raggio stated it was too late in the session to amend the bill, however, the committee will send a Letter of Intent to the Department of Administration and the Office of the State Controller requesting that the two agencies work jointly on this project. Senator O'Donnell related the project is essential, and since the controller is responsible for maintaining the state's general ledger, the Letter of Intent should include language which indicates that Mr. Daines is in charge of the study. He stressed the Legislature needs to establish a standing committee to review agency computer equipment requests. Senator Raggio commented he has been advised the state has been receiving notices from the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) regarding late payment of payroll taxes. He asked if it is appropriate for the Department of Personnel to handle the state's payroll system. Mr. Daines said the state payroll system had always been the responsibility of the state controller, but the Legislature, some years ago, appropriated funds to the Department of Personnel to take over this function. Although the Department of Personnel handles the state payroll, the Office of the State Controller has the responsibility of answering any queries made by the I.R.S. Senator Raggio asked for more detail regarding the late notices sent to the state by the I.R.S. Mr. Daines responded the I.R.S. has decreased the time period in which an employer has to pay withholding taxes. Recently, there has been a failure on the part of the Department of Personnel to pay withholding taxes within the required time limit. He is unsure why this is occurring because the check for withholding taxes is generated at the same time payroll checks are created. This problem has existed intermittently for a number of years, remarked Mr. Daines. Senator Raggio inquired if the state has been penalized for late payment of taxes. Mr. Daines replied, up to this point, all penalties have been waived, but he is not certain the I.R.S. will continue to be so cooperative. Senator Raggio questioned whether Mr. Comeaux was aware of this situation. Mr. Comeaux answered, "Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman." Senator Raggio requested Mr. Comeaux to investigate this matter and asked what would it entail to move the payroll system back to the Office of the State Controller. Mr. Daines said the Legislature can authorize that the budget for this function be placed under the Office of the Controller, which will not require any legislation. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Daines and Mr. Comeaux to consult on this matter and report back to the committee by June 10, 1995. Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 220 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 253. SENATE BILL 253: Makes appropriation to Nevada historical society of division of museums and history of department of museums, library and arts for purchase of Piper's Opera House. Senator Ernie Adler came forward and testified the bill requests a $450,000 appropriation from the state to purchase Piper's Opera House and voiced his support of the bill due to the property's historic value to the State of Nevada. He pointed out there is an error in the bill's language and indicated the appropriation should be made to the Comstock Historic District Commission instead of the Nevada Historical Society. He noted he has requested an amendment to correct this error. Andria Daley, Chairman, Comstock Historic District Commission, came forward and distributed two handouts (Exhibit D Original on file in the Research Library, A Feasibility Study for Piper's Opera House; Exhibit E, Piper's Opera House Brochure) to the committee for review. Senator Raggio indicated he has viewed the videotape of Piper's Opera House supplied to him by the commission. Ms. Daley introduced Louise Driggs and noted Mrs. Driggs' family has owned the property since 1867. Mrs. Driggs, Concerned Citizen, stated she has worked diligently to keep the opera house as part of Nevada's history. In the last 35 years, she has restored the auditorium portion of the building, so it can be utilized for concerts and small productions. The front part of the opera house is an existing office building which is in great disrepair. She stressed the opera house is a "tremendous part of Nevada's history" and encouraged the committee to preserve it as part of Nevada's heritage. Ronald M. James, Administrator, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts, testified the Comstock Historic District is fiscally managed by the state historic preservation office, so the office will oversee any funds appropriated by the bill. He said the opera house is an extremely important asset to the state and the proposal needs to be closely evaluated. Senator Raggio remarked there is no question Piper's Opera House has great historic value, but questioned how the $450,000 purchase price for the property was determined. Ms. Daley responded the price of the property is the amount requested by the owner, Mrs. Driggs. Senator Raggio asked whether the property has been appraised. Ms. Daley replied, no, because an appraisal will cost approximately $10,000 and the commission does not have the funding to afford such an expenditure. Senator Raggio commented he doubted the state would agree to a selling price without first obtaining an appraisal on the property. He inquired about the maintenance costs on the building and if the property is capable of generating any revenue. He indicated the state generally does not appropriate funds for this type of a project and noted owners of historic buildings receive a tax advantage if the building is donated to a public entity. Mr. James responded the historic commission presently owns the property where its offices are located and plans to sell this lot and relocate the office to the opera house. He said the proceeds from the sale will be placed in a trust account and utilized to refurbish the building. In addition, the opera house has demonstrated it is capable of producing some proceeds from tours and performances. Senator Raggio asked whether the commission has reviewed any financial documents of the opera house reflecting past revenues and if a financial plan has been established. Ms. Daley replied the commission has developed a business plan for the property and will provide it to the committee. She related the opera house currently supports itself by providing tours and conducting performances. Mrs. Driggs said, shortly after beginning restoration on the opera house, she began a summer series of concerts which generated approximately $25,000 per performance. In addition, the revenue from the building tour amounts to approximately $12,000 to $15,000 a year. She commented she does not advertise the concerts, nor does she expend much time promoting the building tours because she is semiretired. However, she firmly maintained the revenues from the property could be increased dramatically if it is actively promoted. She related the opera house is a unique piece of property, therefore it is difficult to obtain a comparable study. In regard to the property's selling price, Mrs. Driggs related, over the years, she has spent approximately $250,000 in restoring the opera house and $60,000 for liability insurance, and after taking this into consideration, made a determination as to the property's selling price. Senator O'Donnell asked for an estimate of the amount of funds the property can generate in 1 year. Mrs. Driggs replied it depends on how creative the building's management is in promoting the establishment. She remarked, when Hal Holbrook appeared at the opera house, the tickets for the performance were sold out in 20 minutes. Although, the opera house did not make a profit from this performance because the tickets sales only totaled $13,000 which was the same amount as Mr. Holbrook's performance fee, remarked Mrs. Driggs. She added the theater is ideal for one-person performances. Senator O'Donnell inquired about how much profit the property could generate in one year. Mrs. Driggs answered, "I think $25,000 or $40,000 per year." Senator Raggio asked if an estimate has been prepared regarding needed repairs to the building. John Copoulos, Architect and Member of the Comstock Historic District Commission, stated his firm prepared a feasibility study (Exhibit D) for the opera house and referred the committee's attention to page 76 of the study which outlines the proposed costs for building restoration. One of the largest expenditures, he commented, relates to upgrading the restroom facilities to meet the requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Copoulos related the restoration project will be completed in phases so the building can continue to generate funds and operate. Senator Raggio, referring to page 76 of Exhibit D, pointed out the total cost-range for the project is $2,165,222 million to $2,238,450 and $1.6 million relates to construction costs. The chairman inquired about the commission's plans to fund the construction costs. Ms. Daley answered the commission will seek help from Storey County, apply for grants and foster some business partnerships for the additional funding. Senator Raggio asked why the commission has not raised the funds for the purchase of the building. Ms. Daley explained it is extremely difficult to obtain grants on privately-owned property, but once the property is owned by the state it should be relatively easy to secure grant funding. Senator Raggio stressed the state would not want to purchase the building and also assume responsibility for construction costs and operating costs. Ms. Daley explained she has made a number of discreet inquiries regarding the possibility of receiving grants for the refurbishment of the opera house. Senator Raggio inquired if the proposed construction costs accommodate all the codes and ADA requirements. Mr. Copoulos answered these items are included in the cost estimate and pointed out he hired "the renowned structural engineer, Melvin Green" to review the building structure for seismic retrofitting. Referring to page 86 of Exhibit D, Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of the estimated operating costs. Mr. Copoulos related the operating expenses were based upon the theory that the opera house will operated as a theatre or road house with an in-house management group operating the building. He said a deficit is projected for the first several years, until the opera house is more widely known. Dean Haymore, Planning Administrator, Storey County, related he has worked with numerous historic buildings to help restore the structures to current code requirements. The opera house has a seating capacity of 350 people and the surrounding food establishments have the ability to feed over 350 patrons, remarked Mr. Haymore. He stressed the opera house is part of Nevada's cultural history and the state should make an effort to preserve its heritage. Don Bush, President, Comstock Arts Council, said the committee should not neglect the spiritual contribution the opera house brings to the State of Nevada. In addition, he said the arts council currently presents 25 performances per year which range from dance recitals to musical concerts. The council's yearly budget totals approximately $25,000 to $40,000 per year, however, he foresees the budget increasing to as high as $2 million per year over the next 10 to 15 years if a larger facility, such as the opera house, could be utilized for performances. Don McBride, Member, Comstock Historic District Commission, related the refurbishment of the opera house will not only enhance Nevada's heritage, but will also financially benefit the surrounding area. Senator Raggio asked what buildings are under the auspices of the Comstock Historic District Commission. Ms. Daley replied the commission owns an office building in Virginia City and some property in downtown Dayton. Senator Raggio inquired about who was responsible for maintaining the Fourth Ward School in Virginia City. Ms. Daley responded the school is owned by Storey County, so the county is obligated to maintain the building. Senator Raggio said he is unclear as to what facilities are under the jurisdiction of the historic district. Ms. Daley explained the federal government created the Virginia City Landmark District and the state Legislature created the Comstock Historic District to maintain the historic integrity of the Comstock Lode region. Senator Raggio asked who provides the funding to maintain the buildings