MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 24, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:17 a.m., on Monday, March 24, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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. Wendell P. Williams, Vice 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:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Walter Andonov, Assemblyman, District No. 21
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Former State of Nevada Senator Lawrence Jacobson, Western Senatorial District
Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services
James E. Inman, State Loyalty Day Chairman, Veterans of Foreign Wars
Ron Mosner, State Commander, Marine Corps League, Commandant, Black Mountain Attachment of Henderson, Nevada
Jack A. Porrino, Superintendent, Southern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery, Boulder City, Nevada
Steven Long, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services
Ron Gutzman, American Legion, Post 4, Carson City, Nevada
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and visitors to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark members present upon their arrivals. The Chair reviewed the agenda for the meeting for the members and guests. First on the agenda was to introduce several bill draft requests (BDRs).
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1315.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 32-581.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 22-1295.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 20-283.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR C-1301.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-102.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-101.
Chairman Manendo, hearing no second to the motion, postponed further action on BDR 31-101 until later in the meeting.
After reviewing the agenda again with the Committee, the Chair stated that A.B. 306 would be heard out of order, because Assemblyman Walter Andonov would need to return to his own committee hearing shortly. The Chair welcomed Assemblyman Andonov to the Committee on Government Affairs and Mr. Andonov’s guest, Mr. Fulkerson.
Assemblyman Andonov, District No. 21, was wearing a medal given to him by Mr. Inman from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It was an honorary medal from Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 10053 in Las Vegas; Assemblyman Hardy and Jacqueline Sneddon were also given honorary medals.
The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 306.
Assembly Bill 306: Authorizes military funeral under certain circumstances for deceased veterans whose bodies are not claimed by relatives. (BDR 37-767)
Assemblyman Andonov, representing Assembly District No. 21 in Henderson, Nevada, introduced himself. He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to testify on A.B. 306 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Andonov quoted John Gwizdak, the Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, “No veteran should be denied the right to a proper burial with the special honors we accord to those who have served us all upon the ramparts of freedom.” It was Mr. Andonov’s belief that the quote expressed what everyone in the room felt and believed. Throughout the nation, he said, people believed that we should repay the debt owed to those who fought for our peace and prosperity throughout the years, America’s military veterans.
All veterans deserved a dignified and honorable burial. There was a need to assist those who served our country, he continued, and then became homeless. All Americans who served our country deserved honor and respect in life and certainly dignity in death.
The intention of A.B. 306 was to allow veterans’ organizations to participate in a display of gratitude to those whose contributions to our security and our peace would otherwise have been forgotten. Homeless or indigent veterans with no family members to claim their bodies would be disposed of as provided for by the minimal standards included in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). That meant that the body would be held for 30 days at the county morgue and would then be sent to the Committee on Anatomical Dissection and cut up for scientific research. In some cases, bodies remained in the morgue for extended periods of time. In both cases, there would be little, if any, dignity in death.
The purpose of A.B. 306 was to allow recognized veterans’ organizations, groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the Marine Corps League, the American Legion, and many others to claim the body of a deceased indigent American veteran and to perform a dignified military funeral for the individual. In NRS, charitable and religious organizations were empowered to claim bodies of indigents and provide those funerals. The bill would simply add veterans to the list of recognized groups. A.B. 306 would also allow recognized veterans’ groups to apply for a plot at one of our two state veterans’ memorial cemeteries on behalf of the deceased veteran.
The bill had no fiscal impact on state or local budgets since the United States Code prescribes that veterans were eligible for a free burial at a veterans’ cemetery. The ceremonial additions, such as providing an Honor Guard, would be provided by the veterans’ organizations themselves (Exhibit D).
Several other states had passed similar legislation. Those states were Montana, Idaho, Missouri, California, and several others. An intangible benefit noted by those states was that it allowed veterans’ groups to work together to provide services for their fellow military veterans. That, of course, helped to create a great sense of camaraderie and friendship as a by-product of the process.
Mr. Andonov stated that A.B. 306 was a small way to say “Thank you” and to show respect to our military veterans who might otherwise be forgotten. It was not designed to replace existing governmental programs, only to enhance them.
The current conflict in the Middle East highlighted the brave, noble, and selfless service that America’s servicemen and servicewomen provided to us. He urged the Committee to support the bill as a display of gratitude to those whose contributions and service to America would otherwise be forgotten (Exhibit C).
Mr. Andonov introduced Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services, and a number of other people in Las Vegas who represented the Marine Corps League in Henderson. All wished to make comments in support of A.B. 306.
Chuck Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services, stated his appreciation for being allowed to testify in support of A.B. 306, which he reviewed for the Committee (Exhibit E). Those veterans whose bodies remained unclaimed by family members would be provided with a military funeral and would be afforded the dignity of an honor ceremony. He fully supported the bill.
