MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	April 17, 1995

The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order 
by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:05 p.m., on Monday, April 17, 
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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Joan Lambert
Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees 
Association
Nancy Ford Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human 
Resources Division, 	Office of the Attorney General
Elza Turkington, Concerned Citizen
Raymond E. May, Concerned Citizen
Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel
Gary Yles, Political Action Coordinator, Citizen Employees 
International Union, 	Local 1824
Ted Finneran, Executive Director, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno

Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 357.

SENATE BILL 357:	Revises provision governing disclosure by 
state officer or employee of improper 
governmental action. (BDR 23-1706)

Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees 
Association (SNEA), gave an overview of the bill.  Speaking in 
favor of S.B. 357, he told the committee this bill was a 
collaborative effort.  He testified that several sessions ago 
they successfully passed a "whistle-blower" bill which has been 
in effect for a few years.  He explained some actions have been 
taken under this law, which exposed a "flaw" in the current law. 
 He stated this bill will correct the flaw in the current law. 
 He pointed out the first proposed change to the law is on page 
1, lines 14 through 16.  He said under the state's whistle-
blower law, if an individual state employee feels that his 
exposure of improper governmental conduct has aggrieved him, he 
can appeal to the state's hearing officers.  He added one of the 
hearing officers ruled in a case that because the employee did 
not render his whistle-blowing to the proper level or 
jurisdiction, it did not fall within this law.  

Mr. Gagnier told the committee:

When we developed the whistle-blower law, if you 
remember . . . the first bill that was introduced did 
not pass.  One of the reasons was that we could not 
come up a satisfactory solution as to who a state 
employee had to reveal this information to.  There 
were suggestions by the administration that it should 
go to the state attorney general.  We could not accept 
that because the attorney general is responsible for 
representing the very people that you are blowing the 
whistle on.


Another suggestion was the Governor, same thing.  We 
definitely wanted the Legislature in there . . . The 
press association wanted the news media.  So, the 
first bill did not pass.  When we worked on the second 
bill that was introduced by Senator Townsend, then we 
agreed that should be silent.  The employee should be 
able to tell whoever they wished; a legislative 
committee, an individual legislator, the media, 
whoever.  But the hearing officer rendered the 
decision that because this employee, and I do not want 
to speak to the rightness or wrongness of this 
particular case, only the decision of the hearing 
officer . . . that because the employee had not told 
the person in authority, then it did not count.  So 
that's why we put this language in here that the 
hearing officer may not rule against the employee on 
the grounds that he or she disclosed the improper 
governmental action to an inappropriate person or 
entity.  That is the first change.

The second change is at the very end of the bill, page 
2, lines 6 through 8.  This is the one we consider to 
be very serious.  Let me start off by telling you that 
we have hundreds and hundreds of state employees who 
are licensed or certified by various boards and 
commissions.  We have the entire medical group.  We 
have engineers.  We have a wide variety of people that 
are licensed or certified.  If a person could have 
action taken against them by their licensing or 
certification board, we are not even talking about a 
person losing their job, we are talking about a person 
losing their livelihood.  This will prevent that 
because it will add to the list of things that cannot 
be done.  If the employee is licensed or certified by 
an occupational licensing board, the filing with the 
board by or on behalf of the employer of a complaint 
concerning the employee, that's improper action to be 
taken against that employee.

I can tell you right now that we had a group of 
medical personnel within the Department of Prisons 
system, a few months ago, who were prepared to make 
public some wrongdoing that they saw within the 
medical division of the Department of Prisons.  When 
I told them that this was not in here, that this could 
be used against them, they backed off and they refused 
to make public the information that they had.  I think 
that's unfortunate because neither you nor the public 
then is aware of what's going on that could cause the 
state a great deal of problems.  This will eliminate 
what we perceive to be a real inequity in the current 
law.  There has been one incident; I do not want to 
dwell on that one incident; but I think that it is 
pretty bad when somebody can bring out the allegations 
of wrongdoing and then someone else can go to their 
licensing board and threaten their license.

Now, nobody has lost a license because of this, but 
they could have; or someone  could have been impaired 
in the performance of their job. 

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier:

Bob, the only question that I would have . . . on page 
1 of the bill, when you are talking about an 
inappropriate person or entity, why is that language 
needed?  Who is it that is going to determine . . . 
 if you just simply say they have the right to 
disclose this information and it does not make any 
difference who . . . and I recall this is initially 
what you were saying . . . you should be able to go to 
the press, the Legislature, whomever . . . But, the 
inappropriate person or entity . . . I would think 
whoever they chose to tell would be appropriate.

Mr. Gagnier responded:

Senator O'Connell, that was our thought.  We thought 
that was the way we wrote the bill.  But apparently 
the hearing officer did not.  I think it is 
unfortunate that we have to get this specific.  But in 
that instance, if I understand it correctly, the 
hearing officer ruled that because this employee had 
told coworkers, that was inappropriate and that he was 
not covered because of that.  I would not think it was 
necessary, but apparently the hearing officer does.

Senator O'Connell stated, "I was thinking that there would not 
be a better way of putting it, because then are we not going to 
leave the ability of making the decision as to who is 
appropriate and inappropriate to the hearing officer?"

Mr. Gagnier answered, "I suppose you could say that."

Senator O'Connell said:

I do not know, maybe I am misreading this, but it 
seems like we have now given them the ability to make 
that decision.  That is certainly not the intent, 
having sat on the committee originally, the intent 
was, . . . it was an opportunity to give them a 
vehicle where they could go out and they could talk to 
somebody about something they thought was improper 
that was going on within the agency.  Period."