which come under the auspices of the commission. Ms. Daley answered the state furnishes the funding and explained the commission is a satellite of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library, and Arts. Continuing with his questioning, Senator Raggio inquired about who was responsible for overseeing the maintenance of the Virginia City cemetery. Mr. James replied the cemetery is privately owned, however, inmate crews and personnel from the State Public Works Board perform most of the maintenance work. Senator Raggio voiced his concern regarding the vandalism problem which has plagued the cemetery and noted his grandmother is buried in the cemetery. He stressed Virginia City has a very unique place in Nevada's history and some effort should be made by the city's residents and the state to preserve these historic properties. Senator Raggio closed the hearing on S.B. 253 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 287. SENATE BILL 287: Makes appropriation to fund construction of College Community Complex on campus of Northern Nevada Community College. Senator Rhoads commented the community of Elko views the Northern Nevada Community College (NNCC) as the "Cadillac of community colleges within the state." He related NNCC was the first community college established in the State of Nevada and was started with a $250,000 donation from Howard Hughes. Jeanne Block, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Community College Foundation, testified the Legislature in 1991 authorized issuance of $2 million in general obligation bonds to provide the funds, along with private donations, to build a student union building and a community events center. In addition to these two projects, the college administration has asked the foundation to build and furnish a child care center which brings the total costs for the construction projects to $6.5 million. The foundation has raised $3.8 million towards the completion of the projects, but is still in need of additional funds to complete construction. Chuck Briggs, Vice Chairman, Northern Nevada Community College Foundation, stated the original construction costs for the theatre were underestimated as a result of the Davis-Bacon Act and the requirements of the State Public Works Board. Instead of spending the $2 million on actual construction costs, a substantial amount was paid for fees and various other charges, remarked Mr. Briggs. The foundation is requesting an appropriation of $660,000 to help with the completion of the College Community Complex. Senator Raggio asked why the project is $660,000 over budget. Ms. Block related theatre construction costs were projected to cost $2 million, however, construction costs were much higher and private funds which had been raised for the College Community Complex center had to be spent on the theatre. Mr. Briggs interjected construction costs were increased by 26 percent due to the involvement of the State Public Works Board. He said the $660,000 increase in costs were due partly to additional architectural expenses and because of the State Public Works Board's participation in the project. Due to the agency's involvement, wages and other fees were substantially higher. Senator Raggio noted a $1.6 million Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is scheduled for a new classroom office building. Mr. Briggs explained the CIP project is not a part of the foundation's construction project, but is included within the university system's classroom expansion plan. Senator Rhoads pointed out a $2 million project ended up costing $2.6 million due to prevailing wage costs, inflation, delays in the project, and requirements of the State Public Works Board. Senator Coffin asked whether the 26 percent increase in costs pertained to only labor costs. Mr. Briggs responded the 26 percent increase included labor costs and various fees and expenses required as a result of using the State Public Works Board. He noted the original architectural building costs were $2 million and the final construction costs totaled $2.66 million. Senator Raggio requested a breakdown on the following costs: architectural, engineering, public works board costs, and the prevailing wages used on the project. Senator Raggio closed the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 287 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 88. ASSEMBLY BILL 88: Makes appropriation to certain judicial districts for programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. Senator Raggio questioned if Washoe County and Clark County support this legislation, since these counties might be responsible for paying any required local costs. Patricia Justice, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated Clark County already provides funding to the program and does not plan on reducing their present program commitment. Senator Raggio commented: We do not want to hear...that since we approved these appropriations for the expansion of the program in Clark County, the Eighth Judicial District or the Second Judicial District for this program that we mandated the program and did not furnish all the necessary costs. The counties and the judicial districts involved are capable of continuing and maintaining the program, otherwise? Ms. Justice replied, "Yes, senator." She indicated Clark County plans to combine the state's appropriation with the county's in order to provide matching funds for a federal grant. With these funds, the county will be able to reach approximately 1,000 individuals. Senator Coffin asked if Christina Chandler, Representative, Eighth Judicial District, or Ms. Justice have the authority to speak on behalf of Washoe County regarding this bill. Ms. Justice responded she has spoken to Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Washoe County, and Ms. Henderson indicated Washoe County supports the bill. Senator Jacobsen questioned whether other judicial districts have expressed an interest in the program and commented he would like to see all of the state's judicial districts take part in the program. Ms. Justice responded Judge Leyman will be in the area tomorrow and she will ask him to meet with Senator Jacobsen regarding any additional information he might require. Senator Raggio requested the fiscal staff to contact Ms. Henderson regarding Washoe County's stance on the bill. Senator Raggio closed the hearing on A.B. 88 and returned the committee's attention to A.B. 184. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 184. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND RHOADS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 234. SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND RHOADS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator Raggio referred the committee to page 1943 of the Executive Budget. Forestry Honor Camps - Page 1943 Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, distributed a Budget Closing Action Packet (Exhibit F) for the committee's review. She said the closing actions incorporate the final prison population projections recommended for closure by the Joint Subcommittee on Public Safety/Natural Resources/Transportation. In addition to the population changes recommended in Exhibit F, the budget revisions submitted by the Governor for the forestry camps on April 3, 1995 have also been incorporated in the budget closing sheets. Senator Raggio inquired if the budget closing action recommends adding back the crew supervisor positions the Governor had recommended be abolished. Ms. Botts replied the Governor's revised budget recommends adding back 14 Crew Supervisor positions of the 36 recommended for deletion. In addition, the joint subcommittee recommended retaining the Jean Conservation Camp supervisor position which was scheduled to be eliminated on January 1, 1996. The joint subcommittee also recommended to keep the Jean camp open, to retain the three Crew Supervisors which were to be transferred to Indian Springs Conservation Camp, to keep the mechanic position at Jean and assign the position a work crew, and to retain the Camp Supervisor. Ms. Botts recently met with John Neill of the Department of Prisons and was informed the number of Camp Crew Supervisors does not need to be increased at this time. Senator Raggio commented he does not understand why there will not be a need for more Camp Supervisors, unless the prison does not have enough inmates meeting the work program criteria. Ms. Botts indicated Senator Raggio's assumption is correct. Continuing with his questioning, Senator Raggio asked if the joint subcommittee reviewed the possibility of using chain gangs at the conservation camps. Ms. Botts explained the Division of Forestry and the Department of Prisons have formed an oversight committee to investigate different methods to increase the number of inmate camp workers. Referring to page 4 of Exhibit F, Ms. Botts noted the Senate members of the joint subcommittee recommended assistant conservation camp supervisors no longer be required to take work crews out and that 10 additional Crew Supervisors be hired to handle the inmate work crews. The cost of the 10 new positions totals $365,585 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 and $382,388 in FY 1997. Senator Raggio questioned why 10 additional Crew Supervisors needed to be hired. Senator Jacobsen answered the Assembly members felt the assistant camp supervisor should be assigned to a work crew, however, this is impractical because that leaves only the camp supervisor in the office to handle all the required duties because the assistant supervisor acts as a "rover" and visits crew work sites and provides on site assistance in case of an emergency. The Assembly members of the joint subcommittee closed the budget requiring that the assistant camp supervisor be assigned a work crew, but Senate committee members disagreed with that action. Furthermore, Senator Jacobsen related he has worked over 3,000 hours with the inmate crews and is very familiar with the whole operation and explained if the assistant camp supervisor is assigned to a crew and an inmate becomes ill or is scheduled for a court appearance, the camp supervisor will be required to leave the office unattended for a long period of time to accommodate the immediate needs of the inmate. Senator O'Donnell said this dispute regarding the assistant camp supervisors is also a financial issue because, without the two positions in the office, it will be difficult for the camp supervisor to have the time to locate projects for the crews which will decrease the amount of funds the crews can generate. Continuing with her review of Exhibit F, Ms. Botts stated the amount of revenue projected to be earned by the conservation camps has been increased to $435,000 for each year of the biennium. The Nevada Department of Transportation has indicated it might be able to pay up to $120,000 per year if enough inmate crews are available. The joint subcommittee also recommended the Conservation Camp Coordinator's position be transferred from the division's main operating account into the Forestry Honor Camp budget. The coordinator will approve all state travel and training and be responsible for developing policies and procedures to ensure standardization and uniformity within camp operations, payroll and reporting. As an incentive to persuade more inmates to work on outside projects, inmates remaining in camp will receive a lower wage. Ms. Botts explained no additional buses are recommended for the 14 additional crew supervisors which are to be retained under the revised budget. Fourteen buses rated as "fair" will be retained by the forestry division for these additional crew supervisors. She pointed out Assembly Bill (A.B.) 232 includes an appropriation to replace 26 crew vehicles. ASSEMBLY BILL 232: Makes appropriation to division of forestry of state department of conservation and natural resources for equipment and aircraft maintenance. Also, Ms. Botts indicated the Governor is recommending the school buses currently used to transport crews and equipment be replaced by a crew cab and chassis. She said the employees' union is promoting these types of vehicles because the equipment and the gasoline for the equipment is stored in separate compartments which is a secure way to store these items. Overall, General Fund appropriations have been increased $951,072 in FY 1996 and $906,102 in FY 97 over the amounts contained in the Executive Budget. Senator Jacobsen distributed a handout (Exhibit G) indicating the revenues generated by the individual conservation camps from 1991 to 1994. He pointed out the Stewart Conservation Camp earned $148,851 in 1992 and is one of most productive camps in the system. SENATOR JACBOSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY/NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT F. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Division of Forestry - Page 1927 Ms. Botts stated the Division of Forestry's budget has been adjusted due to changes made during the closing of the Forestry Honor Camp budget. The General Fund appropriation has been reduced primarily due to the actions of the subcommittee to keep the mechanic's position in the honor camp budget and the assignment of the mechanic to a work crew. SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY/NATURAL RESOURCES/TRANSPORTATION AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT F. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator Raggio recessed the meeting in room 223 at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened the meeting in room 119 at 10:15 a.m. He noted Senator Mark James has been invited to join the committee in hearing testimony from members of the parole board and the Division of Parole and Probation. The chairman stated: The purpose of this meeting today results from the tragic incident which resulted in the death of a Sparks police officer, by reason of the actions of a parolee, Mr. Cameron. That in itself is not the only reason we are meeting here, obviously there has been a great deal of media attention, public comment, and concern on this particular issue. We have invited today the members of the State Board of Parole Commissioners, as well as, the chief of the Division of Parole and Probation. We would invite their comments not only on that particular incident, but we would invite comments on potential recommendations for legislation, as to how the parole system or probation system can be perfected. We will invite recommendations from those who appear before this committee on that and related issues. Let me indicate this is not a witch hunt or an effort to attach blame to something as tragic as the death of a police officer, but it is at least timely that the Legislature is in session and there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame extended by various individuals....The Legislature has been concerned for many years about the problems that occur with parole and probation and the whole corrections process....A lot of these matters can be addressed with fiscal appropriations, but many have to be addressed by review and change in the way systems are operated....In the closing days of the Legislature, along with our other responsibilities, we will do as much as possible to listen to the concerns and to select from recommendations that are made and ultimately which we can put forth in this particular session. In addition, as chair I will recommend a study of the entire system of parole and probation as it interfaces with both corrections and local law enforcement, to be conducted in the interim and reported back to the next session. I would hope this would be considered by the entire Legislature one of the major studies to be authorized during the interim. Those are the parameters of our hearing here today. This is not a procedure to impeach or remove people from positions. That is not the committee's purpose. We are here to be as objective, helpful, and responsive as time permits.... The following members of the parole board came forward and were sworn in by the chairman: Lupe Gunderson, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS); Thomas P. Wright, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS; and Thomas P. Chickory, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS. Ms. Gunderson distributed a copy of her testimony (Exhibit H) to the committee and read from the prepared text. Senator Raggio disclosed he has received a press release in which the Governor has announced that Ms. Gunderson has resigned her position as chairman of the State Board of Parole Commissioners and been reassigned to the State Industrial Insurance System as an Ombudsman. He questioned if Ms. Gunderson is still serving in her capacity as chairman of the board. Ms. Gunderson replied, "Yes sir." Senator Raggio commented, in Ms. Gunderson's statement, she indicated a concern regarding legislation being amended which will deprive the board of its capacity to function honestly and independently. The chairman asked what Ms. Gunderson meant by this statement. Ms. Gunderson replied she was referring to the pressure the board received from other agencies which were involved in this situation. The chairman questioned what legislation is being proposed that would affect the capacity of the board members to function honestly and independently. Ms. Gunderson replied, "That would probably be the longer mandatory terms." Senator Raggio asked, "How does that help you [the board] to act independently?" Ms. Gunderson did not immediately respond to the senator's question, so Senator Raggio said, "Well let me see if I can be of assistance." The chairman remarked, presently, a board member cannot be terminated before their 4 year term has expired, however, there is proposal that the law be changed to allow the Governor the authority to terminate a parole commissioner. He questioned what Ms. Gunderson's position was on this proposal. Ms. Gunderson responded: As it stands right now, the Governor appoints all the commissioners and appoints the chairman. I believe in the last appearance I made before this committee, we had talked about a bill that reflected that as far as changing the appointments of the chairperson. Senator Raggio interjected this subject was not discussed in a Senate Committee on Finance meeting. Ms. Gunderson remarked the subject was discussed in a meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The chairman noted board members testified before the Senate Committee on Finance on April 12, 1995, regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 241 which increases the number of parole commissioners from six to seven members. He indicated the minutes (Exhibit I) from this meeting have been distributed to committee members for review. SENATE BILL 241: Increases number of members of state board of parole commissioners. Senator Raggio commented, in Ms. Gunderson's statement to the committee, she referred to a 35 percent parole rate and asked what is the significance of a 35 percent parole rate. Ms. Gunderson answered, when she testified before the Senate Committee on Finance earlier in the session, she felt "pretty comfortable" with the 35 percent rate even though the rate in previous months had decreased to 22 percent. However, in light of the Donald Cameron case, she is confident the parole grant rate will decrease from the projected 35 percent. Senator Raggio inquired, "Should the function of the board of parole commissioners be to meet a specific rate of release. Is that the primary factor of decision?" Ms. Gunderson answered, "No, I don't think it is senator." Senator Raggio asked why Ms. Gunderson specifically refers to a 35 percent parole rate throughout her prepared statement. Ms. Gunderson replied the board felt it could achieve this goal because, in the past, the percentage rate ranged from 38 to 41 percent. Senator Raggio questioned who established the 35 percent parole rate as a goal for the board to achieve. Ms. Gunderson responded, "Well, I believe that was my initial testimony when I felt that, that would be our goal in light of the [Charles] Collier case." Continuing, the chairman asked whether it is a function of the parole board to establish a percentage of release dictated by budget requirements. Ms. Gunderson answered, "Yes, I would say that." For clarification purposes, Senator Raggio asked, "So it is dictated by budgets rather than other factors." Ms. Gunderson replied, "There were other factors involved." Senator Coffin commented he is confused as to how the parole grant rate was established and inquired if the Budget Division provided the board with any direction regarding the parole rate. Ms. Gunderson answered, "Yes, we had discussed that." Senator Coffin asked, "Were you told to set a 35 percent rate by external sources or did you derive that rate based on the experience of the agency?" Ms. Gunderson responded, "I can say we reached that [parole rate] as a whole, as the commissioners and myself and the people that we discussed it with in the budget office." Senator Coffin said, "In other words, you have to provide that information so that they [the budget office] can construct a budget." "Right," remarked Ms. Gunderson. In further questioning, Senator Coffin inquired if the budget office asked the board to set the rate at a specific figure. Ms. Gunderson replied, "No, because as I said originally, that it was usually 40 percent or 42 percent." Senator Raggio requested testimony from Thomas P. Wright Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS. Mr. Wright stated he would like to discuss some of the circumstances involved in the Donald Cameron case. He related he had the pleasure of working with Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS when Mr. Wyett was a member of the parole board. Mr. Wright said Mr. Wyett is a committed public servant and the parole and probation officers he oversees are also highly dedicated individuals. He remarked the parole and probation division with their limited amount of resources, performs a "highly commendable job." The district court judge who sentenced Mr. Cameron is also a "highly trained and intelligent individual." The decision made by the district court judge in a post-relief hearing in 1992 to reduce Mr. Cameron's sentence from 18 years to 10 years was also similar to the decision the board made regarding Mr. Cameron's parole release. Mr. Wright observed there were many mistakes made in Mr. Cameron's case and he has never indicated he does not accept some responsibility for the tragedy which has occurred. Mr. Wright read to the committee a press release (Exhibit J) dated June 6, 1995, from the Association of Paroling Authorities, International, wherein, the association discusses the Cameron case and indicates it supports the action taken by the Nevada State Board of Parole Commissioners. Continuing, Mr. Wright stated: I am sure that this committee's desire is to help the parole board and other agencies of criminal justice to do its job better and to be honest with the public, as well as with this committee, as to how we might do our jobs better and expose the public to the lowest possible risk of harm. Mr. Wright related, at times the communication between the board, the various law enforcement agencies, and the parole and probation division has been "spotty," however, there are times when the communication has been excellent between the various agencies. In reference to the John Wesley Smitharth case, Mr. Wright said the board notified law enforcement agencies in Reno and Washoe County by a form letter about the impending release of Mr. Smitharth, and as a result of the notification, numerous law enforcement agencies contacted the board and indicated their disapproval of the board's action. Because of the concerns voiced by law enforcement, the board reexamined Mr. Smitharth's file and rescinded its previous action to release Mr. Smitharth. Mr. Wright remarked Vi Johnson, a Hearing Representative for the State Board of Parole Commissioners, was on the panel with him during Mr. Cameron's parole hearing. Although the case file was assigned to Ms. Johnson, he and Ms. Johnson thoroughly reviewed the file and made a conscientious decision to release Mr. Cameron. Five board members voted to release Mr. Cameron, but, only four members had the opportunity to review Mr. Cameron's complete file. Thomas P. Chickory, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS, cast the ratifying vote by telephone, however, Mr. Chickory did not have the benefit of reviewing Mr. Cameron's complete file. In referencing page 83 of Mr. Cameron's post-conviction relief hearing held on August 5, 1992, in the Second Judicial District, Mr. Wright read the following: ....because this man is a walking powder keg of a person, who deserves some compassion and who deserves some treatment which is not available in the Nevada State Prison. Mr. Wright indicated the quote is taken somewhat out of context, but he wants the committee to understand Mr. Cameron's situation. He commented the parole board had a "walking powder keg" before it, as did the