MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 6, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 6, 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 William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, Clark County Robert Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Michael Hoffman, Sergeant, Nevada State Prison, State of Nevada Employees Association, (SNEA) President, Prison Chapter North Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator, Service Employees International Union Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol Bruce Alder, Superintendent, Division of Child and Family Services Robert Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons David E. Luke, PH.D., Director, Northern Nevada Mental Retardation Services Jared E. Shafer, Public Administrator, Public Guardian, Clark County Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, Nevada District Attorney Association Donald L. Cavallo, Concerned Citizen Bob King, Economic Development, Clark County David Buhlig, Senior Land Use Specialist, Sierra Pacific Power Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting at 2:05 p.m. The first order of business was to hear a request for the introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 19-365. BDR 19-365: Revises provisions governing availability of public records. Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified on the reason for this request. Ms. Fretwell stated that her department does all kinds of mapping. They keep track of utilities and various information used in development and other areas. Ms. Fretwell explained that because of the complexity of the technology used to create the maps, they are not readily available to the general citizen who might benefit from them. This bill allows that information to be made available to the general citizen. Currently, taxpayers support the development of the Geographic Information System (GIS) in Clark County through their tax dollars; however, private industry can tap into that technology because they have the infrastructure in place to do so. A lot of times citizens purchase the information from a private vendor when they really already paid for it through their tax dollars. Ms. Fretwell continued, "[This bill] would allow for us to finance that infrastructure to make it more accessible to individuals who would like to have it. It wouldn't be just a few businesses that would be able to tap into the technology." SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 19- 365. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Next on the agenda was a hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 152. Senate Bill 152: Requires certain state agencies to allow classified employees to select working schedules on basis of seniority. (BDR 23-324) The first to speak was Robert Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association. Mr. Gagnier presented and discussed Exhibit C and Exhibit D. Senator O'Connell asked, "It would seem to me as though you would have certain shifts in certain agencies that would require a certain level of expertise. If you didn't have that many employees available to you with that expertise, what then is management supposed to do?" Mr. Gagnier replied, "I think that is what we have tried to get at in subsection 1. Because in the previous bill . . . we did not have this language. We are saying to the extent practicable and then go on to even further clarify it and say in accordance with the staffing requirements. You can't have all of your most experienced people on one shift. . . " Senator O'Connell asked if with the liberal language they would accomplish anything. Mr. Gagnier agreed with that possibility and commented that they have tried to make the wording of the bill as palatable as possible to management. Mr. Gagnier said the bill may not accomplish everything they want it to, but you will not know until it is tried. Michael Hoffman, Sergeant, Nevada State Prison, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) President, Prison Chapter North, was next to testify in favor of S.B. 152. Mr. Hoffman stated he was elated when the agency regulations came out that established a seniority clause. Mr. Hoffman said he thought it would have some effect on what days off and shift assignments would be. Mr. Hoffman continued, "Management decided this was going to be used as just another regulation to let the guys they want to work whatever shifts, work those shifts. . ." Mr. Hoffman explained his view on the unfairness and detrimental effect of the current law and gave examples. Mr. Hoffman thinks people would be more enthusiastic and happier if their shift and assignment was decided on seniority. Senator Townsend questioned Mr. Gagnier about lines 12 through 17 of the bill. Senator Townsend asked if seniority is defined anywhere else in statute and if so, why would it be redefined here? Mr. Gagnier answered: There is a definition within the regulation on layoffs, but the layoff definition is one we used in the previous bill. Management objected to that definition because the definition