MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, February 23, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator William J. Raggio (Excused) Senator William R. O'Donnell (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Ande Engleman, Executive Director, Nevada State Press Association Doug Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas Terry Lamuraglia, Chief Legislative Representative, Clark County Personnel Department BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) R- 4 1 5 : U r g e s t a t e a g e n c i e s t o w o r k w i t h f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s t o d e v e l o p p l a n f o r s o l a r e n e r g y . ( S C R 3 5 ) SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-415. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS O'DONNELL, RAGGIO AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL (S.B.) 56: Revise provisions relating to collective bargaining between school districts and certain employee organization s. (BDR 23- 651) Senator O'Connell asked the committee to consider putting chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statues under the open meeting law. She proposes changing nothing in the collective bargaining system except adding open meeting law language. She explained the State of Nevada Employees Association has used this system. She stated she is cognizant of the examinations of school district budgets by arbitrators. The administration is forced to try to obscure money to keep revenue for operations, maintenance and other expenditures. She asked if the open meeting law would accomplish helping the districts to maintain their budgets. The committee looked at the work session document (Exhibit C). Senator Shaffer asked what would happen to the request for fact finding which the districts proposed. Senator O'Connell replied nothing would change in the law except to make the bargaining be done in open meetings under the open meeting law. Senator Townsend asked if this is being conducted anywhere else in the country? Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards stated under the current open meeting law, observing the meeting is permissible for the parties. He testified that parties can have closed door meetings and most of them are closed because of the atmosphere of negotiation. He gave a personal example to the committee of when he was City Manager of Carson City. He said much negotiation in the early years, after the law was first enacted, was conducted in open meetings. He explained this was a joint city employees and city management decision. He testified the public never responded, and occasionally a news reporter was present. He said the exercise never proved anything. He said it is not mandatory and both parties have to agree to do it. Senator O'Connell stated the reason for her question is, the revenue in the school districts' budgets is taxpayer dollars. She said the spending of taxpayer dollars is behind closed doors and not discussed in a public forum where the taxpayers can hear it. Ande Engleman, Executive Director, Nevada State Press Association, testified there are a few states where this process is done openly. She related to the committee that the press has had an interesting situation with this since the last legislative session. She said it does not matter who is in the negotiations, the press is being manipulated. She stated she could furnish the committee anonymous copies of letters which she has received from the Douglas County Employees Association where there is a "raging battle going on over employee raises and the county manager." She expressed the press receives anonymous leaks from the unions which leaves the local governments in an unusual situation. She asserted the local government is restrained because they cannot respond to these press leaks as they are bound by confidentiality requirements in the bargaining law. She said the local unions trifle with the press, suggesting the local government or school board is not bargaining in good faith. She said the press cannot get a reply, or know if it is the truth, when it is handled this way. She said there are members of the Nevada State Press Association who used to be elected officials, and they favor negotiations being handled in open meetings. She said the press and the public would be able to get the truth. Senator Porter stated, for informational purposes, the elected officials are not negotiating in a quorum, it is usually a staff matter which is a different issue than if a council member or commissioners were doing it. He repeated it is a staff matter. Ms. Engleman agreed this is probably true in the larger counties, but she doubted if it is true for the rural counties. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, testified he has open negotiations experience in Arizona. When he was in Arizona, he negotiated contracts with school districts and the negotiations were open. He explained the audience can become unruly and the press reports this behavior. He stated he feels that making proposals and counterproposals at the table is difficult because of the press. He said it takes away some ability to plan strategies and negotiations. Senator Porter stated Boulder City's charter makes union negotiations in open meetings illegal. However, when times are turbulent and lean, the unions can be political and not logical by playing to the press. Ms. Engleman contended unions usually begin negotiations with a high figure and management has a low figure (both of which are ridiculous). She stated somehow they negotiate to a middle amount. She cited Douglas County as an example, 87 percent of their budget is employee wages and benefits. She pointed out under Nevada's open meeting laws, certain