judge who sentenced Mr. Cameron. Mr. Wright remarked: Frankly, what you do when you have a walking powder keg is, understanding that the walking powder keg is going to be rolling down the hill out of the prison gates maybe 10 months later, maybe what you try to do is wrap that powder keg in as much tissue, blankets, bubble wrap as you can and put it securely in a truck and drive it to a place where powder kegs are unloaded. Specifically, what I am talking about here, is obviously Mr. Cameron was a Vietnam combat veteran who had suffered severely from post-traumatic stress disorder. I felt, as obviously the other board members felt, it was better to put this person out of prison where we had a chance to have very tight and strict controls rather than let him walk out of prison 10 or 11 months later to go to God knows where, to go and explode in society wherever he might. That was the idea. What we ordered was that he go out into an initial inpatient treatment program and he then have mandatory mental health counseling. We took away the discretion that ordinarily the department of parole and probation has. The form we have on the proposed order, in fact the final order says, `mental health counseling, if deemed appropriate by the department of parole and probation,' we struck that language and provided our own with a star next to it, `mandatory mental health counseling.' What we envisioned for Mr. Cameron was that he leave prison into an inpatient program, that he be on intensive supervision when he came out of the inpatient program, that he get mandatory mental health counseling, at the V.A. [Veteran's Administration] Hospital, and there is supporting documentation in the file. Senator Raggio interjected the committee has a file on this matter, and asked if Mr. Wright and Ms. Gunderson can verify that file is a complete file on Mr. Cameron's case. Mr. Wright responded, "We do not know. I can't say because these are mock files. I wasn't even in town when the file was requested." Ms. Gunderson clarified the file which the committee has is a mock file. Senator Raggio questioned what Ms. Gunderson means by the term "mock" file. Ms. Gunderson explained the file given to the committee is not the original file, but is comprised of copies from the original file. She said Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS, has the original file on Mr. Cameron. Senator Raggio noted, pursuant to a subpoena, the committee has been provided with Mr. Cameron's original file. The chairman asked, "As far as you know, these are accurate reports from the original file?" Ms. Gunderson and Mr. Wright answered affirmatively. Senator Raggio asked if there is a specific document in the file depicting the board's recommendations regarding Mr. Cameron's release. Mr. Wright replied this information is contained in the board's final order which is entitled, Certification of the Board of Parole Commissioner's Action. Senator Raggio requested Mr. Wright to read the final order to the committee. Mr. Wright read the following: The board has decided to parole you [Mr. Cameron] effective release under approved parole program. There is an opportunity for the Division of Parole and Probation to investigate the program and give input back to us [board] if they choose to question some of the conditions we have attached to the parole agreement. The special conditions attached in this individual case were that there be no drinking, that there be [an] inpatient substance abuse counseling program and then, number 3 is mental health counseling and you can see here where we have crossed out `if deemed appropriate by parole and probation.' We made it mandatory and you can see down on the first line below the special conditions, with the star number 3, `mandatory mental health counseling.' Number 4 is outpatient substance abuse counseling if deemed necessary by parole and probation department....Down further and underlined is `board recommends intensive supervision.' Senator Raggio questioned what is meant by the term "intensive supervision." Mr. Wright responded it is probably more appropriate for the Division of Parole and Probation to provide the answer to that question. Senator Raggio interjected he thought the term was defined by statute or regulation. Mr. Wright replied, "I believe it is." Continuing with his testimony, Mr. Wright related Mr. Cameron presented a proposed parole packet at his hearing which clearly outlined his intent to seek outpatient counseling through the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Reno. Mr. Wright indicated the board received a document dated February 24, 1995, from the mental health unit at the Department of Prisons. Interjecting, Senator Raggio asked Mr. Wright to provide the committee with a chronology of events regarding how Mr. Cameron's case was handled by the parole board. He asked if the board's certification notice is approved by a court before the parolee is notified. Mr. Wright replied, "No, there is no judicial intervention at this point" and indicated the pre-release packet and final order is transmitted to the Division of Parole and Probation, whereafter, the division conducts an investigation regarding the viability of the parolee's release program. Mr. Cameron's parents were in attendance at his parole hearing and had indicated they would be providing him with a residence during his outpatient counseling at the V.A. Hospital, remarked Mr. Wright. After completing outpatient counseling, Mr. Cameron was to have gone into an inpatient treatment program in Minnesota. Senator Raggio inquired about the location of Mr. Cameron's parole hearing. Mr. Wright replied, "Northern Nevada Correctional Center." In further questioning, Senator Raggio asked if representatives from the Department of Prisons and the Division of Parole and Probation are present during parole hearings. Mr. Wright answered a correctional casework counsel is present at all parole hearings. Senator Raggio asked what events took place in the Cameron case after the hearing was held. Mr. Wright explained, "We may get into matters that I can testify to only as hearsay matters. I have, because of my role in this unfortunate event, taken a keen interest in reviewing the entire file that was available to me." Senator Mathews asked for an explanation regarding the file review process. Mr. Wright answered the file was assigned to Ms. Johnson by the board's executive secretary, but prior to Mr. Cameron's hearing, he and Ms. Johnson reviewed the file. Senator Mathews questioned who is responsible for making a parole recommendation to the board. Mr. Wright explained each parole hearing is attended by one hearing representative and one parole commissioner, however, the hearing representative's vote does not count towards the four votes which are necessary to be granted parole. Senator Mathews inquired whether Mr. Wright reviewed Mr. Cameron's file before he went to the full board of commissioners with a recommendation. In response, Mr. Wright revealed the file was reviewed by Ms. Johnson several days before the hearing and she profiled the case to him "just prior to the hearing for a few minutes." Senator Mathews questioned if Ms. Johnson is a contract employee. Mr. Wright answered, "Yes, she is." After the hearing, remarked Mr. Wright, the file was returned to the parole board's office with a preliminary recommendation in the form of an internal confidential memorandum. Senator Mathews said, "So at this juncture, no board member has read that file completely, just the contract person." Mr. Wright responded, "That is right." He related, once the file was returned to the parole board's office, the file was made available to the other two commissioners and Mr. Chickory was contacted by telephone by support personnel and provided with a brief overview of Mr. Cameron's file. At this point in time, three commissioners and the hearing representative recommended that positive action be taken on Mr. Cameron's parole. Once the votes had been taken and recorded, Mr. Cameron was notified his parole had been approved upon an investigation by the Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Wright stated a form letter was sent to law enforcement agencies indicating Mr. Cameron had been granted parole. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Wright to identify which law enforcement agencies received notification of Mr. Cameron's release. Mr. Wright replied, "I believe they routinely go to the jurisdiction which would be the Reno Police Department and the Washoe County Sheriff." He noted he has a chronological memorandum dated May 23, 1995, from the Division of Parole and Probation detailing the steps taken by the agency in its supervision of Mr. Cameron. Mr. Wright read the following notations from the memorandum: April 17, 1995 - released from Northern Nevada Correctional Center directly to Westhills Hospital. April 25, 1995 - operation supervisor visits Cameron at Westhills Hospital. April 28, 1995 - Cameron calls operation supervisor. Advises he is residing at his mother's residence in Reno. May 2, 1995 - Cameron reports to parole and probation and sees duty officer. Instructed to report 6/95, first Tuesday. Mr. Wright pointed out there is a 34 day time period between May 2, 1995 and June 6, 1995, which is the first Tuesday in June. He said he cannot testify as to whether or not the memorandum is totally accurate because there may have been other contacts by the parole division which do not appear on the memorandum. Continuing with his reading of the memorandum, Mr. Wright stated: May 11, 1995 - parole officer notified by Northern Nevada Correctional Center personnel that Cameron is in Washoe Medical Center for a reported drug overdose. May 11, 1995 - parole officer notified at Reno Police Department (RPD) Repeat Offenders Program meeting that Cameron was arrested by RPD on May 10, 1995, for new felony charges [forgery, possession of stolen property, uttering a forged instrument and bailed out of custody immediately]. Mr. Wright remarked, "In other words, no parole hold placed on him at that time, for reasons I don't know and I don't want to speculate further." Reading the next memorandum entry, Mr. Wright related: May 12, 1995 - parole officer responds to Washoe Medical Center and speaks to intensive care unit doctor. May 22, 1995 - parole officer contacts Washoe Medical Center and learns that Cameron discharged from Washoe Medical Center on May 16, 1995. May 22, 1995 - parole officer, operation supervisor, and unit manager staff the case for arrest. [Approximately 4:30 p.m.] May 23, 1995 - parole officer and operation supervisor attempt HV [Home Visit] at Cameron's residence. Per Cameron's father, he left May 22, 1995 and did not return. Although Mr. Wright said the memorandum is hearsay, he maintained the document is reliable "because they did find him [Cameron] in the morgue later that day." He stressed the parole board was never notified about Mr. Cameron's activities after his release. He declared, "That is something that has to be changed." Senator Raggio asked, "What is the source of this memo?" Mr. Wright replied, " I believe it is issued from the parole division's operation's supervisor in their Reno, Nevada unit." Senator Raggio questioned if the memorandum was part of the committee's file. Mr. Wright said, "I would guess it would be because we made this copy from it." He related he was advised of this tragedy on May 25, 1995, after returning from a vacation. While reading an article in the newspaper the next day, he learned he was being asked by the Governor to resign his position. This tragedy occurred because of an "inadequate system to serve the interests in this state from the risk of harm" which obviously did not work in this case, commented Mr. Wright. Senator Mathews asked how long Mr. Wright had served on the parole board. Mr. Wright replied he was appointed to the parole board August 14, 1991 and reappointed in July of 1993 for a 4 year term. In further questioning, Senator Mathews asked whether Mr. Wright had realized before Mr. Cameron's case the parole system needed to be overhauled. Mr. Wright answered he has had ongoing discussions with the Division of Parole and Probation and the Department of Prisons regarding changes needed in the system. In responding to Senator Mathew's question, he said: I have suspected for a long time that maybe there wasn't the level of communication, and I tell you a place where it was really focused was in the Smitharth matter of 14 months ago, when law enforcement asked us to take a