Mr. Gagnier commented, "Well, of course I agree with you, 
senator, because that was the original intent.  The only reason 
the need for clarification exists is because of this one 
decision of a hearing officer.  But you think that we should 
come up with something that just says, 'They may reveal it to 
whoever they wish,' I'll be glad to take that back and try to 
redraft it."

Senator O'Connell asked, "Well, let me ask you, is anybody else 
reading it that way?"

The committee reread the section of the bill which Senator 
O'Connell and Mr. Gagnier were discussing.  

Senator Raggio stated:

I think it is clear.  In other words, you are saying 
that you take your grievance to the hearing officer 
and the employer cannot come in and say, 'This does 
not come under the law because the employee did not 
disclose it to the right person.'  In other words, I 
think it covers the situation where however or 
whomever the employee disclosed is not the point.  It 
is the point that the employer, for whatever reasons, 
takes retaliatory action.  I think it is clear."

Senator O'Connell asked, "You do not think it gives the hearing 
officer the ability to decide who the inappropriate person is?"

Senator Raggio responded, "No, it is just the opposite.  It says 
that the hearing officer, if he finds it is retaliatory which is 
his responsibility, cannot say, 'Well it does not matter because 
he was not supposed to report to that person.'  I mean there's 
not an appropriate governmental entity . . . I think it reads 
clearly."

Senator Porter asked, "Why not be more specific on who they 
report to, not who they do not report to?  Who is specifically 
allowed to be reported to?  A supervisor, or management, or 
something like that instead of who they do not report to?  Or 
who the appropriate person is?  Maybe we need to be more 
specific on who the appropriate person should be."

Mr. Gagnier expressed, "Senator, that was our original problem 
. . . was we did not want to say who, and so it does not.  It is 
blank in that regard.  It is silent.  The intent was that the 
employee could report it to whoever they wished, whether it be 
to the media, a legislative committee or a legislator, or 
whoever."


Senator Porter questioned, "You do not think it should be 
through a chain-of-command to a supervisory person? 

Mr. Gagnier answered, "No, in many instances it is the 
supervisory person that they are bringing the allegations 
against."

Senator Porter asked, "In this case that was a problem, 
specifically, who did they report to?  Do you recall?"

Mr. Gagnier replied, "The problem that we are addressing on page 
1?" 

Senator Porter said, "Yes."

Mr. Gagnier responded, "I believe that they brought the 
information forward to coworkers, fellow workers."

Senator Porter commented, "And that was not acceptable to the 
hearing officer?"

Mr. Gagnier	clarified, "That's right . . . I might say to the 
committee, madame chairman, when Senator Townsend and I started 
working on this, we received input from many sources and many 
suggested changes.  These are the only two we decided to put in 
the bill, although we had a lot of suggestions for other 
changes." 

Senator Raggio asked, "As I understand the law, the hearing 
officer determines whether or not any action which was taken is 
retaliatory.  The definition does not mean that a reduction in 
pay itself is necessarily retaliatory.  The hearing officer has 
to find that it is, is not that the case?"

Mr. Gagnier	answered, "Yes."

Senator Raggio continued his questioning, "And that would also 
be true with the amendment proposed in subsection m, because I 
can envision a case where within a 2-year period, there may have 
been some independent act on the part of that employee that 
would warrant a referral or filing of a complaint with a board. 
 But this does not make it absolutely . . . every instance of 
that is not retaliatory?"

Mr. Gagnier stressed, "No, it is not automatic."


Senator Raggio responded, "I just wanted that for the record."

Mr. Gagnier stated, "The hearing officer still has to make the 
decision.  In the case we are talking about, the allegations 
that were made to the licensing board pertain specifically to 
the whistle-blowing done by the employee."

Senator O'Connell asked, "There are going to be two amendments 
suggested by the attorney general's office.  Have they talked to 
you about this or submitted the language to you?"

Mr. Gagnier answered, "Those may be part of a letter they sent 
to Senator Townsend some time ago.  I have not seen that 
specific letter."

Nancy Ford Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human 
Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General, stated:

Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to get 
with Mr. Gagnier prior to the meeting.  This is a 
letter proposal to the committee to also put some 
amendments in.  This office does not oppose the 
proposed amendments to [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 
281.641, but we believe the language of subsection 4m 
as written may have the unintended effect of deterring 
or preventing the proper reporting of professional 
misconduct.  We want to make sure the committee is 
aware that certain licensees have an obligation as 
part of their license to report misconduct that they 
see in fellow licensees.  We are concerned this may 
have a deterring effect on doing that.  We are 
proposing getting the language, which is found by the 
board to be invalid.  In considering Senator Raggio's 
comments, the hearing officer would have to make a 
determination that that report to the board was 
retaliatory; it may be adequately covered.  We want to 
make sure that we are not putting a chilling effect on 
reporting legitimate professional misconduct to 
licensing boards that other licensees may be obligated 
to that licensing board.  Simply because they happen 
to be working for the state of Nevada and be employers 
of the state.