behavior and decorum must be maintained and people can be ejected from the room for unruly behavior. She said it is one thing to picket outside the building, but there is no reason for it to take place inside the building. Terry Lamuraglia, Chief Legislative Representative, Clark County Personnel Department, added his perspective to the discussion. He said in negotiations a union will tend to, if they can, play to anyone included in the process, including taxpayers during the negotiations process. He stated there may be rules established at the beginning of the negotiations that the negotiator cannot speak to the press or the public, but the negotiators can speak to their members who in turn will speak to the press and public. He declared allowing the collective bargaining process to be open to individuals of the press, public, or taxpayers would definitely impede the process established for negotiations. He related he has negotiated for 10 years on both sides of the table, representing various groups. He stated he probably cannot perform his job as effectively if he had people there who did not understand the process. Senator Porter repeated that on the county level, no decisions on salaries are made until they hold an open meeting with all of the officials present to vote. He stated a decision is not made until the governing body ratifies it by unanimous vote. He said there is room for public discussion, opinion or scrutiny before the decision to vote is made. He stated he favors open government, but does not want to slow the process to the detriment of the community. Mr. Dickerson explained this proposal was discussed at the annual league of cities meeting. He said open meeting negotiations proposals were brought before that group. He stated the bill failed to become part of their package, but the large cities all were opposed to having open negotiations; the smaller cities were all in favor of having open negotiations. Ms. Engleman stated she is unaware of Clark County or Boulder City's process, but she said there is no opportunity for public comment before a contract is voted upon in all of the rural counties. Senator Porter suggested to the committee that negotiations be posted like open meetings so the public can have its participation. Senator O'Connell restated her concern regarding negotiations. She told the committee she understands the situation the district was in with salary caps and the proposal from the bargaining units. She repeated this is taxpayer revenue that is being spent and the taxpayers have almost no voice in the matter. Mr. Dickerson stated to the committee he does not see anything wrong with the current process. He asserted when the parties go to arbitration, the arbitrator is given too much latitude to decide. He explained if management has money and if the employees can justify they have worked harder, then an arbitrator will say, "You have got the money, we might as well reward them." He said everyone would be better served if there were limitations in the law regarding areas where arbitrators can decide. Senator O'Donnell stated he thinks the public would act as observers rather than participants. Henry Etchemendy restated the current law allows open meetings during negotiations. He said it has been opened in places. He explained if the committee does mandate open meeting negotiations, there is a section of law that will need to be revisited. One exception in the open meeting law mentions in personnel negotiations that the employer's negotiator may meet in private with the employer group to report the status of the negotiation. He stated this needs to be left in the law for negotiators to meet privately with their clients. Mr. Dickerson asked for clarification regarding open meeting negotiations. He stated there should be a review of those items which are part of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, which would be independent from the open law concept. He restated he does not believe there is anything wrong with the process, but the lack of limitations on arbitrators hurts the process. Senator Porter maintained: I would not discount the intelligence of the voters. I think they can figure out the process, so I am not concerned about that. It is very complicated and confusing. My next point, is that if it is open, then both parties should follow the same rules. The bargaining unit should follow all of the open law rules and as is the counsel; both sides are open. When arbitration is involved, the elected officials do not decide. A third party makes the decision and it is out of the hands of the elected officials, which is an argument against arbitration, but it creates a whole different set of rules. Senator Titus stated, "It seems to me you are talking about some major changes in [chapter] 288 [Nevada Revised Statutes] if you are talking about limiting the arbitrator and talking about open meeting laws. We do not have any of the people who are affected in here to argue the other side. You are experts at doing this kind of bargaining. Is this a fairly common thing in other places? Is this ground breaking for Nevada?" Ms. Engleman explained that it was Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 281 that requires it be a closed hearing, that it was not in the chapter 288 [Nevada Revised Statutes] statutes. She said the other problem is that the press has been fed information from unions all over the state, all anonymously sent. She reported she has even received copies of the offer which is behind closed doors, faxed anonymously, to her fax machine in hopes she will feed it to the appropriate press agencies. She said she resents being used that way. She said the press is left with no choice. The union people get someone to sign letters