second look at this case and we [the board] said we appreciate your point of view and we are going to. I flew down to Las Vegas and Mr. Chickory and I and Commissioners Harris and Scott sat on a panel and we decided after due consideration to rescind that vote. Senator Mathews inquired whether the parole board has at any time evaluated the parole process to determine if matters can be handled differently. Mr. Wright answered affirmatively and related parole board members, James Weller, Director, DMV&PS and the Governor have engaged in dialogue regarding teleconferencing parole hearings. During the Senate Committee on Finance meeting in April of 1995, Mr. Wright said he offered testimony which indicated six parole board members were not enough to handle the parole hearings at all the various penal institutions in the State of Nevada. He pointed out it takes 6 or 7 hours of travel time to reach the Ely correctional center and in some cases, a board member must stop at a town along the way and call the office to see if any votes need to be ratified. Mr. Wright asserted, "I don't think that is proper," and said he would like to see the teleconferencing concept go forward. In addition, Mr. Wright noted if the Division of Parole and Probation needs more officers and updated equipment to carry out their duties, then the division should be furnished with these items. The parole board is also in need of more resources to carry out their respective duties, Mr. Wright asserted. Senator Raggio noted Mr. Wright had indicated he has been requested by the Governor to resign his position and asked what reasons were given to him by the Governor for the resignation request. Mr. Wright responded, "Governor's Miller's decision to ask for my resignation was based upon law enforcement pressure, the fact the parole board had no credibility any longer...the resignation was essential and based entirely upon the Donald Cameron matter." In order to understand the whole situation surrounding this case, Mr. Wright said he is performing his own investigation into the matter. Senator Raggio questioned if Mr. Wright's investigation has turned up any information which would shed more light on the matter. Mr. Wright replied he has been studying the file and has even spoken with Mr. Cameron's mother who related to him that Mr. Cameron had made several telephone calls to the Division of Parole and Probation which were not returned by the agency. He clarified this information is hearsay, however, Mr. Cameron's mother had no reason or motive to lie about this matter. Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Wright has discussed the alleged telephone attempts with any law enforcement personnel involved in the case. Mr. Wright answered he has discussed the case with Mr. Wyett and Richard Kirkland, Washoe County Sheriff, regarding increased communications between all the involved agencies. Senator Raggio inquired about Mr. Wright's present work status. Mr. Wright said he has not at this time tendered his resignation from the board. He commented, hopefully, this case will highlight the need for improved communications and the need for more resources. In further questioning, Senator Raggio asked what Mr. Wright's background was before he became a parole commissioner. Mr. Wright answered he has worked as a county prosecutor, a state deputy attorney general, legal counsel to State Board of Parole Commissioners, private defense attorney, pro tem judge for Reno Municipal Court, former program attorney at the National Judicial College, member of the Board of Directors for the National District Attorneys Association, defense attorney, panel attorney for United States District Court, and a member of the Judicial Selection Commission. Proceeding, the chairman inquired what changes Mr. Wright would recommend in the qualifications for appointment of parole board members. Mr. Wright indicated he has given this question a great deal of consideration and remarked: The parole board represents all areas of the community. We act kind of as a jury. We consider law enforcement input, so therefore we should have someone with a law enforcement or legal background on the board....We as a board now, the six members, represent a tremendous diversity of interests in the community.... Senator Raggio asked if there should be any specific qualifications for parole board members set forth in statute. Mr. Wright answered several board members should be required to have training in law enforcement. The chairman noted Ms. Gunderson in her statement referenced the necessity that the board be allowed to retain its independence and inquired if Mr. Wright agreed with this statement. Mr. Wright replied the board must remain independent and indicated the Governor has never attempted to micro-manage or manipulate the parole board. Senator Raggio questioned if law enforcement agencies should be allowed to approve parole board decisions. Mr. Wright stressed law enforcement agencies must receive more information on the type of individual who is being released back into the community. He said he would like to see the parole board "viewed as an instrumentality" of law enforcement and not a dumping ground for political appointees. Most prisoners appearing before the parole board are not paroled, especially if it is their first appearance before the board, remarked Mr. Wright. He pointed out Nevada's parole grant rate is average when compared to other states. Since this tragedy, the board will certainly take a harder look at its decision making process, commented Mr. Wright. The chairman asked whether a Governor should be given the authority to remove a commissioner before the board member's term expires. Mr. Wright stated, "I have some difficulty with that. Who would want to serve if they have a fire-at-will policy?" The board cannot maintain its independence unless it is free to execute decisions without regard to job security, remarked Mr. Wright. Senator Raggio commented it is his understanding, presently, any state officer appointed for a specific term may not be removed by the Governor. He indicated he requested an opinion (Exhibit K) on this issue from the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and was informed an appointee may only be removed from office by impeachment. Referring to Ms. Gunderson's previous statement (Exhibit H) and Mr. Wright's statements made at the Senate Committee on Finance hearing on April 12, 1995 (Exhibit I), the chairman noted he questioned Mr. Wright extensively during the hearing regarding the projected 35 percent parole grant rate and asked how the 35 percent rate was determined. Mr. Wright relayed discussions were held between Ms. Gunderson, the board's executive secretary, and various commissioners to try and calculate projected parole rates. In addition, some of the board members attended a meeting with a representative from the Governor's office to try and determine a percentage because of problems with prison overcrowding. During his testimony on April 12, 1995, he indicated the 35 percent rate could not be achieved unless the board released probation violators the first time they appeared for a parole review. He said he does not support this action entirely because some of these individuals need to spend more time in prison in order for them to learn their actions have serious consequences. The chairman commented the Governor and the Legislature are not able to prepare agency budgets unless specific information is supplied by the agencies. Senator Raggio questioned if the parole board feels constrained to meet the 35 percent parole rate, and if so, "is that the board's first consideration?" Mr. Wright replied, "I don't think you can take 35 percent of the Nevada state inmate population at any time and guarantee with any certainty, that there is not going to be some risk of harm to the public." Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Wright has any other recommendations to offer to the committee on how the process can be improved. Mr. Wright responded, at this time, he does not have any more suggestions to offer on the subject, but will continue to explore the matter. Senator O'Donnell inquired, "Coming on the heels of the Cameron case, is it your conjecture that the release rate is going to stay at 35 percent?" Mr. Wright responded, "I would have a tough time committing to that at this point." Ms. Gunderson agreed with Mr. Wright's statement. Senator O'Donnell pointed out Ms. Gunderson in her statement (Exhibit H) to the committee indicated a 35 percent release rate could be achieved by the board. Ms. Gunderson answered a 35 percent rate will not be achieved for some time because of Mr. Cameron's case. Senator James remarked the good-time credits earned by Mr. Cameron while he was incarcerated allowed him to come before the parole board sooner than if he had been required to serve a flat amount of time before being considered for parole. He stated it is certainly better to return an inmate to society with a "tail of parole and probation than it is to walk free on a sentence which is flattened out by the good-time credit system." The Senate Committee on Judiciary has developed a bill which requires a judge to set a minimum sentence and does not allow for a discretionary parole release until the minimum sentence is served. Senator James asked for Mr. Wright's input on this proposed legislation. Mr. Wright said he had no objection to longer statutory minimum sentences if the objective is to increase public safety. Senator Raggio questioned how many commissioners are generally present at a parole hearing. Mr. Wright explained the typical panel at a maximum security institution is made up of two commissioners or a hearing representative and a commissioner or just two hearing representatives. Per statute, commented Mr. Wright, hearings at minimum security institutions can be held with only one commissioner present. The chairman asked how hearing representatives are selected. Mr. Wright explained a hearing representative's credentials are reviewed by board members and the individual is then interviewed. Senator Raggio questioned whether a hearing representative is a full-time employee. Mr. Wright related the representative is a contract employee and receives $100 per day and per diem when travel is required. Proceeding with his questioning, the chairman asked, when one commissioner attends a parole hearing, how do the remaining commissioners make a parole determination read the inmate's file before coming to a and inquired if all the commissioners decision. Mr. Wright replied: In Northern Nevada, the file is returned to the central office from the hearing. It is passed to the next commissioner that is available to review it. The whole file is there and supplemental investigations can be conducted at that time. It is not uncommon for calls to criminal justice agencies for further input....Then a vote is cast and it goes to the next commissioner who does the very same thing and eventually you wind up with four votes and a lot of times there are split votes.... Senator Raggio stated, "I am trying to pin down what actually happens" and asked once a commissioner has cast a vote after attending a hearing, as a general rule, do the other commissioners personally review the file. Mr. Wright responded affirmatively, however, in Mr. Cameron's case, Mr. Chickory was briefed over the telephone by a staff member. The chairman said a comment was made to him that when no other commissioners are available to vote on a case which was heard by only one commissioner, then secretaries in the parole office have been instructed to cast the remaining vote on any nonviolent cases. Ms. Gunderson responded, to her knowledge, this has never occurred during her tenure on the board. In further questioning, Senator Raggio asked if the board receives any undue pressure to reduce the rate of release after a high profile case, such as the Collier case. Ms. Gunderson answered, "Not to my knowledge Mr. Chairman." Senator Jacobsen said this tragedy indicates to him the Legislature over the years has neglected the needs of the Division of Parole and Probation and the parole board. After the Collier case, he met on several occasions with Mr. Wyett and various law enforcement and judicial officials to discuss how the system can be improved. One of the most important recommendations made by the members at the meetings, he said, is to require notification to victims regarding an offender's parole hearing date. Senator Coffin asked for clarification on Mr. Wright's statement