of seniority in our layoff regulation provides for seniority based upon continuous service in a job group, even in another agency. They said that was not good. They wanted it confined to time within their agency. So that is why we put in this change. Senator Porter stated his concern about the inconsistency of days off and shift assignments throughout the departments. Senator Porter asked if there is a policy manual in place that addresses this issue? Mr. Gagnier responded that statewide there is no such thing as a policy manual. There are the personnel regulations which have the force and effect of law and apply to all agencies. Under that definition management can determine shift schedules and days off. Senator Porter asked for the name of the statewide manual. Mr. Gagnier said it is called the state personnel regulations. Senator Raggio questioned if according to this bill, seniority would be the only criteria for determination of the shift/days off schedule. Senator Raggio suggested the use of other criteria to make these determinations; for example, work performance or special training. Mr. Hoffman said: The way we have envisioned this is that seniority would apply to the shift and to the days off. Once that is established, . . . the administration would assign those officers to whatever positions that they felt those officers would be best in. The way that it works now, the way the shifts are set up is that the position is assigned to the days off. . . What we are asking for is to change that and assign the days off to the officer. That would allow administration the latitude to work you in any position in the institution . . . Mr. Gagnier added comments about special groups and that this bill is better than the present situation. Senator Raggio commented that he is concerned about possible grievances because of seniority being the only criteria used to determine shift and days off. Mr. Gagnier stated that he could not respond to some of Senator Raggio's concerns because they are management judgements. Senator Raggio reiterated his concern and gave another example of the issue. Mr. Gagnier told Senator Raggio that in every law there has to be a cutoff point or it would be left up to management to decide. Mr. Hoffman introduced 470 signatures of supporters of the bill. Mr. Hoffman reiterated his prior testimony in support of S.B. 152. Next, to testify in favor of S.B. 152 was Gary Yoes, Political Action Coordinator, Service Employees International Union. Mr. Yoes introduced and discussed Exhibit E. Mr. Yoes thinks this bill would eliminate favoritism, facilitate fairness and good morale. Major Daniel Hammack, Commander, Field Operations Bureau, Nevada Highway Patrol, was next to testify. Major Hammack introduced Exhibit F. Major Hammack said, ". . . The division would recommend seniority to be addressed by agency policy or regulation rather than a statutory requirement . . . The department of motor vehicles and public safety would support this position for all employees within the department." Senator Porter asked if Major Hammack had discussed his program with the division of mental health or the department of prisons. Major Hammack responded that he had a discussion with the department of personnel when the bill first came out and there are varying positions within state government on the seniority issue. Senator Porter expressed the opinion that a program such as Major Hammack `s could be good for morale. Major Hammack agreed and gave examples of the program. Senator Raggio said, "This is very helpful because this is exactly what I was trying to pin down. I indicated that seniority [should] be a factor, but I notice in your number 3.18 that you reference [in Exhibit F]. . . seniority should be only one factor utilized. Are you familiar with this? I think this really meets the concerns that I was looking for . . . " Major Hammack agreed and stated a policy will have to be custom tailored for each agency due to the mission of that agency. Senator Raggio asked, " . . . If one of your employees feels that this procedure has not been followed, what recourse is available?" Major Hammack answered, "It is a procedure. We bring it up through the command staff. He can go to his line supervisor and start the initiation of the process . . . We do have disputes. We have had disputes in the past over seniority dates . . . They are usually settled through the supervision level or through negotiation of the employees . . . " Next to testify against S.B. 152 was Bruce Alder, Superintendent, Division of Child and Family Services. Mr. Alder presented and discussed Exhibit G. Senator Porter questioned if the division of child and family services has a policy and procedure manual that addresses this same issue. Mr. Alder responded in the affirmative. Next to testify was Robert Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons. Mr. Bayer said: . . . The issue of seniority, while it may superficially appear to be a fair issue . . . would have a dramatically negative effect on the department of prisons. . . When it comes to staffing . . . it is a complex issue. When you start looking at not only shifts, but days off it becomes more complex. As you are aware when you staff a facility you have a relief factor . . . If you are going to balance a shift properly, it takes a lot of thought. . . You assign days off for every position you have . . . What is left is your relief factor . . . We have 30 or 40 different kinds of positions . . . If you try to transfer someone . . . from a housing unit to a tower . . . if they are not used to working that they think they have been punished. . . The complete officer should know how to work anyplace . . . " David E. Luke, PH.D., Director, Northern Nevada Mental Retardation Services, was the last to testify against S.B. 152. Mr. Luke presented and discussed Exhibit H. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 152 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 184. Senate Bill 184: Authorizes public guardian to secure property of proposed ward under certain circumstances. (BDR 20-384) First to testify was Jared E. Shafer, Public Administrator, Public Guardian, Clark County. Mr. Shafer introduced Exhibit I and said: . . . I would like to walk you through the process of a temporary guardianship and show you why this bill becomes very important. In a temporary guardianship, . . . in a financial exploitation situation our office receives a call from someone in the community. At that point they advise us that there is a person . . . who is being exploited . . . or possibility physically abused. . . Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) require us to review the situation. We call Clark County Social Services . . . and two people go out to review the situation. If it is a financial exploitation case, . . . we, by being there, have already put on notice that person who is doing the exploiting. The next issue is we call [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department] METRO. We hope METRO can do something in its legal capacity to help secure certain assets and . . . property or to remove people from [the]. . . premises. It is a very difficult procedure because, as a rule, the person we are dealing with is unable to make their wishes fully known . . . If METRO is unable to do something, . . . then we are sitting there with the possibility that exploitation will keep going on. [Meanwhile] we have to rush down, find an attorney, draw up documents, walk them over to the courthouse, get the probate commissioner to review them, take them to a judge, find a signature, go to the courthouse, get them certified and then go running around to all the banks and the properties trying to secure property. . . We are usually being ripped off while this is going on. . . This bill will allow the public guardian to go ahead and issue one certification [and] secure property, . . . It is a 5-day certification. Within that 5 days, it is incumbent upon my office to make the determination as to whether we go forward with a full-blown guardianship or not. . . This prevents the possibility of assets disappearing in that window of opportunity. Mr. Shafer gave an example of this problem. Senator O'Connell commented that there is not any penalty in the bill if Mr. Shafer's office took advantage of the situation. Mr. Shafer responded that the only penalty would be his removal from office. Senator O'Connell asked: . . . if somebody were in that office as an appointee and they were taking advantage of the situation. [If] there was not a support system for the person that was being taken advantage of, I am not quite sure how long they might be able to get by with something without a discovery. Just because there is not a penalty listed in the law or . . . anywhere else in the NRS it was a concern to me. Mr. Shafer answered, "There is no penalty directly for the actions of the public guardian anywhere in the NRS statutes . . . It is just a matter of doing the job correctly . . . " Senator O'Connell questioned, "Is the language you have offered from any other state?" Mr. Shafer responded saying (Exhibit I) contains California's statute called "taking temporary possession or control of property." Mr. Shafer said, "We went to that and read it and then drafted our own. . . " Senator O'Connell asked if there could be two different offices involved in this process so there would be a watchdog system for the protection of the person who could be taken advantage of. Mr. Shafer responded that the metropolitan police department would probably be the applicable office, but they are very busy. Senator O'Connell suggested social services as a good department to consider. Senator O'Donnell asked: I have a question on line 6 and 8. Can you give me an example of situations where no relative would be there to protect the property? I guess my concern about this particular statute would be that it may give your office a little bit more broader reach in . . . making a self determination that you are now the ward of somebody's property versus the court. Mr. Shafer answered, ". . . This is for living people, so a will won't matter. As for stepping on relatives toes, absolutely. . . 