MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 5, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 5, 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: Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Doug Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas Kurt Fritsch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson Gary C. Cordes, Lobbyist, City Clerk and Treasurer, City of Fallon David Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce Frank Partlow, Concerned Citizen Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Economic Development of Western Nevada Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters Association of Nevada Eldon Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs Eric S. Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Robert Schreihans, President, Carson City Fire Fighters, Local 2251 Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Police Officers Research Association of Nevada Terry Lamuraglia, Lobbyist, Clark County Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Gary Schofield, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Senator O'Connell opened the meeting by introducing the following bill draft requests (BDRs). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 23-1706: Revise provisions governing disclosure of improper governmental action. Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified: When the state whistle blower law was passed, . . . we thought it would cover almost everything. . . Since that time we have had a little experience under the law and have found what we believe to be a flaw. That flaw is that there is a way to circumvent the law for those people who are professionally licensed. That circumvention is to go to the board that licenses the state employee and object and somehow impact their license . . . SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-1706. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS PORTER, TITUS AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** BILL DRAFT REQUEST 21-733: Authorize creation of taxing districts to defray cost of additional fire protection in certain cities. Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, testified, "The bill draft . . . basically requests . . . that there be some enabling legislation to allow special fire needs in downtown Reno. . . " Senator O'Connell asked if the bill draft could be included in another bill they have before the taxation committee. Ms. McKenzie responded she thought it could, but maintained this bill is just enabling legislation. Senator Townsend asked for clarification if this bill is required for the fire department to create the district. Ms. McKenzie answered in the affirmative. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 21-733. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATORS PORTER, TITUS AND SHAFFER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 291. SENATE BILL 291: Revises provisions governing collective bargaining between local governments and their employees. (BDR 23-666). Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, was first to testify in favor of S.B. 291. Mr. Grady discussed the procedure for his organization regarding the Legislature and bill drafts requested. Mr. Grady discussed amendments he would like considered. Mr. Grady said, "Elko, Boulder City, Winnemuca, and Mesquite have all called and asked that they be put on record as supporting this bill." Senator Raggio asked for some explanation of the proposed amendments. Doug Dickerson, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, introduced and discussed Exhibit C. Senator Raggio stated he did not feel that Mr. Dickerson answered his question. Mr. Dickerson explained, "The present collective bargaining law has both supervisory and nonsupervisory bargaining units. When we looked at that we thought this would be a major change in [Nevada Revised Statutes, chapter] 288. What we do need is to make sure that our professional employees and administrative employees are not part of the bargaining unit. . ." Senator Raggio asked, "Then you wouldn't use an employee that was a supervisory employee as your representative in your negotiations?" Mr. Dickerson responded, "No, we would not." Kurt Fritsch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, reiterated Mr. Dickerson's comments and presented Exhibit D. Mr. Fritsch testified: I will address section 2.9 of the bill. This is probably . . . the most important part of this bill . . . What we have requested in the bill as it states today is any award the arbitrator vests on the date the arbitrator reports his decision to the parties. That takes out language that made it retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract. . . That language has not worked in local government's favor over the past years. As the law is today, there is no incentive for a bargaining unit to agree prior to July 1, which is typically the first day of the new contract. . . Because it's such a strong position . . . what I have put before you is an amendment to page 2, line 37 (Exhibit D). Mr. Fritsch discussed Exhibit D. Senator O'Connell asked if the amendment had been discussed with the opponents of the bill and Mr. Fritsch said it has been discussed. Gary C. Cordes, Lobbyist, City Clerk and Treasurer, City of Fallon, testified next. Mr. Cordes stated he had attended committee meetings in developing the legislation for the Nevada League of Cities and is in full support of this legislation and the amendments. Senator Porter asked for an explanation of the second half of the amendment. Mr. Fritsch responded: As an example, we had a bargaining unit and we did not settle. It should have been settled by June 30, 1992. We went through mediation and did not come to an agreement . . . Then we went to the arbitrator and had a decision by the fall of 1993. . . At that point in time, we had spent well over a year and a half in negotiations only to end up with our last, best offer we had made about 15 months previous to that date. So what I am stating is, if the arbitrator were to come to that decision that day, . . . then that is the date the agreement would become effective. . . David Howard, Lobbyist, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, presented and discussed Exhibit E. Mr. Howard said the members of the chamber have been concerned about the local government's ability to fund its responsibilities in the community. Mr. Howard asked for support for S.B. 291. Senator O'Connell questioned if Mr. Howard had any comments or if he had seen the amendment that was proposed. Mr. Howard said he had not seen it. Frank Partlow, Concerned Citizen, testified in favor of S.B. 291 and presented and discussed Exhibit F. Mr. Partlow discussed his employment history and qualifications. Senator Raggio questioned where Mr. Partlow got 8.3 percent. Mr. Partlow explained it would be 1-month's carryover at the end of the year. Senator Raggio clarified that Mr. Partlow's suggestion is to carryover the 8.3 percent at the year's end and not consider that balance when figuring the budget. Mr. Partlow agreed with Senator Raggio's clarification. Senator O'Connell asked if Mr. Partlow is aware that the committee is considering putting negotiations under the open meeting law. Mr. Partlow said he is aware of that and he supports that action. Ms. McKenzie testified in support of S.B. 291. Senator Raggio inquired if the City of Reno has taken a position on the suggested amendments to S.B. 291. Ms. McKenzie said they have not. Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, stated the City of Sparks' support for S.B. 291. Senator Raggio asked the City of Reno and the City of Sparks to notify the committee when they have seen and decided upon the proposed amendments. Ms. McKenzie said the cities would like to bring back suggestions on the amendments. Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Economic Development of Western Nevada, stated they support the local government and this bill. Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters Association of Nevada, testified against S.B. 291. Mr. Thompson said: There has been a lot of talk about incentives to settle. Clearly, the incentive for the employee is to get a pay raise . . . The reason that the award is made retroactive is an incentive to cause a settlement. . . The employees don't want it to drag on . . . because they are without that money to live their lives. . . Regarding the testimony that the city had to go broke before they lost one, . . . if you don't have the ability to pay and the arbitrator rules in your favor then that proves that the system works. . .This section of law was put in there to solve a very serious problem. I think that it does work. I personally don't see any reason to change it. I would . . . be opposed to the second amendment. The first amendment I would [have to see first]. Senator O'Connell asked for additional copies of the proposed amendments for persons that are interested. Eldon Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, testified against S.B. 291. Mr. Anderson stated: I would like to address the first portion [of the bill]. . . line 17, section 4. I am not sure how the organizations . . . in Carson City or Sparks work, but, in Las Vegas our association or our union does a lot more then just negotiate a contract. We deal with insurance [and] all kinds of other benefits. . . The way I am reading this, an administrative employee may not be a member of our organization. . . Senator Raggio inquired how a professional or administrative employee can represent both sides of the argument. Mr. Anderson explained the association does not represent administrative level employees in contract negotiations, but because of membership, administrative employees receive benefits from the association. Senator O'Donnell explained: There are active members of the Police Protective Association (PPA) and most of the members . . . joined the PPA because of the protection. They wanted to be protected in case of a lawsuit that happened on the street. . . As a bargaining unit . . . you are a recipient of those negotiations. Maybe there is some middle ground here. I can see the majority leader's view, how can you bargain in good faith being part of the organization that you are going to benefit from? . . . You can set up two statuses, voting members and non-voting members. . . You [will] still have the protection and the benefits, but at the same time you cannot vote internally on matters of who is going to be president, who is going to be on the negotiating team. So you sort of separate yourself and maintain the benefit. . . I would suggest that if we required somebody to be deleted or give up his membership in an organization that is designed to protect police officers, . . . I think we would be doing a disservice to the community and the police officers' association as a whole. . . Senator Titus said she would like to know how the local government chooses its representative in the negotiating process. Mr. Anderson responded administration chooses a team to represent the city and county. The association chooses their own representatives for their side of the negotiation. Mr. Dickerson said: As far as the City of Las Vegas is concerned, we do not select METRO's [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department] management team. The city counsel will put one or two members of the city, the county commission will put one or two members of Clark County on that negotiating team, but the chief spokesman and the negotiating team for METRO is appointed by the sheriff. . .Our department directors could organize and be part of a union . . . and negotiate with our elected officials. This is why we put this language in here. We don't want that to happen. . . Eric S. Cooper, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stated: I was on the negotiating team some years ago . . . when I was a commander. . . I was appointed by the sheriff. I was also a member of the Police Protective Association. Generally there is no conflict, except . . . that whenever a benefit was bargained for that would affect me . . . I found it hard pressed not to go along with that. . .Generally on METRO, the contract that was negotiated by the employees was also requested of the fiscal affairs committee to apply to management. . . Senator Titus asked, "If you weren't a member of the PPA when you negotiated and you got those benefits for the members . . . Wouldn't you still put that forward for management even if you were not a member?" Mr. Cooper responded, "Of course . . . yes, we would." Senator Porter stated, "What Mr. Cooper is referring to as the management reaping some of those benefits; to put it into perspective in southern Nevada . . . our whole labor negotiations were based upon what happened with the other entities. . ." Mr. Cooper said, "From my experience police and fire are significantly different then the other departments within city or county government. For the most part, police executives and fire executives come from the bottom level, they have worked their way up . . . [In comparison], the public works department's director of public works probably is a professional who transferred into the city from some other agency. . ." Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Cooper to explain how he would possibly lose his benefits if this bill passed. Mr. Cooper said he would lose benefits because he would not be a member of the association anymore. There is a requirement that you have to be a member of the association to be eligible for the benefits. Senator Shaffer stated whenever the City of Las Vegas negotiated a benefits package for classified employees, the same percentage of increase was given to management including city council and the mayor. Robert Schreihans, President, Carson City Fire Fighters, Local 2251, presented and discussed Exhibit G. Mr. Schreihans testified: I represent 47 employees who actually work in Carson City. I have two points I would like to share with you. In section 17, we are talking about supervisory, one of our things in the fire department is we have a level of captains . . . our supervisory [position is called battalion chief. There are four of them]. They are a mid-management supervisory position. They are not represented by our association, but they are represented by their own association. . . The City of Carson on the administrative side, their negotiating team is the fire chief, the two city attorneys, and the personnel director. We do not have this supervisory conflict of interest within our area of Carson City. . . Mr. Schreihans discussed current negotiations and his objection to line 38. Especially the deleting of the retroactive expiration date of the last contract. Mr. Schneihans said in response to Senator Raggio's question about the 8.3 percent, he would suggest if the committee includes that provision that they make sure the word budgeted is included. Also, the word `budgeted' should be included as a budgeted item representing the year end fund balance. Paula Treat, Lobbyist, Police Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified in opposition to S.B. 291. Ms. Treat said employee positions need to be defined before they can support the bill. Terry Lamuraglia, Lobbyist, Clark County, reiterated prior testimony. Mr. Lamuraglia discussed how negotiation teams are chosen and the fact that when salaries are negotiated, management also picks up the same salary increase. Senator Titus asked about the other negotiating teams. Mr. Lamuraglia gave examples of how different teams are put together for Senator Titus. Mr. Lamuraglia suggested the definition of an administrative employee should be more complete. Mr. Dickerson stated there is a definition of an administrative employee at the beginning of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 288. Senator O'Connell Closed the hearing on S.B. 291 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 306. SENATE BILL 306: Authorizes city or county to allow certain public agencies to charge and collect fees for expenses incurred in providing certain services. (BDR 20-129). Mr. Cooper expressed his support for S.B. 306. Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, was next to testify in support of S.B. 306. Mr. Olsen introduced Gary Schofield, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Mr. Schofield stated: About 3 to 4 years ago we started a . . . community oriented policing program in the metropolitan police department. . . We went to San Diego and [looked] . . at some of the programs . . . they had implemented. One of the most unique [programs] they had implemented was what was called a cost recovery program. Mr. Scholfield discussed and presented Exhibit H. Mr. Scholfield stated that the City of Las Vegas said they would support this measure, but they do not have the enabling legislation to back it up. This bill establishes a monetary punishment for certain acts and helps recoup the cost of resources required to respond to these incidents. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Scholfield to explain how many officers are on duty for each shift. Mr. Scholfield responded, "In the northeast area, . . . on an average swing shift on a Friday night . . . we have about 12 officers working. You can see what happens when we start responding to these large parties. We end up tying up 6 to 7 units. . . This basically gives us a reason to tell the citizens in the county [we are doing our best with what we have]." Mr. Olsen interjected, "We right now have about 1.5 officers per thousand when the national average is about 2.5 per thousand. We can't keep up with normal attrition and growth down there and we look at this bill as a small [step] to help us in that direction." Senator O'Connell said, "You might explain to the committee how you perceive this fine working. The collection and the enforcement of it." Mr. Olsen responded, "Initially in this bill it talks about the enforcement of it. If they don't pay it then they lose their driver's license. . . We are not married to that portion of the bill. . . " Mr. Scholfield explained, "I think . . . if you are a property owner and you have a large party . . . [then] suddenly you have 60 to 75 kids in your backyard; and you didn't know the party was going on; you are [going to be] held responsible for these things. [This might encourage parents to] have a little more say-so about what you are going to allow your children to have at your house . . . " Mr. Olsen gave an example of the same type of situation. Senator Porter asked if METRO is allowed to charge for false alarms. Mr. Scholfield said they are not allowed to charge for false alarms because there is no legislation to allow that type of fee. Mr. Olsen said the City of Henderson sends notices for false alarms. After the third false alarm the police discontinue responding to any calls from that location. Senator O'Connell inquired how the public would be notified of the new law. Mr. Scholfield referred to Exhibit H. The first response notice would be notification to the public. Senator O'Donnell stated, "There may be criminal statutes that could be invoked, but then again there couldn't. . . What happens if somebody says, `I just got a bill for $400 and I don't think that is fair.' What remedy do they have?" Mr. Scholfield responded, "I guess we could put something into the bill that you had a remedy . . . Sometimes people don't pay these things, but it is the 75 percent of the people that do pay . . . " Senator O'Donnell said, "Yes, but we can't pass laws predicated on the fact that people may or may not pay them. . . The other thing is . . . you guys are going to be able to administer a fine in lieu of making a charge. . . " Senator O'Connell stated, "In talking with Senator Townsend about this, the bill you have presented to the committee does look like it is quite cumbersome. I wonder if you think it would meet your needs . . . to allow this to be given to the jurisdiction of the local authority so that . . . each county could handle it? . . . " Mr. Olsen replied he thought the county could handle this. Senator O'Connell asked him to come back with a paragraph or two that would give him the authority they need on the local level to establish this program. Senator O'Donnell asked if fees could be paid by a home-owners insurance policy. Senator O'Connell said no, an insurance policy would not pay this fee. Senator Porter suggested adding provisions to charge inmates for their stay in jail. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 306 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 April 5, 1995 Page