that he did not want the parole board to become the "dumping ground for political appointees." Mr. Wright replied he read that inference in a Las Vegas newspaper. In addition, Senator Coffin noted Mr. Wright had indicated earlier in his testimony that the board should be connected with law enforcement and asked for clarification of this statement. Mr. Wright explained, "I would like to see our board viewed as part of the effort to enforce the law and to do the best job that all of criminal justice can do in keeping our streets and neighborhoods straight." Senator Coffin questioned how the board can be an independent body if it is connected with law enforcement. Mr. Wright replied the term "connected" was not used by him, however, he does believe the board should work more closely with law enforcement agencies. If the board had another commissioner or more hearing representatives, then the board could take a more "proactive role" in communicating with law enforcement agencies, district attorneys' offices, the Department of Prisons, and the Division of Parole and Probation. Proceeding, Senator Coffin stated, "So what you are saying then is that you wish to see the board to continue to be completely independent." Mr. Wright answered, "At this time I think that is preferable." Senator Raggio questioned if Mr. Chickory had any comments he would like to make in this matter. Mr. Chickory expressed his support of the comments made by Mr. Wright and Ms. Gunderson. He described Mr. Cameron's case as a "nightmare" for everyone involved and stated it is time for everyone involved to move forward and improve the process through communication. The chairman inquired if Mr. Chickory had any recommendations to make to the committee on improving the parole process. He reiterated the process can be improved by implementing teleconferencing and increased communications with local law enforcement agencies. With reference to board member qualifications, Senator Raggio asked whether Mr. Chickory felt board members should have any special law qualifications. Mr. Chickory answered board members should be chosen from a variety of different professions, but some members should have a law enforcement background. The chairman questioned what Mr. Chickory thought about fixed terms for board members and if the Governor should have the authority to remove a board member. Mr. Chickory said fixed terms are acceptable to him, however, he does not agree that the Governor should have the power to terminate a board member. Senator Raggio thanked Ms. Gunderson, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Chickory for their appearance before the committee and invited the remaining parole board commissioners to come forward. The following members of the State Board of Parole Commissioners were sworn in by the chairman: Michael R. Harris, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS; Jesse D. Scott, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS; and Beatrice Franklin, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS. Mr. Harris testified he has been a parole commissioner for 2 years and his qualifications include: elected official for the City of Henderson, Nevada, planning commission member, small business owner, and 4 years in the military. In 1993, he wrote the Governor and asked to be considered for appointment to the board. He indicated he was not involved in the decision making process to release Mr. Cameron. Senator Raggio inquired if Mr. Harris has any suggestions relating to changes needed to improve the parole system. Mr. Harris stated he supports the recommendation to perform an interim study on the parole board and the Division of Parole and Probation and suggested at least one member of the study be a member of the parole board. In addition, he also advocates increased communications between the board and various law enforcement agencies. Quite often, he remarked, one commissioner has the responsibility of making a parole recommendation to other board members, so the board members must have a great deal of trust in that individual's judgment. Because three commissioners are located in the northern part of the state and three are in the southern part, the fourth vote is generally cast over the telephone which means that one commissioner has not had the opportunity to review the inmate's complete file. Mr. Harris commented the parole board has standards which the commissioners must follow when considering an inmate for parole. Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Harris has ever been pressured to parole an inmate due to a specific parole grant rate. Mr. Harris replied negatively and stressed each case should be examined on a case-by-case basis without regard to a projected parole grant rate; however, he understands a parole rate must be established for budgetary reasons. He related he does not recall being informed that a specific rate of release had been established. The chairman inquired what Mr. Harris' opinion was on the subject of providing the Governor with the authority to terminate board members. Mr. Harris responded, since the Governor appoints the commissioners, then he should have the right to rescind the appointment if just cause is proven. Continuing with his questioning, Senator Raggio asked Mr. Harris if he believed that any of the board commissioners involved with the Cameron parole decision are guilty of malfeasance while in office. Mr. Harris stressed he has not seen the file nor did he vote on the file, but based upon what he has heard, the commissioners assigned to the Cameron case performed their duty. Senator O'Donnell questioned if Mr. Harris was aware that a 35 percent parole release rate had been set. Mr. Harris answered, "The specific rate of 35 percent, I can't remember where that came from. I did hear it from our chairperson, at one point in time. We did have a conversation over the phone, but I really believe it was after the 35 percent was agreed upon." Senator Raggio inquired if Mr. Harris thought board members should be required to meet specific qualifications before being allowed to serve. Mr. Harris said "grass roots and common sense" is important, as well as a background in law enforcement and budgetary experience. The chairman asked Ms. Franklin if she had any additional comments to make regarding this whole issue. Ms. Franklin told the committee she is unclear as to the purpose of the meeting and questioned if the committee's focus is on Mr. Cameron's case, the budget, the 35 percent parole release rate, or all of these items. Senator Raggio clarified the meeting is being held to discuss all of these matters and the committee would welcome any input from Ms. Franklin on any of these issues. Ms. Franklin said the board attempts to make the best possible parole decision, but the decision will not always be popular with the general public. She noted the percentage rate is based upon a projected prison population increase within a 5- to 10- year span and parole projections are established only for budgetary purposes. In some months, the board will be able to meet the projected rate, but in other months the rate will not be achieved due to the type of inmates the board sees in that particular month. Regarding board procedural issues, Ms. Franklin related the board is in the process of strengthening and expanding its procedures. The chairman noted Ms. Franklin is the longest serving member of the parole board and inquired if she believes board members should meet specific qualifications before being considered for appointment. Ms. Franklin answered, "Yes I do. I think law enforcement staff, correctional staff, people who have had training and/or experience in casework, welfare, any number of disciplines." Senator Raggio questioned if Ms. Franklin has any comments on how the decision in Mr. Cameron's case was reached. Ms. Franklin said: I felt we [board] made the best decision we could under the circumstances. Nobody has any guarantee that your decision will turn out as you hope it will. Mr. Cameron needed mental health counseling and there wasn't a great deal of the kind of mental health counseling he needed there in the prison system and the board sought to get him into such a program before he expired that sentence, where there would be extensive supervision and greater opportunity for post-traumatic stress counseling. Proceeding, Senator Raggio asked, "So as a member of the parole board you believed, that if released, he would be under what is termed `intensive supervision'." Ms. Franklin answered affirmatively. The chairman questioned Ms. Franklin as to her interpretation of the term "intensive supervision." Ms. Franklin replied, "It meant to me he [Cameron] would get more supervision than the average inmate without intensive supervision." Senator O'Donnell remarked, "Ms. Franklin you stated the release rate was a projection of the prison population." Ms. Franklin interjected, "Of what the prison anticipates. It is related to what the prison anticipates they will get in over a certain period of time and the board attempts to accommodate the needs of the prison for empty beds." Continuing, Senator O'Donnell said, "So you look at the issue of the number of beds available to determine whether or not to release more or less people, is that correct?" Ms. Franklin replied that is not the only information the board considers, but it does utilize prison population projections as a guideline. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Franklin when she first became aware of the projected 35 percent parole release rate. Ms. Franklin answered she does not recall when the rate was first mentioned to her. Senator O'Donnell questioned, "Was it told to you that it would be 35 percent?" Ms. Franklin replied, "No, it was something that we discussed in relation to the numbers of prisoners the prison anticipated in getting over a certain period of time." She related, to her knowledge, this subject was discussed among all the board members. Commenting further, Senator O'Donnell stated, "Mr. Harris said that he was unaware until after it was discussed." Mr. Harris responded: The southern Nevada office was first informed over the phone...by the northern Nevada office, by someone, I don't know who, dealing with the 35 percent ratio. I do recall a telephone discussion and I don't remember when, with our chairwoman, and we talked a good bit of time over it. This was when I was trying to determine if it was all even possible, based on my short knowledge of the situation. I was of the feeling there was a decision made to try and achieve 35 percent. Somebody also asked if I felt pressured to do that, no I didn't. But, I felt the decision was made and I felt I had cleared the air as far as I felt about handling case-by-case and we take it as it came...I thought that number was a little too high, I didn't know that it could be achieved. Was I trying to strive for it, well no more than what I would try and parole anybody before. Senator Mathews inquired if Ms. Franklin voted on Mr. Cameron's case. Ms. Franklin answered affirmatively. Senator Raggio invited Jesse D. Scott, Commissioner, State Board of Parole Commissioners, DMV&PS, to voice his thoughts on this matter to the committee. Mr. Scott remarked he supports the chairman's suggestion to perform an interim study on the criminal justice system as it relates to the parole board's functions. He said the tragedy which occurred in Mr. Cameron's case cannot be erased, but steps must be taken in the future to rectify the problems encountered in the case. There must be enhanced communication between the agencies involved with parolees, commented Mr. Scott. He stressed, "The state needs to take the reins and go forward and give some sense of direction as to where we are and where we are to go." He expressed his disappointment that so much "finger pointing" has occurred because there is still a vast amount of information which has not been entirely explored. Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Scott had any recommendations regarding the parole process or the manner in which the parole board members are selected. Ms. Scott suggested improved communication between the parole board, the Division of Parole and Probation, the Governor, the Legislature, and law enforcement will help immensely. In regard to qualifications, he said, the jury system is an excellent example because jurors are selected from all walks of life. He maintained a percentage of the board members should have a background in law enforcement and corrections. The chairman questioned if Mr. Scott was involved in the decision making process on Mr. Cameron's Case. Mr. Scott answered negatively. Senator Jacobsen remarked he has reservations about conducting a study on this issue because it will take 4 years before any recommendations can be implemented. Mr. Scott stressed: As far as waiting that long, you are in the driver's seat. Number one, we can have annual session....Number two, you can set up a special kind of situation and give yourself the amount of power you need. You can meet 3 months from now and make a decision. You don't have to wait 4 years, you can do it right away...You can even appropriate how much you need, since you are on the money committee....I thought what Senator Raggio was saying was rather a good way to do it, rather than do it impulsively and in a reactionary fashion.... Senator Jacobsen related the Legislature cannot change the law unless it is in session. He noted there are several pieces of legislation addressing some of the problems experienced by the parole board and the Division of Parole and Probation and indicated the Legislature needs input from these two agencies in order to know if the issues addressed in the bills will be beneficial to the agencies. Senator Raggio interjected an interim study committee is essential in order to examine the procedures utilized by parole and probation, how paroles are granted, supervision issues, and communications between the agencies and law enforcement. Referring to board standards and procedures, Mr. Harris informed the committee the parole board held a business meeting in Carson City approximately 1 week ago to discuss board standards and "severity levels." He said the board is in the process of reviewing the standards and will provide the committee with a report once the review has been completed. Senator Coffin questioned if the board's business meeting is subject to Nevada's opening meeting law. Mr. Harris indicated the meeting was posted in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes. Senator James turned the committee's attention to Exhibit L which is a list of guidelines used by the board in reviewing an inmate's request for parole. He related the Senate Committee on Judiciary has spent a great deal of time in revising felony sentencing standards and indicated his willingness to provide the board with any assistance the board needs in revising its standards and procedures to coordinate with the actions taken by the senate judiciary committee. The chairman invited Mr. Wyett to come forward and be sworn in. Mr. Wyett introduced the following Division of Parole and Probation staff members: Peter English, Deputy Chief, Operations, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS, Carlos Concha, Acting Deputy Chief, Administrative Services, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS, and Nancy Tiffany, Unit Manager, Pre-Release, Division of Parole and Probation, DMV&PS. Senator Raggio asked if the file given to the committee by the Division of Parole and Probation on Mr. Cameron's case is the complete file. Mr. Wyett replied, "Yes it is." The chairman commented: You have heard the discussions regarding the Cameron matter, from the standpoint of the board of parole commissioners. There were a number of comments made, particularly a memo was referenced, as to what occurred after the parole hearing of Mr. Cameron. There appeared to be some lack of intensive supervision and there appears to be some dates which were mentioned where contacts were made, but some periods of time expired which did not, from the perception of the chair, meet the requirements of what is termed `intense supervision.' I would like to give you the opportunity through your testimony to tell us what occurred in reference to Mr. Cameron and the Division of Parole and Probation.... Mr. Wyett explained the Division of Parole and Probation is at the "mercy" of the sentencing of district court judges and the decisions of the parole board. Mr. Wyett noted page 2 of a handout (Exhibit M) distributed to the committee depicts the levels of supervision followed by the division. While reading from page 2 of Exhibit M, he noted the following guidelines are considered by the division when determining a parolee's level of classification: Intensive Supervision - Career Criminals or those suspected of being actively involved within the criminal subculture; offenders with a history or heavy drug abuse or suspected sales of drugs activity; dependent offenders requiring extensive assistance, such as the mentally ill or emotionally handicapped. Referring to page 3 of Exhibit M, Mr. Wyett pointed out the monthly parole and probation contact guidelines for a parolee on intensive supervision are: one monthly report, one home report, one face-to-face visit, four collateral field contacts, one employment verification, one special conditions, and one weekly progress report. He indicated these guidelines are minimum requirements and in most cases are surpassed by the officers. Senator Raggio mentioned an intensive supervision program was recommended for Mr. Cameron and pointed out the intensive supervision guidelines were developed in 1973 with the assistance of federal grants and designed to assist in the supervision of high risk offenders. The chair read the following excerpt from the division's biannual report: This Intensive Supervision Unit (ISU) provides supervision to those offenders identified as career criminals, serious drug abusers, drug dealers, violent offenders, and offenders with specialized supervision or treatment needs. Intensive Supervision officers are able to make frequent contacts with offenders, they administer frequent and random drug tests, officers identify special problems or needs of offenders, make appropriate referrals for counseling or treatment programs, intense enforcement and frequent contacts are key elements of the ISU program. The chairman stated he understands intensive supervision was recommended in Mr. Cameron's case. Mr. Wyett answered, "That is correct." Continuing, Senator Raggio asked, if the memo dated May 23, 1995, and referenced by Mr. Wright, was written by the Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Wyett responded, "Yes, this is the memo we sent out to everyone." Senator Raggio questioned whether Mr. Cameron's case was handled properly by the division, and if not, are there any procedures the division can implement to alleviate the problems which occurred with Mr. Cameron's case. Mr. Concha was sworn in by the chairman and indicated the May 23, 1995, memo referenced by Mr. Wright was amended by the division on May 31, 1995, after the facts were thoroughly investigated by the division. Senator Raggio inquired about what additions were made to the memo after the deaths of Mr. Cameron and Officer Johnson. Mr. Concha, in reference to the May 2, 1995 notation regarding the instruction to Mr. Cameron to report back on June 6, 1995, explained: The reason for that request is in the requirements of intensive caseload the offender has to report into us [Division of Parole and Probation] the first week of every month. So that was just satisfying one condition, that his next appointment for him to come into us would have been the first Tuesday of June. That does not preclude the fact that, that individual would be contacted by us and required to satisfy other conditions during the month of May. Mr. Concha, in response to Mr. Wright's question as to why the division did not place a hold on Mr. Cameron on May 10, 1995 when he was arrested on felony charges by the RPD, explained that after Mr. Cameron's arrest, he was released on bail rather quickly and the division was never notified Mr. Cameron had been released. Presently, there is no system in place which allows for the notification of parole and probation immediately upon booking of a parolee. He noted a committee has been formed to develop a system for law enforcement agencies to notify parole and probation and the criminal repository when an offender has been booked. Senator Raggio asked when the division was notified about Mr. Cameron's release. Mr. Concha replied the first notification the division received was on May 11, 1995, from a northern Nevada correctional officer who advised a parole officer that Mr. Cameron was in the Washoe Medical Center for a drug overdose. In addition, on May 11, 1995, two parole officers were notified at a RPD Repeat Offenders' program that Mr. Cameron had been arrested on May 10, 1995, for new felony charges and was now in the hospital because of a drug overdose. The two parole officers notified their supervisor on May 11, 1995, about Mr. Cameron's activities. One of the two parole officers telephoned Washoe Medical Center and was advised by a doctor that Mr. Cameron was admitted into the intensive care unit at the hospital and it would be difficult to communicate with him. On May 12, 1995, the parole officer visited the hospital and observed Mr. Cameron was unable to speak to him at that time. The chairman remarked the division was notified Mr. Cameron was in the hospital on May 11, 1995, and asked if an officer visited the hospital on that date. Mr. Concha replied, on the advice of the intensive care doctor, the parole officer did not make a personal visit to the hospital until May 12, 1995. Senator Raggio asked, "Wouldn't it have been prudent to place a hold with the hospital at that point in time?" Mr. Concha answered, "In retrospect, I would say yes." Proceeding, the chair commented he was under the impression intense supervision consisted of more requirements than what was outlined by Mr. Wyett. He noted he is not criticizing the division, but the term "intensive supervision" implies more to him than "one monthly report and one home visit." On May 12, 1995, he remarked, Mr. Cameron was in the hospital and 3 days later the case was transferred to another officer who was under the impression the hospital would contact the division before the parolee was released, however, this did not occur and Mr. Cameron was released without any notification to the division. He said it appears there was a lack of communication when the case was transferred to a different officer. Senator Raggio questioned what procedures within the division need to be reviewed and if the Legislature can help in any way to see that the necessary changes are implemented in order to prevent another tragedy. Mr. Wyett explained: When the ISU system was begun in 1973, the division was mandated to have one officer for 30 offenders. We also were mandated to have, on the regular caseload, 75 offenders to one officer. Since 1973, the crime rate and the caliber of crimes in the State of Nevada have changed drastically. We are dealing with situations of violence from kids, from adults, from every walk of life. It is not categorized as it was back in the 1970s, where if you were a criminal you had a label such as safe cracker or doper. Now we have all of the above mixed into one individual. To answer your question as to what we can do, we have officers dealing with these 30 to 1 offenders, and I am sad to say that we have other Donald Camerons out there today as we speak on the 30 to 1 caseloads. Thirty to one intensive supervision offenders is more than we can handle under today's crime rate and system. I think we need to be realistic, because we have officers who are resigning because of burnout. We cannot keep the positions you have given us filled because by the time we recruit, train, and place an officer in the field, three more officers have quit. We have a hard time recruiting officers at the pay scale we are under. We are losing at attracting qualified, good, sound people. The requirements of a parole and probation officer, at the present time, is a 4 year degree in criminal justice or corrections.... Continuing, Mr. Wyett related the Division of Parole and Probation has been actively involved in helping with the development of various programs such as the Repeat Offenders Program. The officers working in the ISU always go beyond the minimum standards because the type of criminal under intensive supervision dictates more contacts and supervision than the minimum requirements set by statute. Senator Raggio inquired what additional actions, other than the minimum requirements, were taken in Mr. Cameron's case. Mr. Wyett replied the division, at one point in the Cameron case, did "drop the ball" because it did not verify that the hospital would notify the division before Mr. Cameron's release and 24-hour security was not implemented at