90 percent of our problems are with relatives ripping off a family member. . . It says no relatives of the proposed ward who are able to protect the property. . . if they are here, we will not get involved. . . " Senator O'Donnell said, " . . . I am more comfortable with [a] checks and balances type approach. Would you have an aversion to . . . going to a judge and getting . . . a court order?" Mr. Shafer responded, "That is fine if I can get a judge. . ." Senator O'Donnell and Mr. Shafer discussed examples of possible situations which could come up. They discussed the power that this bill would give the guardian. Senator O'Donnell said that under the law now your office has to go to court, but this law would allow the guardian to determine to secure the property of the ward. Mr. Shafer explained that the assets still belong to the ward. Mr. Shafer said they have 5 days to decide whether to go forward with a guardianship. Senator Raggio said, ". . . This bill only goes to the point where you . . . issue a certificate. . . It is effective until the 5th day after you issue the certificate. I don't find anything in this measure that tells us what you do within that 5 days. . . At some point, what happens to this property that [you] have secured?" Mr. Shafer answered after the 5th day, the certifications become null and void. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, Nevada District Attorney Association, commented, "Senator, if I understand your question, they have this 5-day period to possibly investigate and determine that there really isn't any problem that the public guardian has to address. Is your question then, what happens at the end of that 5 days?" Senator Raggio confirmed Mr. Graham's question. Mr. Shafer responded that his office procedure would be to return the assets to the ward after 5 days. Mr. Shafer stated that this is not in the bill and that it probably should be added. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Graham if his office is supportive of this bill. Mr. Graham said he looked at the bill as an asset preservation measure and as a crime prevention measure. Donald L. Cavallo, Concerned Citizen, testified next in support of S.B. 184. Mr. Cavallo stated: . . . Involved in the seniors and the guardianships as I was, I see this as a very big necessity to help safeguard those assets of those individuals. This does not give the public guardian any authority he does not already hold as a public administrator on the estate proceedings. Under 253 the public administrator has the right to secure the property of a deceased individual, if failure to do so would endanger that property or if there were no relatives willing or able to do so. The liability is already there on Mr. Shafer as public administrator and public guardian. . . I am in support of this bill. Senator O'Donnell commented, "I think you hit the nail on the head. You said that . . . the existing bill already states that an individual such as an administrator can go in after a person is deceased. . . and secure the assets. This [bill] goes beyond that now to direct government intervention into any complaint that may be filed. . . I think I need some kind of checks and balances here. . . " Mr. Shafer argued his request for the bill is because he cannot do everything in real time. Mr. Shafer said, "The 5-day number is because of . . . the Thanksgiving holiday. If something comes down on Wednesday, . . . we use 5 [days]. . . " Mr. Shafer gave more examples of the situations that occur and why they need this bill. Senator O'Donnell asked: . . . I would like to know if you have a problem in ratifying what you are doing in the court? I would hate to see you go out and just have this power. Review it [and] within the 5-day period you decide it was really a hoax. . . You don't want to have any ward or guardianship over this individual; therefore, you just return everything and everyone goes on their merry way. Except you have violated somebody. I guess I would feel better if you went to court and established probable cause for doing what you did. You see there is no probable cause in here. There is just . . . government intervention into somebody's life without establishing some sort of reason why you are doing it. . . Mr. Shafer responded, "The probable cause is established in that social services protective unit and us both are required to respond to a senior in need. . ." Senator Raggio commented, "The key word in there may be proposed ward. That is why I asked the question does this tie in somewhere? There has to be some finality to this and some accountability . . ." Mr. Shafer said he would not issue a certification if he did not have the intention of implementing a guardianship. Mr. Shafer continued, this bill is not "big brother" if you trust the person who is doing the job. Senator O'Donnell argued the statute will be on the books for hundreds of years and Mr. Shafer may not be there in 5 years. Senator Titus asked Mr. Shafer how long he has been the public administrator and if he had ever had complaints? Mr. Shafer responded he has been the public administrator for 15 years. He constantly gets complaints and he refers them to the district attorney's office for investigation. Mr. Shafer said there has never been anything found because his office does not rip off people. Mr. Graham suggested the use of some type of short form affidavit and have a judge sign it to give a temporary order. Senator O'Donnell responded, "Yes, just something that would sustain your actions. . . I agree with the premise of the bill . . . At the same time there is that [loophole] in there that allows you to have this all encompassing power that is not checked. If you get a [temporary order] from a judge, that is fine with me." Senator O'Connell requested Mr. Shafer to come back to the committee with language that addresses Senator Raggio's concern about the 5 days and probable cause. Mr. Shafer agreed to Senator O'Connell's request. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 184 and opened the hearing on S.B. 185. Senate Bill 185: Revises procedures governing reconveyance, sale or exchange of certain land acquired by county. (BDR 20-528) First to testify was Bob King, Economic Development, Clark County. Mr. King said: . . . The changes as outlined in S.B. 185 came about as a result of having gone through a reconveyance within the last 12 months that brought up some difficult areas in regard to the existing law that we felt could be changed and should be changed. . . I notice in the printout of the bill . . . that there was one item that was missed in regard to changes that should have been made and that is the deletion of `mailed' in page 2, line 8. . . You have deleted paragraph (b) on line 3 and 4 relative to mailing out to . . . owners of record within 300 feet of the land proposed for reconveyance. . . Senator Porter asked, " . . . On line 21, which is section 2, you are eliminating the planning commission. Why is that?" Mr. King said the commission had no idea why they were hearing issues relative to the reconveyance. Senator Porter asked if this would essentially eliminate one hearing. Mr. King confirmed that it would eliminate one hearing. Senator O'Donnell questioned, ". . . The new subsection 4, line 16, page 2. . . What is chapter 37?" Mr. King answered, "Chapter 37 is the acquisition by public works for condemnation. . . " Senator O'Donnell stated: . . . If I get my house condemned because the proposed freeway is going to go through my house, you buy my house,. . . you go ahead and make a deal with eminent domain, you threaten to take me to court, you buy my house, . . . then all of a sudden some county commissioner . . . changes the direction of the freeway and it is now going to go « mile south . . . My house is now deeded to you. . . The landowner next door is going to build a . . . shopping mall and he needs my house . . . According to this language, you can [decide to] not sell it to the original owner and sell it to the developer. The owner [does not have] the first right of refusal as I understand it. Mr. King responded, "No" and gave an example using the language in the bill. Senator O'Donnell suggested on line 23 using the word `and' instead of the word `or'. Mr. King replied, "I have a situation right now where we acquired . . . a piece of property up on Lake Mead Drive. . . When they set out the roadway it went directly through the lady's bedroom. They just bought the entire property which is about 1 acre. We then tore down the house . . . and the property is now sitting there vacant. I went to the lady and asked her if she wanted the property back. . . and she said no. She then gave me a letter stating the fact that she no longer had any desire for that property. Now we will go ahead and sell it under 244.282. . . " Senator O'Donnell said, ". . . The language allows you to make that decision . . . Either they refuse or they don't own any real property. That is your decision, is it not? . . . Instead of the word `or' if it said `and' . . . or `contingent'." Mr. King responded, ". . . I have no problem with that if you want to make that amendment. . . You understand however Senator, that based on the existing law . . . you will pay the appraised price at the time that you reacquire it. It is not what we paid you." Senator O'Donnell stated, "We can fix that. I think we should give them first right of refusal. . . " Senator O'Connell questioned Mr. King about why he wants to take the issue of mailing notices to nearby properties out of the bill. Mr. King replied that in the last year, he got a lot of calls from people asking why they received the mail-out. Senator O'Connell stated that this issue was hard fought for over the years and is very valuable to property owners. Senator O'Donnell agreed with Senator O'Connell about the notification of future use of nearby property and its value. David Buhlig, Senior Land Use Specialist, Sierra Pacific Power, was next to testify. Mr. Buhlig presented Exhibit J, which states the amendment Mr. Buhlig proposed. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 185 and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs March 6, 1995 Page