to the editor and it runs in the newspaper. Ms. Engleman explained it is hard to be responsible press when information is leaked, although the press is aware it is a leak. The management side cannot comment because of the confidentiality that is required by Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 281. If the officials are doing the negotiations they cannot talk about the process and if they have someone doing the negotiations for them, they are careful to screen their remarks and the management negotiator cannot respond. Ms. Engleman restated the press is only given one side of the story. The press does not know if this is the truth or not. She stated the press feels negotiations are a media circus with it being closed than with it being open. Mr. Lamuraglia testified: We have a very good relationship with the media in Clark County. I can promise you if a union goes outside of the bargaining process, away from the table, sending out information (a leaflet or a flyer), we come back twice as hard. We'll come back with even more information to show they have broken the rule, the process, or the law, 288 [Nevada Revised Statutes], where we agreed to not go to the press or the public without both sides agreeing. I can promise you, we would put out even more information. We would put out the figures if they so did, put out in the beginning their ungodly elephant requests for benefits. I would do that in a minute. We have a good relationship and neither side does that today. Mr. Lamuraglia said they tried to open their negotiations to other staff members to create a team approach. He said the unions wanted to keep it tight, even from their own membership. They do not want to be perceived, if they have 20 items and really only want 2 items, that they gave up 18 items. Management does not want to be perceived that way either. Mr. Etchemendy stated many interested parties are not present to participate in the discussion. He said this is going way beyond the two bills proposed and heard at the beginning of the week. He said his group would help anyone to make the playing field a little more level. Mr. Dickerson said: When you put a package together in caucus, you may package the thing very differently in terms of the way it is going to end up when you come out there with it. You may come out and have a 'take away' in that package. You put that on the table. Unless everyone out there knows what your strategies are in terms of negotiations, you can look very bad sometimes, in terms of what your proposals are. What you have to do is work that as a team. Senator O'Donnell responded, "That is the point. When the light comes on, people act differently. Instead of asking for eighteen points, you ask for five. If you have to give up three, you give up three. You do not look so bad, do you? Maybe turning the light on in this situation will make both sides a little more responsible." Senator O'Donnell proposed a subcommittee to look at amending S.B. 56. Senator O'Connell requested Senator O'Donnell to chair the subcommittee. Senators Porter, Titus and O'Connell volunteered to be subcommittee members. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 56. Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on S.B. 82. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 82: Provides that unlicensed employees of school districts have sufficient community of interest to negotiate as separate bargaining unit. (BDR 23-650) Mr. Dickerson proposed the committee hold S.B. 82 until the subcommittee completes the work on S.B. 56 since the two are closely related. The committee agreed. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 82 and opened the hearing on S.B. 83. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 83: Elimina tes fees for copying certain documents. Senator O'Connell explained to the committee that Exhibit D is the language Senator Raggio suggested for S.B. 83. The committee read the proposed changes to S.B. 83. Senator Porter indicated there was no one from either side of the issue to speak to the amendment. Senator O'Connell said Secretary of State Heller had seen the amendment and informed her on February 23, 1995, he had no problem with the language in the amendment. Senator O'Connell further stated the attorney general was present when the language was proposed. Senator O'Connell asked Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, for clarification for action taken on S.B. 83. Ms. Bennett responded the committee voted to amend and do pass on January 25, 1995; and on January 30, 1995, the committee voted to reconsider the bill. Ms. Bennett stated to the committee if they want to move the bill forward, they will need to take action on it. Senator Townsend stated to Ms. Bennett his notes show the committee voted to amend and do pass on January 25, 1995, rescind on January 30, 1995, and to amend and do pass on February 2, 1995, with the language in Exhibit D. Ms. Bennett explained to Senator Townsend the action on February 2 was to consider an amendment. Senator Townsend asked for clarification. He understands the amendment is to say Secretary of State Heller could hire outside counsel when the Secretary of State Heller or his staff perceives a conflict with Attorney General Del Papa or her staff. Senator O'Connell stated Senator Townsend has a valid concern. She asked the committee if they preferred Senator Raggio to be present to make a comment on the amendment before the committee acts on it. A discussion of the amendment followed. The committee chose to hold the amendment until Senator Raggio was present to comment on the amendment. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 83. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs February 23, 1995 Page