the hospital. Although, if 24-hour security had been placed on Mr. Cameron's room, then three officers would have been unable to handle their regular caseload of 75 to 1. The chairman questioned if it is the division's responsibility to provide security for a parolee or local law enforcement's duty. Mr. Wyett responded, if the division detains an individual outside of the confines of the county jail, then the division is responsible for the security of the individual. In further questioning Senator Raggio asked, "Are you saying you don't have adequate staff or are you saying the salaries are not adequate and that is the reason these things happened?" Mr. Concha explained, in February of 1995, the division had a number of parole and probation officer vacancies which were all filled, however, since that time, 15 new vacancies have opened up. Even though the division is budgeted for a 75 to 1 ratio, in reality the officers supervise at an 80 to 90 ratio because, once these officers are trained, a number of them quit to work for the federal parole and probation department due to higher salaries and lower caseloads, remarked Mr. Concha. He indicated the Legislature has appropriated the funds to allow for a 75 to 1 ratio, but the division cannot keep the positions filled. Senator Raggio commented, to his knowledge, the Legislature has responded fully to to the requests of the division. He inquired whether the division has informed the Governor or the Budget Division regarding its salary concerns. Mr. Concha answered the division discussed this issue with the Budget Division and officers have been moved from a Grade 32 to a Grade 34 due to the findings of an occupational study which was completed several years ago. The grade increase was helpful, but county and city employees have continued to receive cost-of-living increases, while state employees have remained stagnant for the last 4 years. Senator Raggio reiterated, "Have you told this to the Budget Division or the Governor?" Mr. Concha answered, "Yes, I believe we have." The chairman contended Mr. Wyett has testified on the division's budget and if the funding was not adequate, then he should have spoken up during the budget hearing. Mr. Wyett replied, "We have discussed this with the Budget Division." In reference to equipment needs, Senator Raggio noted the division's records are kept on 5 by 7 cards and they do not have the capability to interface by computer with other law enforcement agencies. Mr. Wyett responded, "That is very true" and explained the division's computer system is comprised of parts from computers from various state agencies. The division has a large collection of data on offenders, but cannot provide it to other law enforcement agencies because its system is old and pieced together, so it does not have the capability to interface with other systems. He stated the "crack" in the criminal justice system is lack of communication because law enforcement agencies and the judicial system do not share enough of their information. The division does not have the equipment to adequately serve the Repeat Offender Program or the local jails in the state. Mr. Cameron was able to "slip through the cracks" because of inadequate equipment and lack of communication. Senator Raggio pointed out the Governor, in a memo dated April 25, 1995, recommended a 5-year plan to meet the technological needs of the division. He remarked the memo indicates staff will be added in the first year of the plan to begin development of the automation plan and equipment will be added each year until the division is fully automated and on-line by the year 2000. Mr. Concha reported the funding for the automation plan will be attached to Assembly (A.B.) 236 and includes two computer programming positions for 1996 with an appropriation for automation costs each year until the year 2000, totaling approximately $1.2 million. ASSEMBLY BILL 236: Makes appropriation to division of parole and probation of department of motor vehicles and public safety for replacement and purchase of various equipment. For clarification, the chairman asked, "At this time, the Governor is only recommending $332,000 for equipment and two positions." Mr. Concha answered, "Correct." Proceeding, Senator Raggio questioned how much can the division accomplish in its goal to interface with other law enforcement agencies with an appropriation of $332,000. Mr. Concha replied, "I am not sure how far it will get us, but we are looking at receiving assistance through the Criminal Justice Committee that is in the process of planning and getting all criminal justice agencies connected." In reference to the Cameron case, he related, when the division was advised on May 23, 1995, that Mr. Cameron, a parolee, had been involved in a murder, it was unable to retrieve any computer data on the parolee because information had not yet been input into the computer system. Senator Raggio asked why the May 23, 1995, memo was revised after the deaths of Mr. Cameron and Officer Johnson. Mr. Concha replied the memorandum was revised because James Weller, Director, DMV&PS, requested a more detailed report on the chronological events. Mr. Wyett interjected the memorandum was first written from file notations, however, a meeting was held with all the individuals involved with the Cameron case to gather more detailed information. After the meeting, the memorandum was revised to include the additional information which was generated during the meeting. Senator Mathews commented she heard the division's budget earlier in the year and pointed out parole and probation officers are required to purchase their own weapons. In response, Mr. Wyett indicated parole and probation officers spend approximately $1,000 of their own funds for equipment purchases. In the past, the division has been unable to purchase bullet proof vests for its officers, so Mr. Wyett contacted Washoe County, Undersheriff, Dan Coppa, and asked the county to give its old vests to the division. He said Mr. Coppa advised him the vests could not be reissued to county personnel due to insurance concerns, however, Mr. Coppa suggested, once the vests were disposed of in a dumpster behind the Washoe County jail, the vests could be retrieved by the division. The division has been retrieving the vests in this fashion for over 5 years, Mr. Wyett announced. Senator Raggio stated: I am astounded....Do you tell these things to the Governor, do you tell them to the budget office....To my knowledge the Legislature has never denied equipment that has been requested. Do you tell this to the budget office and the Governor that you have to go stand at a dumpster to get handed-down equipment? Mr. Wyett related the division, prior to his appointment as chief, never requested enough funding for equipment. Senator Raggio asked why the division did not request more funding for equipment. Mr. Wyett replied, "I can't speak prior to my tenure as chief of this agency, sir." Senator Coffin commented bullet proof vests should be replaced every 4 to 5 years because the vests lose their effectiveness after a period of time. Mr. Wyett remarked the division has requested funding for bullet proof vests and 40 caliber weapons for all officers on staff. Senator Mathews informed the committee that parole and probation officers are being required to transport offenders in small compact cars which poses a safety hazard to the officers because of their close proximity to the offender. She said the division has requested larger vehicles, but the State Motor Pool Division has not been very cooperative in complying with this request. Mr. Wyett stated the Division of Parole and Probation is "in the business of fixing problems and not fixing blame" and noted the division has worked diligently in the past with the parole board. In fact, Mr. Wyett remarked, the division loaned the parole board a half-time clerical position to help with preparations for pardon's board hearings. In October of 1993, he initiated a Tri-Agency Coalition to offer the administrators of the Department of Prisons, State Board of Parole Commissioners, and the division an opportunity to resolve interagency issues, as well as establish future goals. Mr. Wyett noted a memo (Exhibit N) indicating the coalition's accomplishments since its inception has been distributed to committee members. One of the problems with the parole board system, commented Mr. Wyett, is the board sometimes is unaware of the types of community programs offered by the community in which the parolee will be living. He stressed there is only one lock-down mental health facility in the State of Nevada and if Mr. Cameron was a "walking powder keg" as stated by Mr. Wright, then he should not have been paroled. The Division of Parole and Probation can provide only 50 percent of the total solution to any offender's problems and the offender, through their own individual effort, must provide the remaining portion. Mr. Wyett opined that since Mr. Cameron was so dangerous, then he possibly should have been released to Lake's Crossing for the Mentally Disordered Offender for his follow-up care. Senator James stated the committee's inquiry into this matter is to determine how to correct these problems prospectively and not to just look at past mistakes. He mentioned, per the May 23, 1995 memoradum, a decision was made on May 22, 1995, at 4:40 p.m. to arrest Mr. Cameron, but the notation on May 23, 1995 indicates "due to time of day will arrest first thing May 23, 1995." He inquired whether the division has investigated why this decision was made and asked how this situation will be handled in the future. Mr. Wyett denied a media report which indicated an arrest was not immediately made by the division because of overtime concerns. He said every officer involved in the Cameron case was interviewed and at no time was there a reference or question as to overtime pay. In its determination to wait until morning before arresting Mr. Cameron, Mr. Wyett related: The division looked at the time, what his arrests were for, it was for checks. We looked at the whole scenario and felt that he lived at home with mom, we tried to contact mom and dad and they said he had not been home for a few hours. The supervisor felt at that time he would be more available and we could scoop him up the next morning. It was a bad decision given what we know now, but that is the decision. We dropped the ball at that time. We should have, we could have gone out and possibly found Mr. Cameron, but we did not do it....When I took the appointment by Governor Miller...I took that appointment with the responsibility and I accept the responsibility of the Division of Parole and Probation. We all, in the Division of Parole and Probation are very sad by the loss of Mr. Larry Johnson.... Senator James stated: This analogy is not meant to cheapen the situation in any way, but temptation becomes to blame the field goal kicker, who was the guy who missed the 3 point kick, without looking to the whole team which got them to that point in the first place...that is the temptation here. You were the last person in the chain or your agency was. We all have to take responsibility and I want you know that I am prepared through the Legislature to do that. If the good-time credit system had not been so flawed and unvisited for 30 years, then maybe this person would not have been there in that situation anyway because they would not have gotten that credit.... Senator Raggio commented it is difficult for him to understand why one member of the parole board, Mr. Wright, has been singled out as the one solely responsible for everything which has occurred. The chair stressed the committee is interested in discovering what the Legislature can do to assist the parole board and the division in their goal to study the problem and make the necessary changes. Mr. Wright clarified the term "walking powder keg" was assigned to Mr. Cameron by a district court judge at Mr. Cameron's post-conviction hearing. Senator Raggio stated: The chair repeats it comments made earlier in the meeting, as to the parameters of this hearing, and the chair's suggestion that this is a subject ripe for study, immediate study, not 4 years, but in the interim and to the extent that this Legislature can act this session. I would urge it to do so, to the extent that a study will be helpful to the next Legislature. I reiterate that proposal. There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pamela Jochim, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Finance June 8, 1995 Page