We would like to propose an additional amendment which 
we believe would help streamline the appeal process. 
 Although the procedural provisions of NRS 294.390 to 
284.405 are applicable, the hearing officer that is 
handling these whistle-blower cases has indicated he 
lacks authority to set additional procedural rules for 
such proceedings.  For example, the appellant has not 
been required to specify the nature of the alleged 
retaliation.  The absence of such requirements often 
lengthens the proceedings unnecessarily.  Thus we 
would suggest an amendment to give the hearing officer 
specific authority to set rules of procedure and to 
require specific statement of the allegations.  
There's language proposed in the letter on the second 
page (Exhibit C), which is our quote for the record. 
 The hearing officer may adopt rules of procedure in 
addition to those set forth in NRS 284.390 to 284.405. 
 The written appeal filed by the state office or 
employee must set forth the particularity, the facts 
and circumstances in the disclosure of improper 
governmental action and the alleged reprisal or 
retaliatory action.  We appreciate your consideration 
of this amendment.  

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier if he has a problem with 
either amendment proposed by the Office of the Attorney General. 
  Mr. Gagnier responded:

Yes.  Let's take them up backwards.  There's no 
provision anywhere within NRS [chapter] 284 for the 
state hearing officers to adopt regulations.  Those 
regulations that pertain to them are adopted pursuant 
to NRS [chapter] 284 by the personnel commission.  So, 
this would set a precedent of giving the hearing 
officer new authority that he has not heretofore had 
in adopting regulations.  To have the personnel 
commission pursuant to NRS [chapter] 233B adopt rules 
and regulations for these hearings, we would have no 
problem with that.  They do adopt regulations for 
their other hearings and that's fine, in accordance 
with [NRS chapter] 233B.  

Senator Raggio commented, "I would tend to agree with you about 
the hearing officer having the authority to adopt other rules 
and procedures.  What about the remainder of that?  Would you 
have any quarrel with putting into this statute that the written 
appeal filed by the state officer or employee must set forth the 
particularity of the facts and circumstances of the disclosure 
of improper governmental actions, etc.?"

Mr. Gagnier replied:


If that says what I think it says, I do not have a 
problem with it.  If they are saying, the employee 
feels that he has had retaliatory action taken against 
him and wishes to appeal to the hearing officer, we 
would concur that he should have to spell out what he 
is appealing, and on what basis, and we would not have 
any problem with that.  To just say, 'They've taken 
action against me.'  Well, what action? . . . I think 
you do have to be able to pin it down.  So, I would 
not have a problem with that if that is what it means.

Back to the first section, yes, we would definitely 
oppose that.  I think that really leaves it up then to 
that licensing board to make a determination of what 
is valid and what is not valid as opposed to the 
hearing officer.  We vested in the hearing officer the 
right to hear these cases and the hearing officer 
should be the sole judge of that, and subsequent court 
action of course.  I think also because the type of 
regulation that we are talking about, now I'm talking 
about licensing board regulation, and let me read one 
to you that an employee was accused of violating 
because he had disclosed action within his agency 
which he felt to be improper.  He publicized that.  He 
was charged with failing to 'act in professional 
matters as a faithful agent for each employer.'  In 
other words, if you ever say that your employer did 
something wrong, you are no longer a 'faithful agent' 
for that employer and are automatically guilty of this 
regulation of this licensing board. 

That's exactly what we are trying to avoid . . . We 
would certainly oppose this language.

Senator Raggio commented:


Well, I would tend to agree in effect with the 
comments on that first proposal and I would suggest to 
the attorney general that it could have an undesired 
effect.  That's the reason I made my statements for 
the record so that the hearing officer still has the 
responsibility to determine if it is, in fact, 
retaliatory.  The mere filing of a complaint is not 
itself retaliatory.  If we put this language in, it 
could be a situation where a complaint may have been 
filed within the 2-year period for other actions and 
if that complaint was found invalid, this kind of 
language would, in effect, make it tantamount to being 
retaliatory when in fact it may not be.

Ms. Angres stated:

Given the comments of the senator, I think I am going 
to withdraw that proposed amendment, because I think 
that clarified the record.  We are concerned about 
people being deterred from reporting legitimate claims 
. . . Since the hearing officer will determine whether 
or not that was a legitimate claim that was filed with 
the board, I think that objection or concern has been 
alleviated.

Senator Raggio said, "I do think if we process this measure, 
that it should . . . I think the suggestion in the last sentence 
of the second proposal is a good addition to the statute."

Ms. Angres noted, "We would concur with Mr. Gagnier's proposal 
that the personnel commission be able to adopt rules and 
regulations in regard to this issue.  It would have to 
specifically be in NRS [chapter] 281 in these statutes because 
their authority is under NRS chapter 284 and they do not 
currently have authority to adopt regulations under NRS chapter 
281 in the whistle-blower area."

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Gagnier, "Bob, you do not have any 
problem with the language on page 2?"

Mr. Gagnier responded, "No, if we change hearing officer to 
personnel commission and give them the authority under [NRS 
chapter] 281 to do so."

Elza Turkington, Concerned Citizen, addressed the committee 
regarding S.B. 357: 


It is my understanding the whistle-blower law was 
initiated to make state government more efficient and 
create higher standards in public safety.  Also 
protect the state employee from being terminated or 
harassed.  The attorney general's office appears to be 
working to subvert or reduce the proficiency of the 
state whistle-blower law, instead of protecting the 
rights of the whistle-blower as guaranteed by NRS 
281.621.  The people who violate state law or abuse 
their authority or who endanger public health and 
safety are shielded by the attorney general's office. 
In other words, you encourage employees to disclose 
inappropriate government activities and then you use 
the attorney general's office to defend the violators. 
 This is the way it appears.  The whistle-blower must 
then engage his or her attorney at his or her personal 
expense.  

It appears to me that the whistle-blower causes an 
embarrassment to a department or department head and 
then must face the retaliation of the state as well as 
seeing the department or [department] head protected 
by the state.  Should not the state be more interested 
in correcting the problem than protecting people from 
disgrace?  Cannot guidelines be brought forth to look 
at the charges and take corrective measures without 
putting the whistle-blower through the mill, so to 
speak.  The attorney general's office is sending a 
clear message, whether intended to or not, which is 
100 percent opposite [of] the state policy.  The 
attorney general's office is discouraging state 
employees from coming forward.  If they do, they will 
be penalized with everything the state can muster 
against them.  

Raymond E. May, Concerned Citizen, took the floor next to 
testify regarding S.B. 357.  After having read NRS 281.621 to 
the committee, he continued with his testimony, telling the 
committee about his degree in chemistry and the grades he 
received.  He explained his previous work experiences and his 
performance ratings at these positions.  He asserted he had been 
a supervisor in two of the positions and had taught classes.  

Continuing his testimony, Mr. May outlined how he went to work 
for the State of Nevada and how he had received a low work-
performance evaluation.  He asserted that he had always received 
above-average evaluations at all other positions he had held.

Mr. May explained that after receiving the low evaluation, they 
fired him.  He claimed:


...was retaliated against for blowing the whistle.  My 
rights have not been protected.  The only person 
protecting my rights is myself and that's through my 
own endeavor and through my own pocketbook.  I am 
speaking in opposition to Senator Townsend's bill at 
this time.  The reason being: I had addressed numerous 
deficiencies and fundamental flaws within the whistle-
blower statutes.  I had sent a letter prior, in 1994 
to Senator Townsend, speaking to him of the various 
problems, contradictions, and flaws within the law. 
 I had spoken to him on the telephone; and, in 1985 
[1995], before this legislative session began, I wrote 
two letters to every single legislator.

Senator O'Connell stated upon receiving his letter, she met with 
Mr. Gagnier and they discussed the letter and Senator Townsend's 
proposed legislation.  She asked Mr. Gagnier  if Mr. May was 
still in a probationary status on his position when he was 
terminated?  

Mr. Gagnier responded:

Senator O'Connell, I do not want to speak regarding 
Mr. May's complaints.  But, yes, upon researching the 
information, we determined that he had been a 
probationary employee and was rejected during his 
probationary period.  He appealed anyway to the 
hearing officer and I might say this has raised other 
additional issues.  Barbara Willis, personnel director 
is here today, she may wish to address them, I do not 
know.  But, the Department of Personnel is expending 
quite a sum, I guess, for the hearing officers for 
people that are not under her jurisdiction; such as 
university faculty, nonclassified employees, 
unclassified employees, and several probationary 
employees.  That raises an issue whether they are 
covered by the whistle-blower law or not . . . and is 
a probationary employee covered or not.  Those are 
issues which have come up.  

Senator O'Connell stated, "Mr. May, although it might not be 
what you would like to have had in the law, we did not ignore 
your correspondence.  I just wanted you to be sure that you were 
aware of that."

Mr. May took the floor again, addressing his concerns regarding 
what he termed to be flaws, deficiencies and contradictions 
within the whistle-blower law.  He questioned whether the law 
was valid.  He asserted:


Whether I was on probation or I was not, that does not 
make a difference about the specific deficiencies that 
I have outlined in my letter (Exhibit D) . . . Yes, I 
was in fact on probation.  However, in a court ruling, 
the judge ruled...in his judgement, that probationary 
employees are covered.   I am in a whistle-blower 
hearing right now and I do not believe that I would be 
in one, and I do not think the state would be paying 
the money to have the hearing if it was not allowed 
for probationary employees.  I would like to point out 
that probation is a misleading term.  As I mentioned, 
I have been a chemist since 1982.  The industry 
standard for a chemistry position such as mine is 3 
months.  In fact, in my particular case, I was not 
informed about my probationary status when I took the 
job.  I had asked about probation and they 
misrepresented it to me to where I was led to believe 
that it was 3 months.  In fact, it was 1 year.  That 
does not mean because you cannot automatically relate 
that because I am on probation, that means that I am 
'green' or that I am a novice or that I am new to my 
profession.  In fact, the truth of the matter is that 
I am an expert in the field in which I took the 
position at the State of Nevada and I provided my 
resume to adequately prove that fact to you  (Exhibit 
D).  That's all I have to say on that particular 
subject.  I feel it is an unwarranted belief because 
I am on probation, that does not make a difference in 
my concerns.

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. May if he wished to specifically 
address the bill.  Mr. May responded that he wanted the 
deficiencies he had addressed in his letter amended to the bill 
before he gives his support to the bill.

Mr. May took the floor again, addressing what he termed to be 
contradictions in the law.  He drew the committee's attention to 
the contradictions listed in his correspondence to them (Exhibit 
D).  He stated, "The attorney general's office has used every 
conceivable effort, every roadblock, every blockade, anything in 
their arsenal to find technicalities that I was not able to use 
the whistle-blower [law] to protect because I had disclosed 
improper governmental actions.  One of those being my 
probationary status which was overruled by the judge."  He 
asserted the claims brought forth by whistle-blower's are never 
investigated.  "In my case the state attorney general's office 
went through a discrediting campaign, a smear campaign to 
discredit your name instead of looking at the actual allegations 
of the improper governmental activities that you've brought 
forth."


Mr. May reread NRS 281.621 and read NRS 281.661 to the 
committee.  He declared the law was not specific for the 
employee to understand the time limits on certain stages of 
whistle-blowing.  He read a section of one of his letters to the 
committee (Exhibit D).  He stated:

The attorney general's office is, in fact, subverting 
the whistle-blower statutes.  They are, in fact, 
sending the message to all state employees, 'Do not 
come forward.  We are discouraging you from coming 
forward.  We will not protect your rights.  We will, 
in fact, alienate you from your rights.'  This hits 
upon the problem of the allegations you have brought 
forth, they are not even investigating."  

Mr. May continued to read from his letter to the committee 
(Exhibit D).  He cited what he determined to be two specific 
examples. He showed the committee a poster of specific examples 
and drew their attention to the same information in their 
handouts (Exhibit D).  "I reported this problem directly to my 
supervisor, and I reported it directly to the Nevada State 
Chemistry Certification Officer, and I reported it to the Nevada 
Bureau Chief of Laboratory Services.  Because my problems, 
concerns, and allegations brought forward were not acknowledged, 
were not investigated and no corrective actions were issued, 
your health, the health of your family, the health of my family 
and all of Nevada's citizens has been jeopardized."  He asserted 
he brought this problem to the attention of his supervisor 2 1/2 
years ago and the problem has not been corrected yet.

Mr. May testified, "I do not want to go over every single one of 
these, but I am going to bring just a few of the deficiencies I 
have outlined because they are there, you have them, you have 
received the letter.  In fact, I received letters from Miss 
Titus acknowledging receipt of my letter; the response was not 
that good, but Senator Townsend also acknowledged my letter."

Senator O'Connell stated, "Sir, we have several other bills, and 
I think the committee has gotten the flavor of your concerns. 
 I think what we'll do is probably work with Mr. Gagnier on 
this.  Since he represents most of the state employees, we'll 
see if we cannot improve the whistle-blower bill.  We understand 
what you are saying to us, and I think you have stated your case 
very well.  We do have the written information before us and we 
all have received your letter prior to this, which I feel that 
most of us read in detail and probably discussed with Mr. 
Gagnier.  Is there any information you would like to quickly 
tell us?"

Mr. May responded:

I think there is no better expert in this situation 
than myself.  Mr. Gagnier is not a whistle-blower.  
He's not the one that's been fired from his job.  You 
act as if Mr. Gagnier . . . 'I'm going to discuss this 
issue with Mr. Gagnier and have Mr. Gagnier's input.' 
 I do not think anyone can give you any better input 
than I, myself.  I have been run through the mill by 
the state attorney general's office and I am still 
proceeding with this.  As a matter of fact, I've gone 
farther than any whistle-blower so far.  The attorney 
general's office, in my particular case Debra Jepson, 
has 'bragged' that she has beaten several whistle-
blower cases.  Well, that's not the intent of the 
Legislature.  The intent of the law was to protect 
employees.  She's stated, 'Hey, I've beat these guys. 
 They've come forward and I've beat 'em.'  Well, we 
need to fix that problem. 

I do need to bring out one in my letter and that's the 
time limit which they beat me the first time.  Beat me 
down, is the time limits are not defined.  If you had, 
as I pointed out, that you have to put forth this 
provision to all of the state employees in their 
employees' handbook.  You have it in there that they 
are encouraged to come forward, the public policy 
itself, but you do not have the time limit.  If you 
are going to advertise and solicit that they are 
encouraged to come forward, then I would suggest, and 
I think this is a very good suggestion, to put the 
time limit that they have to appeal their rights.  
Mr. May explained his concerns with Ms. Angres' proposed 
amendments, which were based on his experience with the whistle-
blower law.  He told the committee he was required to file a 
completed statement of the improper governmental action and to 
complete many interrogatories.  He stated:


...If you will recall, Ms. O'Connell, I came to you 
before I lost my job with the State of Nevada.  I had 
come to you directly and reported, disclosed the 
improper testing of the state's drinking water.  The 
dumping of hazardous wastes into Reno's public sewer 
system, among my many other concerns and problems I 
have brought forth.  Your response was, 'I'm sorry. 
 I cannot do anything for you, Mr. May.  You are 
concerned, but I'm in the legislative branch and it is 
the executive branch's duty to do something about 
these problems. That's what the law says.'  Well, in 
the law it says it is the Legislature's intent, it is 
the Legislature's intent . . . when I came to you and 
shortly thereafter lost my job . . . I'm here again to 
give you a second chance to help me and to help Nevada 
state employees . . . there's two things I'd like to 
ask of you.  

Number one  is possibly if this committee could issue 
a resolution for investigation into the State Health 
Lab . . . I'm asking for a resolution for an 
investigation into the State Health Laboratory's 
testing of our drinking water.

Number two, I would like to ask this committee for a 
possible resolution for an investigation into the 
attorney general's office subversion of the intention 
of the whistle-blower statutes.  They have not been 
fulfilling the intention of the Legislature when they 
enacted this law and they have, in fact, been 
subverting those laws.  I would like that to be 
investigated as well.

Barbara Willis, Director, Department of Personnel, testified 
regarding S.B. 357.  She stated:

I have provided each of you with a listing of the 10 
cases that have been filed since the law was passed in 
1991, and the status of each case (Exhibit E).  Out of 
those 10, five have been filed by permanent classified 
employees, and the other five by non-permanent, 
classified.  That includes probationary, unclassified, 
university staff, and a nonclassified employee from 
the contractor's board.  It may well have been the 
Legislature's intent to grant whistle-blower 
protection to all these employees, I am not sure.  
But, there is a concern whether the hearing officer, 
operating under [NRS] chapter 284 could provide any 
remedy to these non-permanent, nonclassified 
employees.  

Also the hearing officer's pay is funded, as is the 
whole operation is funded, based on assessments to 
classified positions.  So the classified service is 
thereby augmenting the other employees in this regard. 
 There may be other avenues to redress for these 
folks, maybe there's a hearing officer that is 
appropriate.  I do want to bring that to your 
attention.  


Senator Porter asked, "Is there a procedure in place for the 
employee to follow the steps when they are making a complaint?"

Ms. Willis responded there is a form to complete.

Senator Porter asked if it is a form, or is an explanation 
provided with the form?

Ms. Willis answered that the form has the statute printed on the 
back.  She provided copies to the committee (Exhibit F).

Senator Shaffer stated, "I would like to find out from the 
attorney general's office if, in fact, they believe they are 
doing all the things they were accused of doing."

Ms. Angres testified she had participated in one whistle-blower 
case.  She told the committee it resulted in finding there was 
no retaliation and no whistle-blower either.  She said:

No, we are not subverting the intent of the whistle-
blower's law.  I have heard a lot of allegations 
against my office from Mr. May and the main one is 
that we are subverting the intent of the whistle-
blower's law.  The AG's office is not prosecuting this 
case.  This case came about because Mr. May claimed 
that he had been retaliated against.  The AG's office 
represents the state when allegations are made against 
the state.  It includes retaliation actions under the 
whistle-blower law, and includes defending the state 
against civil rights suits.  It includes defending the 
state against racial discrimination suits, sexual 
harassment suits.  That's what the AG's office does 
and this is just another instance.  We also represent 
the state in personnel actions.  If an employee is 
terminated, asks for a hearing, claims he has been 
wrongfully terminated, we represent the state in that 
case against the employee.  I would like to point out 
to the committee that Mr. May's hearing is still 
ongoing.  It has been through 12 days of hearing.  Mr. 
May has not completed putting on his case.  We are 
anticipating 10 more days.  So the state has not even 
started the defense.

Senator O'Donnell asked, "So, if you represent the state, who 
represents the whistle-blower if he is a state employee?"


Ms. Angres responded, "In the case I was involved in, SNEA 
represented the whistle-blower because he was a permanent 
classified employee and so the State of Nevada provided that 
representation."

Senator O'Donnell asked, "Is there any individual that you would 
not represent?  Why are we asking an organization who represents 
. . . it just seems backward to me?"

Ms. Angres explained, "The State of Nevada Employees Association 
represents employees that are members of their organization.  
They represent employees in any disciplinary action.  If there 
is a termination, they may be representing the employee before 
the hearing officer and the attorney general's office would be 
representing the state in front of the hearing officer and that 
is very common.  I do not know if they provide representation to 
probationary employees or not."

Gary Yles, Political Action Coordinator, Citizen Employees 
International Union, Local 1824, testified in support of S.B. 
357.  He stated the union feels it must do everything it can to 
remove whatever barriers presently exist that act as a deterrent 
to workers coming forward and reporting improper government 
actions.  He said that S.B. 357 closes a major loophole which 
currently acts as a deterrent.  He asked the committee to 
recommend the bill.

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 357 and opened the 
hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 281.

ASSEMBLY BILL 281:	Requires unanimous vote of governing body of 
municipality for issuance of certain general 
obligations without election.  (BDR 20-295)

Assemblywoman Joan Lambert explained A.B. 281 has a small change 
on page 1, lines 20 and 21 that requires the governing body of 
a municipality to approve general obligation bonds with a two-
thirds vote of the governing body instead of a simple majority 
vote.  She stated this bill came from the Nevada Taxpayers 
Association Infrastructure Study recommendation.  She gave the 
committee a brief review of the three types of municipal 
obligations: general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and 
general obligation-backed revenue bonds.  


Ms. Lambert read an article from the Wall Street Journal, March 
10, 1995, written by Arthur Leavitt, Jr., Chairman of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (Exhibit G).  She told the 
committee there have been recent mistakes in the capital market 
in Nevada.  She provided examples of municipal bonding problems 
in Washoe and White Pine counties.  She reminded the committee 
any default on a bond will result in the default debt being paid 
first, with operating funds, maintenance and building funds 
suffering.  She asserted a 30-year school bond will be paid when 
 a first grade student in that school is 36 years old.  She 
said, "Bonds obligate not only our taxes, but our children's 
taxes and I think we need to keep this in mind when we are 
dealing with the general obligation-backed revenue bonds.  I ask 
you to support this bill, because I feel strongly that you need 
a firm consensus of the local governing body before the full 
faith and credit of the government is pledged without a vote of 
the people."

Senator Raggio asked Ms. Lambert if the language originally 
required a unanimous vote and they amended it to a two-thirds 
vote?

Ms. Lambert responded the requirement of a unanimous vote as a 
first step was inappropriate.  Therefore, they introduced the 
amendment of a two-thirds majority vote.  She stated this bill 
will improve people's notice of general obligation-backed 
revenue bonds and the way the bonds are approved.  

Senator Raggio asked, "Under subsection 3, the existing law 
allows the municipality to incur the g.o. [general obligation] 
bond without an election; although there is a provision for 
somebody to file a petition in which case an election is 
required."

Ms. Lambert replied, "Yes."

Senator Raggio continued, "That's the present law.  Is that done 
now . . . by what . . . a majority vote?"

Ms. Lambert answered, "A simple majority vote."

Senator Raggio continued again, "It's silent.  In other words, 
they have to make a determination and that would indicate a 
majority vote.  They would determine that.  Now, this bill, if 
we passed it, as you have amended it would require a vote of 
two-thirds of the members elected, the total membership of the 
governing body."

Ms. Lambert acknowledged, "Yes."

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 281 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 285.

ASSEMBLY BILL 285:	Revises provision governing support of 
airports by county fair and recreation 
boards in certain counties.

Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom addressed the committee in favor of 
A.B. 285.  She reminded the committee this is the same bill from 
2 years ago, but they have removed line 14, during more than 3-
fiscal years.  She stated they would like to extend the bill for 
an indefinite time.  Senator Porter distributed letters of 
support to the committee (Exhibit H).   She explained a decade 
ago there were only 95 residents in Laughlin and today there are 
more than 7,500 residents.  She  remarked that each year 
Laughlin has over 6 million visitors.  She testified there are 
now 10 large casinos on the Colorado River and the director of 
each casino has signed a letter of support which Senator Porter 
distributed in Exhibit H.  She asserted that these casinos are 
eager that some money, which they submit to the Fair and 
Recreation Board, be returned for use at the Bullhead City, 
Arizona airport.  She added the casinos in Laughlin have been 
sending in $500 million in gaming revenue to the state and they 
are Nevada's third largest gaming center.  She cited that 
Laughlin, at 97 square miles, is the largest unincorporated city 
in Clark County.

Ted Finneran, Executive Director, Laughlin Chamber of Commerce, 
testified in favor of A.B. 285.  He showed the committee a 
photograph of the Laughlin Bullhead International Airport, in 
Bullhead City, Arizona.  He explained Laughlin is closer to the 
airport than any of Bullhead City.  He said when they wrote the 
bill 2 years ago, it had a 3-year fiscal cap on it.  He reminded 
the committee as they only meet every other year, the 3-year 
fiscal cap would fall into the interim period.  He stated the 
legislation from last session allowed one-half a million dollars 
for the airport.  He explained a tower and terminal, and 
additional fire and rescue capabilities have been added to the 
airport.  He explained shuttle buses pick up tourists at the 
airport and bring them to Laughlin.  

Mr. Finneran remarked:


If it were just the Bullhead City Airport, they would 
not need the extra help.  They would not need the 
tower.  They would not need the firefighting, because 
we are talking about larger airplanes with many, many 
passengers and they are tourists.  It is critical, 
really, to the economic health of Laughlin, because 
with all of the building going on in the city of Las 
Vegas, they are siphoning some of our customers that 
we have depended upon for years . . . Our customers 
all take at least one trip to see the new casinos down 
in Las Vegas.  That has hurt us tremendously.  We need 
to add the air travel market to our possibility of 
tourists.  We need to start bringing in planes from 
the Midwest and increase our marketability.

...Hopefully, in 4 years, and that's what we've looked 
at . . .  if we get enough flights in there and enough 
fees from the airplanes landing, we will be home free. 
 This has been a very difficult airport to get 
started.  It is a small airport.  We are a small 
community, but we have 11,000 rooms to fill . . . and 
if we are going to continue to produce the revenues 
that the state has been getting used to, double-digit 
increases from Laughlin over the last 10 years, we 
need the airport to maintain that.  We ask your 
support.

Senator Titus stated she would like to support this bill, but 
reminded the testifiers of the last campaign session:

My fellow senator from District 7, who voted for this, 
was attacked in her campaign.  Information was put out 
that she voted for funding for an out-of-state 
airport.  It must have been an effective attack, she 
was not reelected.  What can you tell me that I can 
take back to the people in District 7 to convince them 
that voting for an out-of-state airport . . . is a 
good idea?

Mr. Finneran responded:


Senator Titus, I think the money spent outside the 
state for this airport is one of the best investments 
the state can make.  When we have a gaming resort area 
that produces the amount of gaming revenue that we do 
for the State of Nevada; and to try to increase that 
by a large percentage; I think it is a great 
investment.  We are talking about other investments 
that the state makes outside of the state.  They buy 
other people's bonds, they have all sorts of 
investments outside the State of Nevada.  This 
shouldn't be any different.  To put it in perspective, 
Las Vegas depends on air travel for 45 percent of all 
their visitors.  Laughlin is currently getting only 3 
percent of their visitors by air travel.  If we could 
increase that to the same number that Las Vegas has, 
we certainly would be producing a lot more gaming 
revenue for the State of Nevada.  

Mrs. Segerblom explained to the committee the difficulties in 
getting an airport in Nevada to serve Laughlin's needs.  She 
told the committee the language is permissive and does not raise 
anyone's taxes.  She reminded the committee it is the tax money 
the casinos already submit.  She said it is a request to return 
some revenue from these funds.  She said they misrepresented the 
issue in the election process.

Senator O'Donnell commented:

This is somewhat limiting.  I believe the area of 
Mesquite is growing as well.  I am wondering if we had 
to do something out there in Mesquite to extend or 
widen the runway, put up towers, etc.; we would be 
limiting ourselves only to this airport here.  I 
believe Mesquite is closer than 90 miles . . . does 
anybody know?  Are we boxing ourselves in?  I think 
the revenues coming in off the room tax are LVCVA [Las 
Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority] money, but so 
is the money coming in off the room tax in Mesquite. 
 I'm wondering if there will now be more since there 
are a couple new hotels out there.  There's more money 
coming in from Mesquite.  I'm wondering if we ought to 
adjust this 90 miles to make it permissive so the 
county can allocate funds wherever they need to.

Mrs. Segerblom estimated the mileage from Laughlin to Mesquite 
is about 76 miles.  She reminded the committee it is the room 
tax money from Laughlin they are asking to be returned to them.

Senator O'Donnell asked if this bill requires some room tax, 
that comes in from Mesquite, go to Laughlin.

Mrs. Segerblom responded, "No."

Mr. Finneran responded, "Not really.  We provide them with about 
$6 million in room tax every year.  We are not mining room tax. 
 We are actually getting a little bit back."


Senator O'Donnell remarked, "But Mesquite does not have this. 
 If they are providing x (sic) amount of dollars a year in room 
tax."

Mr. Finneran interjected, "Mesquite has other requirements and 
I think that is why the bill is written this way."

Senator O'Donnell asserted, "The anomaly here is the fact that 
we've got three large airports in one county.  That's the 
problem, the fact that we have Bullhead or Laughlin airport.  
We've got McCarran, and then we've got Mesquite.  We have a 
funding mechanism that funds Laughlin.  We have a funding 
mechanism that funds McCarran, but we do not have a funding 
mechanism that funds Mesquite."

Mr. Finneran stressed, "I think that is up to this body."

Senator O'Connell asked what the federal government is doing to 
improve the land area around the Laughlin Bullhead International 
Airport. 

Mr. Finneran stated both the House and the Senate of the 
Congress of the United States have approved the expenditure of 
$2.2 million to purchase the mountain near the airport and to 
take it down.  He said that would not do anything for the 
present status of the airport, but it would allow the airport to 
go to 9,000 feet later and they can serve larger, wider-body, 
larger capacity jets.  The airport could function in the 
summertime when there are landing and take-off problems in the 
heat of the day.  

Senator O'Connell asked if there is a time period on the removal 
of the mountain.

Mr. Finneran pointed out to the committee the proposed 
enlargement of the runway on the picture.  He stated he is not 
aware of the time period.  He explained it is a strange 
allocation of funds because it was included in a group of funds 
to build post offices, courthouses and to acquire government 
lands.  He testified he thinks it was included because it was a 
land acquisition.  

Senator O'Donnell asked if research has been done to determine 
the benefits of this airport to Bullhead City and Arizona versus 
Laughlin.  He asked about landing fees and other airport fees. 
 


Mr. Finneran responded the fees vary with the weight of the 
aircraft and the number of passengers.  He compared it to 
McCarran International Airport's fee structure.  He said perhaps 
5 percent of the passengers coming into the airport have a 
Bullhead City destination.  The rest are bound for Laughlin.  He 
explained most of the aircraft now are charter aircraft.  He 
told the committee Laughlin Air is run by three of the casinos 
as a cooperative effort to bring tourists into Laughlin.  He 
stated they are using Boeing 737 jets which bring in 134 
passengers at a time.  He said, "I would say that 95 percent of 
all the passengers arriving at the airport are tourists."

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 285 and opened the 
hearing on A.B. 294.

ASSEMBLY BILL 294:	Increases number of members of Reno civil 
service commission.

Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, testified in favor of 
A.B. 294.  She told the committee Senator Bernice Martin Mathews 
proposed this bill when she was a council member for the Reno 
City Council and that the Reno City Council supports this bill. 
 She stated the bill increases from five to seven the number of 
civil service commissioners and would allow the council to each 
have an appointment to the Civil Service Commission.  She noted 
it would also provide a broader representation of the diversity 
of the community on the Civil Service Commission.  She asserted 
the fiscal impact of the bill is less than $1,000.  

Senator Raggio asked Ms. McKenzie to clarify her statement, 
"This would allow each of the council to have an appointment?"

Ms. McKenzie responded, "Right now there are five members . . . 
"

Senator Raggio interjected, "With appointments by the mayor?"

Ms. McKenzie answered, "The way the language is, appointments 
are made by the mayor and approved by the city council, but in 
all practicality, the way it works is the council members are 
allowed to bring forward a name to the mayor and they will 
rotate.  So theoretically, there will be a member from each of 
the five wards and two at-large members."

Senator Raggio asked, "Why are seven members needed instead of 
five?"


Ms. McKenzie responded, "It is a diversity issue.  The number of 
the Civil Service Commission members was increased from three to 
five in 1973.  The city has not only . . . its size, but its 
diversity has increased greatly since 1973.  The council felt 
there would be broader representation of the diversity of the 
community if there were two more members on the Civil Service 
Commission.  It would more clearly mirror the representation on 
the city council."

Senator O'Connell asked Ms. McKenzie to explain what the Civil 
Service Commission does.

Ms. McKenzie explained they do the testing and hiring of all 
non-appointed positions, and they deal with the changes in the 
Civil Service Commission rules and regulations regarding the 
hiring and the testing.  She added that their duties include 
promotional and disciplinary actions.  She said all of the non-
appointed positions constitute most of the positions in the City 
of Reno.  She explained they operate like a personnel board.  

Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 294 and adjourned 
the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Teri J. Spraggins,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:



Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman


DATE: 	

Senate Committee on Government Affairs
April 17, 1995
Page