James E. Inman, VFW, former Post Commander of VFW, had conducted 15 funerals in 18 months. “Some of the veterans were found dead in boxcars in railroad yards, and we buried them.” Among the members of his Post was a mortician. He handled all the paperwork. It was Mr. Inman’s belief, he reported, that the county buried the unclaimed individuals in what was called Potter’s Field. In Sparks, Mr. Inman’s hometown, the northeast corner of the Nevada Mental Health Institute was called Potter’s Field, and Mr. Inman believed that was where some were buried. He sincerely believed, he affirmed, that our country owed all veterans for their service. If veterans died as indigents and/or were homeless, they deserved a 21-gun salute, a flag, and a place to be buried.
At the same time, at the next Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, Mr. Inman would propose that, in Nevada, for every veteran who died with an insurance policy, the morticians would charge $100 per burial to come from that policy, because every man in the firing party and those conducting the services were all volunteers. He wanted to suggest that $100 be given for each veteran who was buried. The state of Nevada should not bear the expense of that burial.
Assemblyman Williams wanted to know from Mr. Andonov what the consequences would be if there were an influx of requests to the veterans’ organizations for the burials and services presently under discussion. He was concerned that the organizations would not have the funds to meet all of the requests. Mr. Williams clarified that he was supportive of the bill but still had those concerns should A.B. 306 pass.
Mr. Fulkerson, rather than Mr. Andonov, responded. The honor ceremonies were provided by volunteer veterans’ organizations. There was a group in Reno, for example, called the Western Nevada Military Honors Group that had been providing the service for over 40 years. They had done it all out of their own pockets. The group provided honors ceremonies at veterans’ cemeteries and wherever the requests came from.
Until the Millennium bill was passed in 1998 or 1999, the federal government’s active duty military had nothing to do with the funerals of veterans unless the veteran was a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, a general officer, or something similar. The Millennium bill required that the active duty military personnel now provide a minimum of three people from the active force, with one in the same branch of service as the deceased, to participate in the military burial services. Although that had worked well, there were still complaints that there was no Honor Guard or firing of the 21 rounds of ammunition. The veterans’ organizations would be able to provide the service and the 21-gun salute if A.B. 306 passed. The Millennium bill provided the payment of $50 per funeral service per organization that handled those services. Mr. Fulkerson stated that, unfortunately, it was one of those many mandates passed by the United States Congress that remained unfunded.
Mr. Fulkerson stated that, in his opinion, an influx of requests would not tap the resources of the veterans’ organizations as those groups were already tapped. The death rate for World War II veterans was climbing every day and would continue to do so until 2008, at which time they would begin to recede in numbers. It was incumbent on veterans’ organizations and on the Office of Veterans’ Services to continue the involvement of veterans’ organizations so that volunteers remained available. Sometimes, he stated, it was difficult to provide the desired services.
Mr. Andonov reported that the organization that brought these issues to his attention was the Marine Corps League of Henderson. In their case, they had a surplus capacity and wished to do the service but had not been recognized in the laws as a legitimate resource. There would possibly be many more organizations that were asking for recognition that, once received, could relieve some of the burden on organizations mentioned by Mr. Fulkerson.
Chairman Manendo stated another concern. There were many homeless veterans who passed away with no one to care for their remains. It was an honorable act provided by veterans’ organizations that were able to handle the financial responsibilities to help.
Mr. Fulkerson introduced Ron Mosner who would testify from Las Vegas. He had “spark-plugged” the support for A.B. 306.
Ron Mosner, Commandant of the Black Mountain Detachment, Marine Corps League, in Henderson, heard clearly several years ago that there was a need to handle the burial of veterans differently. At a Marine Corps League conference in Las Vegas, that issue was discussed. The belief at that time was that handling the burial of veterans in a dignified and honorable way could be dealt with at the national level. Since that time, it had become clear that the issues needed to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis, as every state handled its deceased indigent and homeless people differently.
The Marine Corps League had received commitments from its members, from the VFW, and from the American Legion to join together to form a coalition in southern Nevada to care for and provide the services for unclaimed veterans without costs. Costs would be absorbed by the organizations whose members were volunteering their services. Mr. Mosner had contacted social services in Clark County, given them his phone number, and said that, if any family of an indigent person wanted to contact the Marine Corps League, they were welcome to do so, and a military service free of charge would be performed.
Unfortunately, not many individuals or families had called yet. Mr. Mosner was pleased and surprised, however, to receive a call from a woman in New York whose brother had died and whose body was in Las Vegas. Mr. Mosner was waiting for a release date so that the burial would be at the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 306 after thanking all of those who testified on behalf of the bill.
Assemblyman Grady disclosed that he was on the Board for the Northern Nevada Veterans Cemetery. As the bill did not affect him personally, he intended to vote on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 306.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo requested that Mr. Andonov carry A.B. 306 to the Floor. Mr. Andonov agreed to do so with pleasure.
The Chair elected to deviate from the posted agenda to consider another bill draft request.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 28-1304.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Christensen was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 247. The hearing was immediately put on hold, however, as there were several witnesses waiting to testify on two different bills, and one had limited time. The Chair then opened the hearing on both A.B. 405 and A.B. 304.
Assembly Bill 304: Authorizes use of remainder of certain gifts of money and personal property donated for use at veterans’ cemeteries. (BDR 37-652)
Assembly Bill 405: Revises provisions governing financial support of veterans’ cemeteries. (BDR 37-1184)
Joe Hardy, Assemblyman, District No. 20, introduced himself and stated that he was sitting next to his uncle, James Everett Inman, and that it was a pleasure to be with him.
The purposes of A.B. 304 and A.B. 405 were to increase the ability to accept money into the veterans’ cemetery organizations and to use that money to improve staffing, operations, and maintenance of those cemeteries. He commended Chairman Manendo who was responsible for bringing A.B. 304 forward. He said it was an interesting experience to receive A.B. 405 and note that both bills were attempting to accomplish the same purpose of increasing funding to the veterans cemeteries, both the Northern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery in Fernley and the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery in Boulder City.
Historically, Boulder City donated approximately 80 acres of land near the airport for use as a veterans’ cemetery in the mid-1980s. That transfer of land from the city to the cemetery organization was facilitated by a private citizen, Ken Brown, who applied personal funds of $10,000 to allow and facilitate the actual land to pass through the purchase to the veterans cemetery. The original document in the City Council of Boulder City had Jon C. Porter, Sr. seconding the motion. He was a member of the council then but now served as a congressman. The history demonstrated an ongoing concern for veterans and the need for a dignified and honorable place for internment.
Assemblyman Hardy asked Committee members to look at both bills; there were good things about each bill. He proposed that all of the language in A.B. 405 in bold print that represented the changes (amendments) to NRS 417.220 be placed into A.B. 304. Having done that, he recommended moving all of the changes listed in A.B. 304 to A.B. 405. They would then be identical bills with the exception of adding a fiscal note to A.B. 405. The fiscal note would be subparagraph 8 of A.B. 405 that would state, “The director is authorized to maintain the full-time employees’ level at each cemetery at 60 percent of the full time employees’ level directed in United States Chapter 38CFR, paragraph 39.8.” That would allow the cemeteries to raise money, donations, and grants, and to use them without attaching a fiscal note to A.B. 304. That would allow A.B. 304 to move forward without a fiscal note; it would allow A.B. 405 to have a fiscal note and to be referred to Ways and Means to seek further funding for official positions for the veterans’ cemeteries. He asked the Committee members to pull A.B. 405 so that he would be able to review the changes he was suggesting with them.
Assemblyman Hardy continued on A.B. 405. On page 1, line 8, it would read “Affairs, or other money provided by the Federal Government for the support of veterans’ cemeteries.” Page 2, line 1 of subparagraph (d) would read “Grants obtained by the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director for the support of veterans cemeteries, and . . .” The next change would be on page 2, line 5. A clarification would be the result of moving the word “that” in the middle of the sentence to after the word “property” instead of before the word “property.” Then the sentence would read “sale of gifts of personal property that he is authorized to accept, if. . .” That would place the word in the proper place. The next change would be on line 19. Mr. Hardy suggested striking the words “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6,” capitalizing the next word “The,” and then moving to line 22, where the words “in addition to personnel he is authorized to employ pursuant to NRS 417.200, the Executive Director may use money deposited pursuant to subsection 2 to employ such personnel as are necessary for the operation and maintenance of the cemeteries.” At that point, he suggested that the members cross out, in keeping with the intent of merging the two bills, the remainder of line 26, all of line 27, and all of line 28. That would change line 29 to read “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7,” noting that the subsection 6 had changed to subsection 7.
The next change would be on line 34, page 2, of A.B. 405, stated Assemblyman Hardy. He proposed striking “The Executive Director or the Deputy.” Lines 35 through the word “donor” on line 38 would also be stricken. That would then apply to the corrected language getting to the intent of the bill that was provided for Committee members in A.B. 304 adding subparagraph 7, page 2, of A.B. 304 which would read, “The Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director shall use gifts of money or personal property that he is authorized to accept and for which the donor has restricted to one or more uses at a veterans’ cemetery in the manner designated by the donor, except that if the original purpose of the gift has been fulfilled or the original purpose cannot be fulfilled for good cause, any money or personal property remaining in the gift may be used for other purposes at the veterans’ cemetery in northern Nevada or the veterans’ cemetery in southern Nevada, as appropriate.”
Assemblyman Hardy stated that those would be the changes in the body of the bill and would apply subparagraph 8, in Section 1, to read “The Director is authorized to maintain the full-time employees’ level at each cemetery at 60 percent of the full-time employee levels directed at U.S. Chapter 38S, CFR, paragraph 39.8.” That would apply only to A.B. 405. “What that would allow us to do was to use the money that had accumulated in an account so that it could be used to further the work at the veterans’ cemeteries,” Mr. Hardy concluded.
Chairman Manendo stated, for the record, that he served on the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Cemetery Council representing the Assembly on that Commission.
Chuck Fulkerson spoke on the background on A.B. 304. NRS 417.220 provided that the Executive Director in the Nevada Office of Veterans Services and, therefore, the superintendents of the northern and southern veterans’ cemeteries “shall use gifts of money or personal property that he is authorized to accept for which the donor has restricted to one or more uses at the veterans’ cemetery only in the manner designated by the donor.” The phrasing of the statute read, “Shall be used only in the manner designated,” and had resulted in a reserve of funds accumulating in both the northern and southern cemeteries’ gifts accounts. The reserve had accumulated in the gifts accounts because, often, the purpose for which the donation was made had been accomplished, and there was money that remained in the gift. An example given was a veteran’s widow who might gift the southern cemetery with $500 to buy a bench to be placed near the grave of her deceased husband. Upon purchase of the bench for $200, there remained $300 that could not be spent for anything else due to the constraining language of that section of the statute.
Mr. Fulkerson had talked with a deputy attorney general. On his advice, cemetery personnel contacted the donors to seek a modification or revision of the purpose and the original intent of the gift. After ten years, it was impossible to track down many of the donors. If the statute were not amended, the money in the restricted accounts would never be spent. It should be noted, he continued, that all donor intentions had been fulfilled. The intent of the amendment would be to allow the Executive Director of the Nevada Office of Veterans’ Services to spend the money contained in the northern and southern cemeteries’ restricted gifts accounts for projects at each respective cemetery. The money in the northern cemetery account was $38,485; in the southern cemetery account, it was $149,775 (Exhibit F).
Chairman Manendo was familiar with gifts to the cemeteries and wondered if there was often leftover money from purchases made to satisfy the intent of the donation. His own family purchased a tree and a bench for his father. He asked if the purchases always resulted in money left over whenever money was donated. Mr. Fulkerson confirmed there was often money left over. As of January 2003, Mr. Fulkerson stated, a paragraph had been added to the donor slip that donors signed. That bottom paragraph stated that any money remaining after the donor’s intentions were met, the Director of Veterans’ Services had the authority to use those remaining funds in support of the cemetery. The problem of monies left over would cease to exist for gifts that were made after January 2003.
Mr. Fulkerson then directed the Committee’s attention to A.B. 405. The intent of that bill, as amended, was to provide for full-time manning of the two state cemeteries to maintain the level recommended by the National Cemetery Commission in Chapter 38, United States Code, Paragraph 39.6. Currently, the Boulder City cemetery was manned at 43 percent of the recommended manning level, and the Fernley cemetery was manned at 43.1 percent of the recommended manning level. That had caused many personnel problems due to the inability to schedule break times, vacation times, to cover family emergency times, and a host of other daily related problems. The crews were on edge and having a difficult time creating burial spaces for veterans who were passing away at an increasing rate.
The Boulder City cemetery was currently the second busiest state veterans’ cemetery in the nation. The two Nevada cemeteries were burying about 25 percent of the total veterans who passed away in the state. The national average for state burials of veterans was about 10 percent. Fernley would be starting an expansion project in April 2003 that would double the size of the burial area; Boulder City was in the design phase of an expansion project that would add 11 acres of burial area.
Mr. Fulkerson then asked Committee members to look at the cemetery workload factors listed on pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit G. At 60 percent manning at Fernley, the personnel cost would increase by $46,855 to an annual total of $234,275. In southern Nevada, an increase in the manning level to 60 percent of the recommended level would increase the payroll by $140,565 to a total of $655,971. As of last October, the federal government doubled the amount paid for each veteran’s burial. The fee paid to the state veterans’ cemeteries was now $300 per burial. Legislation was before the U.S. Congress currently to increase that burial fee to $500 per burial and to include all veterans, not just the wartime veterans. Approximately 93 percent of veterans were considered wartime veterans with 7 percent considered non-wartime veterans and thus not eligible for fee reimbursement through the federal government. Present burial costs per veteran were $401 each. In other states the costs were much higher.
Chairman Manendo paused in the discussion of A.B. 304 and A.B. 405 to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Christensen who became a father for the fourth time. He also explained that the Committee was currently dealing with two bills at the same time, something that was very unusual in legislative work.
James Inman chose to speak again to thank the Committee for allowing him to visit the hearing and also extended his compliments to the Committee for the job they were doing. He stated he was proud of all of the members but, most especially, of his nephew, Assemblyman Joe Hardy.
In Las Vegas, Jack Porrino, Superintendent, Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery, stated his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He personally felt grateful to those who sponsored and supported veteran causes in Nevada. He stated that much more could be done and needed to be done for veterans. At the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery, the cost to the state, after subtracting monies that were donated or reimbursed by the federal government, was approximately $25,000 to operate the cemetery in the past year.
Mr. Porrino encouraged all legislators to put our veterans forward, especially now that they were out there sacrificing their lives for all of us. Mr. Porrino reported that it would do much to assist veterans to become first class citizens in the state. The state was not spending much to operate the two veterans’ memorial cemeteries. He also stated that he would forward additional information regarding the accomplishment of major projects including the new chapel, the formula for estimating revenue at his facility, a list of donations to the cemetery from July 2002 until February 2003, and other pertinent information (Exhibit H).
Chairman Manendo publicly thanked Mr. Porrino and stated his appreciation for his leadership and hard work and that of Mr. Porrino’s staff of the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery. The Chair further commented that the cemetery was an absolute gem in Boulder City, it was a gem in southern Nevada, and it was a gem for the state of Nevada. He knew that the northern cemetery in Fernley was wonderful as well, although he had not had the opportunity to visit it personally.
Mr. Porrino responded by thanking all veterans and all persons who donated gifts through the years to make the cemetery possible. He noted that there had been many donations, as the Director stated, and many more were coming in; since July 2002, more than $40,000 had been donated in money alone. Veterans were not just asking to be treated properly; they were doing many things on their own to make sure that they were treated with respect. The chapel would not have been possible if money had not been raised in three different ways. Over the years, $750,000 was raised through the donations of veterans, individuals, casinos, and groups that came forward to help raise money. The federal government donated $450,000, and the state of Nevada donated $200,000 to make the chapel building possible. The monument section of the cemetery was the result of donated funds only. Many veterans donated their labor in addition to the support that they gave in so many other ways. He felt strongly about the efforts of veterans and their need for recognition within our state.
Chairman Manendo noted that the chapel was a magnificent structure that was desperately needed. If one had ever attended a funeral in Boulder City held outside in the summer, it was most uncomfortable. The chapel had now afforded people an opportunity to pay their respects more comfortably. The Chair also acknowledged his gratitude to those many, many people whose hard work and efforts brought the chapel into existence.
Steven Long, Deputy Executive Director for the Nevada Office for Veterans’ Services, was Mr. Fulkerson’s assistant in Las Vegas. He echoed the kind words said by the Chair about the state-run cemeteries for veterans in Nevada. Both were role models for state-operated veterans’ cemeteries throughout the country.
On an administrative note, Mr. Long wished to make certain that the amendments read correctly. There was a proposed amendment dealing with the level of manning the cemeteries that used a reference to U.S. Code 38. In fact, the reference should be the National Cemetery Administration’s staffing level recommendations. Mr. Long repeated that the reference to the U.S. Code needed to be stricken, and the National Cemetery Administration’s staffing level recommendations should be inserted in its place. Mr. Long said the numbers recommended were in the handout that Mr. Fulkerson distributed (Exhibit G, page 4). When Chairman Manendo requested that Mr. Long fax to Carson City a copy of what he had just referenced so that there was an official document from his office, he agreed to do so.
As there was no one in Las Vegas waiting to speak, the Chair invited others in the Carson City hearing to come forward.
Lawrence Jacobsen, former State of Nevada Senator, gave a historical perspective of veterans’ organizations. The Veterans’ Hospital in Reno began an improvement process to provide services for veterans in Nevada. The Nevada Legislature provided the two veterans’ memorial cemeteries. Former Speaker Dini and former Senator Jacobsen were strong supporters of both. At the current time, Senator Jacobsen was the Governor’s appointee on the Nevada Commission Veterans Affairs. He had chaired the Commission since the 71st Session of the Nevada Legislature, and he explained that the Commission was very active. Chuck Fulkerson, he stated, was a joy to work with and responsible for many of the improved and additional services that had occurred recently.
Currently the veterans were involved in the completion and opening of the Veterans’ Home in Boulder City, and, although fraught with many problems, the Senator believed, he said, that the Commission was back in control of the situation. Beginning with a “bad” contractor who had to be relieved of his responsibilities plus having to relieve the original director and then dealing with the very real difficulty of hiring nurses in a period of time when there was a nursing shortage, he believed that most problems were behind them. He expressed confidence in the new staff and with the opening of that facility.
Mr. Jacobsen spoke also about the issue of privatization of the Veterans’ Home. He was hopeful, he stated, that the legislators would not agree to that. The veterans were entitled, he stated, to run their own show or at least to try. “If we can’t do it, I don’t think anybody can,” Mr. Jacobsen said. He would like to see it stay as it was currently, because all of the posts and other veterans’ organizations would all be a party to it. It was, in the past, difficult to get the veterans organized. They were taught years ago to fight, continued the Senator, and they still liked to fight occasionally among themselves. Unification, while a struggle, was slowly becoming a reality.
The Commission on Veterans’ Affairs had one other responsibility, which was the guardianship program. The Commissioner, Mr. Jacobsen, had the responsibility to watch out for the children of any veteran who passed away. The Senator’s oldest brother was the Veterans’ Commissioner for 25 years in Nevada. The responsibility for caring about the children of veterans who had passed on weighed heavily on him. He paid close attention to that responsibility and to those many children.
The veterans had many activities and issues that were of importance to them. There were strong associations and those who needed assistance. Almost every rural community had a veterans’ plot in their cemetery maintained by the citizens of that community. In Douglas County there was space set aside in the Garden Cemetery for veterans. Mr. Jacobsen, his wife, and his youngest son had cared for the plot for the last 50 years by mowing the lawn, putting in a sprinkler system, and installing grave markers, and, on every Memorial Day, a flag of our Nation was placed on every grave. In 2002, 412 flags were placed. That was a tradition for the Jacobsen family.
Additionally, they supplied flags for two cemeteries in Alpine County, California. Douglas County had an American Legion Post, which Senator Jacobsen had commanded for 25 years. In Douglas County, there was also a Veterans of Foreign Wars unit and a past national commander who resided at Topaz. There was a great deal of interest in veterans’ affairs in the immediate area, according to Mr. Jacobsen.
Over the years, those groups had tried faithfully to provide a burial ceremony for any veteran when requested or required. Carson Valley Post 12 had their own guns and did their own ceremony. They also called on the Cold Weather Battalion in Bridgeport, California. Also, Fallon Naval Station and the Nevada National Guard were utilized to provide the needed burial ceremonies. There were posts in Reno that were extremely active, he reported, and they took care of many of the ceremonies held at the Northern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery in Fernley.
He was pleased to acknowledge the exceptional work done by Jack Porrino, Superintendent, Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery. In the Senator’s opinion, Mr. Porrino was one of the best superintendents. He encouraged people to visit that cemetery as it reflected the concern and care of Mr. Porrino. It behooved all people to visit one or both of the cemeteries. He further encouraged people to attend Memorial Day services at one of them. Officers from the Fallon Naval Air Station, the Marine Corps Battalion at Pickle Meadows, and the Nevada National Guard were often participants.
Veterans’ issues not only deserved the attention of the legislators, but they desired it. The number of Nevada veterans continued to rise. More and more were moving to Nevada every year and had become very vocal parts of our communities and were, in Senator Jacobsen’s opinion, a credit to the state of Nevada. Having joined the Navy in 1939 and survived 15 major engagements in the Pacific, he welcomed questions and comments.
The Commission worked hard to resolve issues of concern. Even though the leadership within the Commission would change, it was a healthy situation to have a Commission composed of veterans who had dedicated their lives to their country and, especially, to the community and county in which they lived. Many veterans took part in the “support for our troops” rally that took place recently in front of the Legislative Building in Carson City, and the Senator was surprised and pleased by the turnout of veterans. Senator Jacobsen closed with the thought, “As long as we have servicemen wherever they may be, they are ours and it is our responsibility to make sure that we support them.”
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Jacobsen for his testimony and for all that he and his family had done in support of veterans and veterans’ services. The Chair also shared a personal story of his family’s involvement in supporting and caring for the Southern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery. Chairman Manendo and his family were teaching his four-year-old and seven-year-old nephews the importance of flags, participation in ceremonies, and caring for the gravesites.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that caring for a plot was a family affair. He also shared an anecdote about killing rattlesnakes in the cemetery in Fernley. Those that became a threat were “captured” and hanging in a little house in his backyard.
Mr. Fulkerson introduced Wes Block to the Committee. Mr. Block was the Superintendent of the Northern Nevada Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery in Fernley and was present at the hearing. The Chair thanked Mr. Block for all that he had done for veterans and for the memorial cemetery. Mr. Fulkerson continued by referencing comments of Mr. Jacobsen. He gave the Committee the number of veterans currently residing in the state as 241,000 and growing. The influx of veterans into Nevada was estimated at 10 percent of the 68,000 new residents in southern Nevada; that included a very large proportion of retirees, and they added many dollars to the state’s economy. The federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs spent over $350 million a year in support of veterans’ activities in Nevada. Additionally, there were approximately 21,000 veterans who collected monies for disabilities in the amount of $226 million each year. When a very conservative multiplier of four was applied, the total was $1 billion each year in spendable income by veterans living in Nevada.
Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 304 and A.B. 405 and thanked Mr. Hardy for his hard work. He asked for a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 305 AND A.B. 405.
Chairman Manendo restated the motion to clarify to the Committee what the motion included. The motion was to make A.B. 304 and A.B. 405 identical with one exception; the motion would allow A.B. 405, in reference to staffing, to include the recommended staffing levels established by the National Cemeteries Administration. If passed by the Committee, A.B. 405 would be sent to Ways and Means, as it would contain a fiscal note. He then asked Mr. Hardy to accept a friendly amendment to his motion to add Mr. Hardy as the cosponsor of A.B. 304. He also stated that any member of the Committee who wished to be added to the list of sponsors would be able to add their names at the present time.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Manendo asked Ms. Scholley during discussion if it was possible to add names to the list of sponsors at that time. Ms. Scholley stated that she would need to check with the legal counsel to the Committee about that. The Chair stated that he would personally want his name added to A.B. 405. Hearing no other discussion, the Chair called for the vote.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Fulkerson if he would be able to stay if the Committee recessed. Mr. Fulkerson stated that he would. The Chair recessed the Committee at 9:39 a.m. and reopened the hearing at 10:06 a.m.
Assembly Bill 247 (1st Reprint): Provides for creation and administration of various accounts for veterans’ homes and residents thereof. (BDR 37‑534)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 247.
Mr. Fulkerson spoke to the bill. The bill provided the authority for the veterans’ nursing home administrators to comply with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) regulations. The VA required cash accounts to be set up for each resident in a separate trust fund administered by the nursing home. Those monies would provide pocket money for the residents. Money was a symbol of independence that we all grasped whenever we were able as we grew up, stated Mr. Fulkerson. The concept stayed with us for all of our lives and was believed to be essential to the independence and well-being of residents of nursing homes. The bill would make it possible for the veterans to have their own money, to carry cash when there was an outing provided by the nursing home, when there was an outing that was a shopping trip provided by a volunteer organization, or, more importantly, when a member of the veteran’s family came to visit and took him to lunch or dinner (Exhibit I).
The reserve cash account, as written, stated that the maximum amount of money in the account would be $500 total for the home. The Office of Veterans’ Affairs would propose that the amount be changed to $3000 because, with 180 veterans on a Fourth of July weekend, $500 did not cover the expenses of so many residents. The second fund proposed was a revolving account not to exceed $3000 for use by the nursing home for veterans to pay bills that required immediate payment.
Assemblyman Collins asked about Line 23 on page 2. That was to be changed from $500 to $3000, he concluded. On line 43, he noted the intent was to change the $2000 to $3000. Mr. Fulkerson agreed with the first change but denied the need to change line 43.
The Chair confirmed with Mr. Fulkerson that the change needed was limited to page 2, line 23, $500 to $3000. The Chair also confirmed that pocket money would be used at a small convenience store on the nursing home’s property. Snacks and personal accessories were available. The store would continue to expand, explained Mr. Fulkerson, as the number of residents and volunteers increased.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked if there was anyone other than the nursing home administrator who oversaw the accounts. Mr. Fulkerson stated that the overall responsibility did rest with the administrator, but there was an administrative service officer who would have immediate oversight. An employee under that service officer would actually dispense money, keep receipts, and place monies in a safe place. The policy manual also stated that there would be a monthly review, and all were subject to review by the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s audit.
At the Chairman’s request, Mr. Ron Gutzman came forward. He represented the American Legion, Post 4, in Carson City, which supported the bills that came before the Committee. He complimented Mr. Fulkerson for his thorough testimony and believed, he stated, that he did not need to add to that testimony.
The Chair stated that it was a thrill to the Committee to have people from the general public join them and participate in their government. He thanked all veterans for fighting so hard for all of the citizens to have that right. Mr. Gutzman was the past State Commander of the Nevada American Legion, was on the national legislative committee, and was always available to lend his support and presence, Mr. Fulkerson added.
In Las Vegas, Mr. Long stated that the veterans of Las Vegas were in unison in their support of A.B. 247. He added his welcome to Mr. Gutzman.
Hearing no opposition, Chairman Manendo closed the hearing to A.B. 247 and asked for a motion from the Committee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 247.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned Mr. Atkinson to present A.B. 247 on the Floor and asked the Committee to turn its attention to A.B. 286.
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 286 introduced by Assemblywoman Koivisto and stated it was concurrently assigned to Ways and Means. The bill had no amendments. The Chair stated he would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO DO PASS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 286.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Koivisto stated that some of the local governments had concerns with some of the provisions in A.B. 286. She asserted that, in Ways and Means, those issues would be dealt with.
Assemblyman Knecht presumed that the Committee needed to pass the bill to send it on to Ways and Means to be negotiated into a form that would get through the Assembly in a timely manner. The Chair affirmed his understanding, and Mr. Knecht stated that he supported the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chair then moved the Committee into a work session. While waiting to begin the work session, the Chair directed the Committee to look at A.B. 248. He then called the Committee back to order. Before discussing bills in the work session, the Chair stated that there were two bill draft requests that needed to be dealt with.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-8.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 31-101.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
During the discussion of BDR 31-101, Ms. Weber asked why BDR 31-101 was being heard for the second time as the Chair had stated. Chairman Manendo explained that, when brought forward at an earlier time during the hearing, a motion for introduction was made, but there was no second.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assemblyman McCleary asked the Chair if there was ever voiced opposition to the introduction of a BDR. The Chair stated that he remembered an occasion when there had been an objection, but it would be a rare occasion. Generally, as a courtesy to the person making the request, BDRs were introduced, assigned a bill number, and presented in the Committee by the Chair. When so much work was done to write a bill with legal and acceptable language, it was a courtesy to introduce it.
The Chair announced a revision of the agenda for the hearing on the following day. A.B. 330 had been removed from the agenda for that hearing.
Assembly Bill 248: Amends Charter of City of North Las Vegas to revise provisions concerning Municipal Judges. (BDR S-449)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 248.
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 248 was brought forward by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of the City of North Las Vegas. It proposed an amendment to the City Charter of North Las Vegas to change the terms of municipal judges from four years to six years. There was no opposition to the bill, and there was no fiscal note attached. There were no amendments proposed for the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED FOR DO PASS OF A.B. 248.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Knecht stated that he believed it was a good bill and that he would be voting for the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Manendo assigned Mr. Collins the responsibility to handle A.B. 248 on the Floor.
Assembly Bill 152: Authorizes certain counties to adopt ordinance providing, under certain circumstances, for interchangeable filling of certain county offices by way of ex officio service of certain other county officers. (BDR 23-396)
Ms. Scholley stated that A.B. 152 was sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on behalf of Lander County. A.B. 152, in its original form, authorized county commissions to adopt an ordinance permitting the filling of certain county offices through ex-officio service by other county officials. At the original hearing of the bill, the Nevada County Officers Association and the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors opposed the bill. Testimony taken at that time indicated that Storey County also opposed the bill.
After the hearing of the bill, the Lander County Board of County Commissioners proposed an amendment that limited the bill to Lander County only. That amendment provided that the County Clerk of Lander County would serve as the ex-officio county recorder upon either the expiration of the current term of the person serving as county recorder or when a vacancy occurred in that office, whichever occurred first. A mock-up of the new section of the bill that would be substituted for the bill, as a whole was included in the work session notebook provided to the Committee members. Again, the bill would be deleted in its current form, and the new section would become the substitute bill. There was no fiscal impact on the original bill, and there would be no fiscal impact on the bill as amended.
Assemblyman Goicoechea had talked with the Lander County Commissioners and was assured by them that the bill would be a vehicle for them to save money by combining the offices of recorder and clerk. The only real opposition seemed to be from the present recorder and the present clerk, because they would probably face each other in an election. It was a local issue, and he encouraged the bill’s passage.
When asked by Chairman Manendo if passage of the bill would really save the county money, Mr. Goicoechea stated that the county was looking at the bill to do just that. In most cases, however, the combined offices were the recorder combined with the auditor. The County combining those two offices would need to hire an outside auditor or comptroller who generally cost the county more money than the elected auditor. Lander County, however, was choosing to combine the clerk and the recorder, which would remove one salary and one benefit package from their budget. It was the choice of Lander County. If the bill passed, it was not enabling legislation but mandatory. The change would have to happen.
Ms. Scholley agreed with Assemblyman Goicoechea. She had spoken with Lander County representative Mike Baughman who reiterated that the county saw the bill as non-permissive. If passed, the law would demand compliance when a vacancy occurred or when the next election was held.
Chairman Manendo asked if the workload created through the combining of those two offices would be feasible to handle. Mr. Goicoechea expressed some concern about that. In most rural communities, he stated, the clerk’s office was fairly busy. He would be, however, far more apprehensive if rural counties asked permission to combine the offices of recorder and assessor because of the ability to mix records. There would be an increased possibility of errors.
Most citizens in Lander County that Mr. Goicoechea spoke with were in favor of Lander County Commissioners’ request. Taking an elected official away in an effort to save money, in his opinion, did not always result in cost savings. When asked if Lander County’s efforts to bring the bill to the Legislature had been discussed publicly, Mr. Goicoechea stated that it was agendized by the Commissioners but that he had not personally attended so he did not know how much public input there was and what had been discussed at those meetings. The Chair remained concerned about eliminating offices, combining offices, and how involved the public had been in those kinds of decisions.
Assemblyman Collins stated that there was discussion in Clark County to do something similar. He said he thought it was a way to use legislation to eliminate a person that other people did not support or appreciate. He believed that both positions, the clerk position and the recorder position, should be elected positions, as they were equally important. He believed that it was really not a cost-saving measure because each person was able to do only so much. The salaries were set, and he could not see that as an issue. Passage would take away voter rights to determine important functions in local government. He would not vote in favor of passage of A.B. 152.
Assemblywoman Pierce confirmed that one of her concerns was that the bill would provide a vehicle to remove a person from office who had not found favor with the commissioner. If there was concern that the purpose of the bill was to allow that, she had definite concerns about that bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 152.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Grady had heard from both of the office holders who would be affected in Lander County should A.B. 152 pass. If one were going to retire, he thought he would probably support the bill. Because it looked as if one person was being pitted against another, he would not support the bill.
Chairman Manendo directed the secretary to call a roll call vote for A.B. 152.
THE MOTION FAILED. ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA, ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY, AND ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON, ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS, ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY, ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO, ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY, ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER, ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS, AND CHAIRMAN MANENDO VOTED NO.
The Chair stated that he would not entertain any other motion on A.B. 152 at the current time. As a courtesy, the vote had been taken on the bill.
Chairman Manendo alerted Committee members that they might have more Committee introductions behind the Bar. He thanked Committee members for their hard work and attention to so many bills and bill draft requests. He adjourned the meeting at 10:53 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: