MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 21, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Friday, February 21, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
JoAnn Aldrich, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Shelly Aldean, Chairwoman, Carson City Charter Committee, and Supervisor, Carson City Consolidated City-County Government Executive Offices, Carson City
Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, Nevada
Harvard “Larry” Lomax, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, Nevada
Dan Musgrove, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the Clark County Manager, representing Clark County, Nevada
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas, Nevada
James F. Nadeau, representing Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Valerie Rosalin, Director, Consumer Health Assistance, Office of the Governor, Las Vegas, Nevada
Judie Noriega, Operations Manager, Consumer Health Assistance, Office of the Governor, Carson City, Nevada
Chairman Manendo called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. After the Secretary called the role, the Chairman excused Assemblyman Wendell Williams’ absence.
Assembly Bill 113: Revises provisions in Charter of Carson City concerning Charter Committee. (BDR S-264)
Assemblyman Knecht introduced A.B. 113. He stated that A.B. 113 would add the office of vice chairman to the Charter Committee, and would require a joint meeting of the Charter Committee with the Board of Supervisors at least once every two years before the beginning of each regular session of the legislature. Mr. Knecht then introduced Shelly Aldean, Chairwoman of the Carson City Charter Committee, and a recent appointee to the Carson City Board of Supervisors, who gave an overview of A.B. 113.
Ms. Aldean explained the reasons for amending the Carson City Charter. She stated that Assemblyman Knecht had correctly characterized its contents as “housekeeping” items. The Charter Committee agreed that joint meetings with the Carson City Board of Supervisors would foster a freer exchange of ideas, provide greater exposure for Charter Committee recommendations, and would encourage public participation because the meetings would be subject to public notice requirements.
Ms. Aldean said that A.B. 113 would amend Chapter 341, Section 1.090 of the City Charter, by adding a vice chairman to the Charter Committee, and would change the chairman and vice chairman terms of service from a one-year term to two-year terms. This provision was necessary because Charter Committee members currently served two-year terms and officers were appointed for one-year terms. Passage of A.B. 113 would mean that the two-year terms for chairman and vice chairman would run concurrent with members’ two-year terms of service.
Mr. Ray Masayko, Mayor of Carson City, testified after Ms. Aldean. Mr. Masayko stated that he supported A.B. 113. He said that the Charter Committee was established in 2002 by statute and their meetings were advertised as required by the Open Meeting Law. Masayko said that they met last fall with the Board of Supervisors who acted on two resolutions: one clarified the duties of the Charter Committee and the second incorporated those duties into the City Charter.
Mr. Masayko stated that the proposed joint meetings with the Board of Supervisors had been added in order to facilitate discussions about the Charter Committee’s recommendations and to agree on items to present to the next Nevada Legislature.
Assemblyman Collins asked if there were any existing laws or bylaws that listed the officers that the committees could create, such as chairman, vice chairman, secretary, and treasurer. He wondered if the Charter Committee would be back next year to request a secretary. Mr. Masayko stated that the Charter Committee had all the necessary and required staff.
As chairman of a Carson City committee, Assemblyman Knecht said that the city provided secretaries and other support services to take the administrative burden off their committees. He said he did not think that the Charter Committee would need to hire a secretary.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 113.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 113.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Williams was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo assigned A.B. 113 to Assemblyman Knecht to defend on the Floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 114: Requires sheriffs and constables to be qualified electors and to be at least 21 years of age on date of taking office. (BDR 20-1020)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 114, and recognized Dan Musgrove, representing Clark County, who introduced Larry Lomax, Registrar of Voters for Clark County. Mr. Musgrove stated that Mr. Lomax would speak to the original bill, and then Mr. Musgrove and Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, would explain the recommended amendments.
Mr. Lomax said A.B. 114 was written to clarify qualifications for the position of constable partly because of a lawsuit that occurred during the last Clark County election. Mr. Lomax said that seven recent lawsuits had delayed the printing of ballots and made it difficult to run elections in an efficient and timely manner.
Clark County officials proposed two amendments that would only apply to counties with populations of 100,000 or more. The first amendment (Exhibit C), which was proposed by the Clark County Constable’s Department, would require constable candidates to be certified as a Category I or Category II peace officer at the time he becomes a candidate. The second amendment (Exhibit D), which was submitted by Lieutenant Olsen, would require candidates for sheriff to have completed a four-year degree in a related field and graduated from an accredited college. Clark County officials were hopeful that Legislators would support those qualifications and resolve the problems during the current legislative session.
Mr. Lomax stated that when the law was written, one requirement for the constable position was to be a “qualified elector,” which implied that a candidate had to be at least 21 years of age, the legal voting age at the time. Since then, Mr. Lomax said the legal voting age had changed to 18 years of age.
Mr. Lomax continued his testimony, stating that the issue was further complicated by another qualification for constable that required a candidate to be a peace officer. In the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), one of the requirements for being a peace officer was that the person must be 21 years of age. Mr. Lomax concluded that the qualifications for constable should be clarified in the NRS.
Mr. Lomax explained that the lawsuit in the last Clark County election started when a candidate who was not 21 years of age ran for constable. Another candidate sued him saying that he was not qualified. The candidate under 21 years of age lost in District Court, and his name was taken off the ballot. He later appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that his name could remain on the ballot.
Mr. Musgrove said that the amendment (Exhibit C) proposed by the constables of Clark County and Washoe County would apply to any county with a population of 100,000 or more, not to populations of 250,000 or more as stated. This was the only correction recommended by Committee Counsel, Eileen O’Grady. The amendment would require candidates who run for office to have Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification as Category-1 or Category-2 peace officers.
Mr. Musgrove stated that constables from the larger counties had expressed the view that it was important for candidates to have a law enforcement background prior to taking office in order to carry out the duties effectively. An elected sheriff must deal with courts, attorneys, and law enforcement provisions. In addition, NRS 258.070 required candidates for constable to be peace officers, implying that they must meet Category-1 or Category‑2 post-certification requirements. Mr. Musgrove said that the amendment would ensure that counties attracted the best-qualified individual for the position.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said that his understanding was that current statutes required a sheriff to be a certified peace officer, or the candidate must obtain certification within a year. Mr. Musgrove said that he wished to focus on qualifications for the constable positions in the larger counties. He was not familiar with requirements for the sheriff positions.
Mr. Musgrove said that the proposed provisions would not take effect until January 2006 when the next round of constable elections was scheduled. The measure would not apply to current office holders, would grandfather in existing employees, and would not force anyone out of office.
Chairman Manendo directed Mr. Olsen to take a seat at the witness table, since his amendment (Exhibit D) would soon be discussed. The Chairman recognized Assemblyman Goicoechea who wished to speak. Mr. Goicoechea said that prior to asking questions he would like to hear both amendments.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked what it meant to be a qualified elector. Mr. Lomax answered that a qualified elector was someone who was eligible to vote. In order to register to vote, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a county resident for at least 30 days.
Lieutenant Olsen of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said that the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association supported A.B. 114 and would like to offer another amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Olsen pointed out that the wording of the amendment, which said it would apply to “counties of 250,000 or greater,” was a mistake. Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel to the Government Affairs Committee, said the proposed amendment should be corrected to apply to “counties of 100,000 or greater.” That would be the only correction to his amendment (Exhibit D).
Mr. Olsen read the proposed amendment (Exhibit D):
In counties of 100,000 or greater candidates for sheriff shall have completed a four year degree in a related field and graduated from an accredited college or university.
Mr. Olsen said that in Clark County and Washoe County, law enforcement was becoming more complex and the issues required a greater knowledge of different aspects of law enforcement and business. To date, they have had prostitutes, convicted criminals, and other unqualified persons run for sheriff. Mr. Olsen said the groups he represented would like to continue to attract appropriate and qualified candidates.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he received an e-mail (Exhibit F) from Nicholas Hansen, a former candidate for constable who was not elected. In the e-mail, he said that the NRS statutes stated that if a sheriff could not fulfill his duties, the county clerk would fill the position. Mr. Goicoechea had verified that this provision did exist in the NRS. If a sheriff had to be suspended, then the county clerk would be sheriff during the suspension. Mr. Goicoechea’s question was whether the qualifications for constable would have to be passed on to the county clerks.
Mr. Lomax said he was not qualified to answer that question because he was the Registrar, not the County Clerk.
Mr. Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said that they looked to revise qualifications for running for election to the office, not to address qualifications for the person filling a position temporarily when the incumbent was incapacitated. The requirements for running for office would not carry over from the election process to situations where an interim sheriff would be temporarily appointed.
Mr. Nadeau said that the sheriffs of larger counties were worthy of appropriate compensation because they dealt with budgets in the millions of dollars. Those positions should have certain specific and appropriate qualifications. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office supported the age requirement as well as adding the educational requirement, as stated in the two amendments. He said that there were many aspects involved in being a good sheriff, and that it was “not a matter of just walking in the door and thinking you are one.”
Assemblyman Collins added that the state did not require judges or justices of the peace to have 4-year degrees except in areas with larger populations where a judicial college existed to train them.
Mr. Collins said that his main problem was that he was trying to represent Nevada under conditions of low voter turnout, which continued even though he took every opportunity to encourage people to participate in government. He did not understand why those testifying today would want to restrict the field of candidates who could run for public office.
Assemblyman Collins did not agree that a college degree was necessary because he said the constable position was administrative rather than enforcement in nature and because the undersheriffs were capable of handling situations within their area of expertise. Mr. Collins asked supporters of the amendment (Exhibit D) to consider his objections.
Assemblyman Collins stated that there was nothing wrong with a qualified elector running for the constable office. If the person was qualified to serve in Iraq, then he could serve as constable or sheriff. The voters should decide.
Mr. Olsen replied that it was similar to running a large corporation. He said that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had almost 4,300 employees, with an annual budget of $500,000,000. The job of sheriff in an agency of that size required a significant amount of knowledge and that someone who did not come up through the ranks or have significant law enforcement experience with a college degree would not understand the job. If a constable brought an undersheriff from another county into an agency the size of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the population would have a difficult time if the undersheriff did not understand the process or have a body of knowledge to inform his decisions. For those reasons, Mr. Olsen supported the proposed amendment.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked what other elected county positions required a 4‑year college degree. Mr. Olsen answered that the District Attorney position required a law degree. Mr. Musgrove added that, aside from judges and the district attorney, other elected positions did not require advanced degrees.
Assemblyman McCleary said he was against placing any educational requirements on government service. Since the sheriff position was described as similar to running a corporation, he said that the Governor was in a similar position and there were no educational requirements there. He said he did not think that it would be fair. Mr. McCleary argued, “A person smart enough to get elected would be smart enough to run the agency.”
Assemblywoman Weber asked how many counties would be affected by A.B. 114 and how many positions would be grandfathered in if it passed. Mr. Olsen replied that only Washoe County and Clark County would be affected, and that a grandfather clause would not be necessary because both individuals holding office today had 4-year degrees.
Assemblyman Knecht described some degrees that might satisfy the “4-year college degree in a related field” requirement: public administration with a major in law enforcement, business administration degree, or a psychology or sociology degree. He said that more thought led to more problems deciding just what was a “related field.” Mr. Knecht said that while he very much respected the service sheriffs provided, and the qualifications that incumbents brought to the job, he trusted the voters to make the right decision. He did not see a good reason to require a constable to have a 4-year degree.
Mr. Olsen responded that the Las Vegas Police Department currently paid fixed amounts for each type of degree achieved by employees. He agreed with Mr. Knecht that many different degrees could satisfy the amendment.
Assemblyman Grady asked Mr. Olsen if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy required a college degree to be accepted into their program. Mr. Olsen said if a police officer applied to the FBI National Academy, an executive level academy for law enforcement officers, that a college degree would not be required. For admittance to the FBI academy to train as an agent, the academy would require a college degree.
Based on Mr. Olsen’s response, Mr. Grady asked if it would be correct to say that if the amendment was adopted as proposed, a career officer could graduate from the FBI academy and still not be qualified to run for sheriff. Mr. Olsen agreed that was a true statement.
Assemblyman Hardy wanted to know if the “over 100,000 population” clause applied to both amendments, or only to one. Mr. Musgrove replied that the population cap would apply to both amendments, and that this was due to a recommendation by the Government Affairs Committee Counsel, and would apply to both Clark and Washoe Counties.
Assemblyman Knecht noted that the language in the amendment (Exhibit D) requiring a 4-year degree for constable candidates should reflect that some people might take 3 or 5 years, or more, to complete a 4-year degree program. Mr. Olsen agreed.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked for confirmation that Mr. Lomax had said that a peace officer had to be 21 years of age to run for that office. Mr. Lomax concurred.
Mr. Goicoechea said he supported the amendment that would require all candidates for constable to be POST-certified as category I or category II peace officers. He said that in Pershing County a few years ago someone “off the street was elected and they had a real wreck.” He said it would not work and that he disagreed with Mr. Collins. Even in a rural county, a certain level of understanding was necessary and it was not sufficient to be just an administrator.
Mr. Nadeau clarified that the proposed amendment might have an impact on one rural county with a sheriff who was not certified as a peace officer prior to election.
Assemblyman Atkinson said his questions had already been asked by Assemblyman Goicoechea, and he had no further questions.
Assemblywoman Weber wanted to know if similar educational requirements had been implemented in other metropolitan areas, like Phoenix. Mr. Olsen said that most large police agencies required a college degree for their Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and some required a degree from the FBI National Academy, some required master’s degrees, some required bachelor’s degrees, and some asked for a degree in a specific field.
Assemblywoman Weber asked if credit was given for work experience, since many industries allowed experience to count towards the educational requirement. Ms. Weber wanted to know if that had been considered. Mr. Olsen said he thought that the University of Phoenix, an accredited university, offered a 4-year Criminal Justice degree, and allowed credits for life experience to count towards the degree.
Assemblyman Collins asked if any of the candidates in the last Clark County election would have been disqualified if this amendment had been in effect. Mr. Olsen stated that one individual would have been disqualified because the “internet university” that granted his degree was discredited. A media investigation revealed that he had not attended even one class. Soon after, the “diploma mill” was shut down by law enforcement action.
Chairman Manendo asked if there were other questions and, hearing none, closed the hearing on A.B. 114.
Assembly Bill 137: Revises reporting requirements of Bureau for Hospital Patients within Office for Consumer Health Assistance. (BDR 18-474)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 137, and introduced Ms. Valerie Rosalin, Director, Consumer Health Assistance, Office of the Governor, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Judie Noriega, Operations Manager, Consumer Health Assistance, Office of the Governor, Carson City, Nevada.
Ms. Rosalin described A.B. 137 as a bill that would not change the content of any of the reports but would change the timing of one. She said that the Consumer Health Assistance Office submitted annual reports to the Governor and to the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB). In July 2001 when Bureau of Hospital Patients (BHP) moved to the Consumer Health Assistance department, the BHP was required to report to the Governor and to the LCB on a quarterly basis. Ms. Rosalin proposed to synchronize the deadlines so that all legislative reports would be submitted annually.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if it was also correct that there would be changes to where the reports were sent, and whether Ms. Rosalin proposed to route the reports to the Director of the LCB instead sending them to the legislative Committee on Health and Human Services. Ms. Rosalin agreed, and added that reports submitted to the LCB actually go through the LCB to the appropriate legislative committee.
Ms. Rosalin noted that the handout (Exhibit E) showed statistics on the volume of reports the BHP received, how the reports were taken, what hospitals they dealt with, and the savings to patients that resulted from their efforts.
Assemblywoman Weber asked for a clarification regarding agency staff. She questioned if all legislative reports went through the LCB and then back to the committees; and, if so, was the change proposed in order to standardize procedures.
Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, clarified that it was common practice to route the reports through the Director of the LCB to the appropriate legislative committee.
Assemblyman Hardy asked Ms. Rosalin to describe the mission and purpose of the Bureau of Hospital Patients. Ms. Rosalin stated that the mission of the BHP was to allow all Nevadans access to the information they need regarding their health care concerns, and to assist consumers and injured employees in understanding their rights and responsibilities under various health care plans and policies of industrial insurance.
She said that the BHP, when it was under the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs, handled mostly billing disputes or problems of the uninsured. The Governor’s Office of Consumer Health Assistance had taken that mission one step further, and it now included “everything regarding hospitals up to and including quality of care.”
Dr. Hardy asked if, looking at the handout, it was correct to say that about 78 people with billing problems had been addressed by the BHP. Ms. Rosalin said that the correct figure would be 78 cases in one quarter, July through September. Dr. Hardy asked for confirmation that there were less than 400 cases per year handled by the BHP. Ms. Rosalin agreed to this figure.
Dr. Hardy, a practicing physician, questioned how many people knew that the BHP existed because his observation was that many patients had problems with their medical bills.
Ms. Rosalin responded that the office itself had been in existence for about 10 years under another jurisdiction, and they were now located under Consumer Health Assistance and were taking steps to raise the profile of the BHP. Ms. Rosalin volunteered that there was a proposal to print information about the BHP on hospital admission forms, including a phone number to call if quality of care, billing questions, or complaints might arise. The BHP also conducted some community outreach programs to advertise their services.
Ms. Noriega added that the BHP averaged 140 cases per year between 1997 and 2000. Last year, under Consumer Health Assistance, they averaged 282 cases for the year, or an increase of 108 percent (Exhibit E).
Assemblyman Hardy disclosed, for the record, that he was a family physician who planned to discuss and vote on this issue but that he had nothing to gain or lose on this issue.
Chairman Manendo asked how many members were on the staff. Ms. Rosalin answered that there were currently seven and one designated specialist.
Chairman Manendo asked what was the annual budget. Ms. Rosalin answered that for year 2003-2004, the proposed budget was $721,000. Chairman Manendo asked if they had been affected by the 3 percent cuts. Ms. Noriega answered that they had been affected. Ms. Rosalin explained that they had already lost two positions and another position was scheduled to be eliminated in July 2003. She said they had appealed to Assembly Ways and Means to request replacement funding for that position.
Chairman Manendo said the Committee was interested in learning how the 3 percent cuts were affecting departments and constituents.
Assemblywoman Weber asked if a phone number for billing questions was given to patients on being discharged. She thought it would be important information for patients who were unable to resolve problems or who needed to elevate issues and would recommend that the information also be printed on documents closer to the resolution stage, such as statements.
Ms. Rosalin said that printing the information on admission papers had been proposed, but that she had not seen that yet.
Chairman Manendo asked if there were additional questions from the Committee on this bill. Since there was no further testimony or questions, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 137.
Assemblyman Collins said that since the hospitals were assessed to fund the BHP operations, he did not understand why their budget would be cut unless they were also receiving General Fund monies.
Chairman Manendo encouraged Mr. Collins to question the BHP representatives on the record. Chairman Manendo then reopened the hearing on A.B. 137 and Mr. Collins asked the following question. Assemblyman Collins asked why the BHP budget was cut if they were funded by the hospitals. He asked if the Consumer Health Assistance office or BHP received any funding in addition to those monies provided by the hospitals, and if they received any General Fund monies to fund their operations.
Ms. Rosalin explained that the assessments were made only on hospitals with more than 49 beds, and that the assessment monies went into the General Fund, and the funding was reallocated to the BHP. Ms. Rosalin said that the Consumer Health Assistance Office, which included the BHP, received funding from four sources: Workmen’s Compensation, Medicaid, the State General Fund, and the BHP funding from hospital assessments.
Assemblyman Hardy said that according to his calculations 3 percent would equal $21,630, and that this amount should not cause a program to lose two staff people, although some of the 3 percent cuts were calculated differently.
Dr. Hardy concluded that, in that case, the 3 percent cut seemed to be “deeper and wider” than a simple 3 percent.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 137 and adjourned the meeting at 9:03 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JoAnn Aldrich
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: