MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 5, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Wednesday, March 5, 2003.  Chairman Morse Arberry Jr., presided in Room 3137 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. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Walter Andonov

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Josh Griffin

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary

Linda Smith, Committee Secretary

 

 

Chairman Arberry called the committee to order and opened the hearing on A.B. 121.

 

Assembly Bill 121:  Makes appropriation to City of Caliente for construction of single-span replacement bridge over Clover Creek Wash on road leading to Caliente Youth Center. (BDR S-400)

 

Bryan Elkins, Director, Community Development, City of Caliente, informed the Committee that Caliente was the host of the Caliente Youth Center (CYC), a youth detention facility, where the majority of the population consisted of young people sentenced from the Clark County area.  Mr. Elkins stated the problem he would present to the Committee had been developing for about 30 years.  He explained that the Clover Creek watershed covered 364 square miles, all of which drained into the Meadow Valley Wash within the City of Caliente.  Mr. Elkins referenced Exhibit C, “City of Caliente Testimony on AB 121, Assembly Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Bryan Elkins, City of Caliente Community Development Director, March 5, 2003,” which contained the basis of his testimony. 

 

According to Mr. Elkins, the wash had been much deeper in the past, and every few years it totally flooded the town; however, since there were very few residents in Caliente at that time, it had not been problematic, and residents tended to build houses in areas that were not affected by the flooding.  Since that time, explained Mr. Elkins, the town had grown, with 1,100 residents in the geographically restricted valley.  Mr. Elkins reported that the valley was approximately one-half mile wide with 600-foot cliffs on both sides. 

 

In 1955, stated Mr. Elkins, Congress was generous and approved construction of impoundment dams within the Clover Creek Wash upstream from Caliente to control the periodic mass flooding.  Those dams had lessened the impact of the flooding, however, Mr. Elkins reported they also slowed down the stream, which resulted in increased sedimentation and vegetation growth in the Clover Creek channel.  He informed the Committee that he had talked to adults who, as youths in years past, had driven their motorcycles through the two 12-foot diameter culverts located under the access road to the CYC, and at that time, a 7-foot ramp had been required to access those culverts.  Mr. Elkins stated those culverts now had between 18 inches and zero inches of clearance for the water to pass through because of the buildup of sediment. 

 

Mr. Elkins indicated that Exhibit C contained photographs that included a picture of Caliente during the flood of 1910; he pointed out where the Caliente Youth Center (CYC) would eventually be located in that photo.  The next photo series depicted the 1995 flood and included a picture of the area containing the two 12-foot culverts, which were under approximately 3 feet of water.  Also pictured were two bridges, the bridge across U.S. Highway 93, with the water reaching to the bottom support of that bridge, and the bridge immediately below the CYC, where the Meadow Valley Wash and the Clover Creek Wash confluences came together and flowed through Caliente.  Contained in the exhibit were photos that depicted the current state of sediment within the wash, which had increased by approximately 20 feet within the past 20 years.  Mr. Elkins pointed out that one picture showed the riparian growth that, in essence, had blocked the wash, which was currently in worse shape than it had been in 1995.  The pictures contained in Exhibit C also showed that the CYC campus was extremely flat, and was located one-half mile above the culverts.  According to Mr. Elkins, if the wash contained 5 or 6 feet of water, it would automatically flow onto the CYC campus. 

 

Continuing his presentation, Mr. Elkins referenced the picture contained in Exhibit C that depicted the current state of the 12-foot high culverts, which were oval in shape, and thereby not as wide as they were tall.  He pointed out that the culvert pictured on the right had riparian growth to the top, and the culvert pictured on the left had approximately 18 inches of clearance remaining, which meant that the culverts themselves would act as a dam.  Mr. Elkins reported if more than just a slow stream of water flowed through the area, the water would be unable to move through the culverts. 

 

The final picture contained in Exhibit C was a Rand-McNally map segment that Mr. Elkins stated he had plagiarized in order to depict the Meadow Valley Wash and the Clover Creek Wash drainage areas.  He explained that the Clover Creek Wash contained approximately 365 square miles, and the Meadow Valley Wash area was many, many times greater than that area; both drainage areas came together approximately 50 feet from the aforementioned culverts. 

 

Mr. Elkins reported that sedimentation was not something the city was capable of dealing with, and he explained that after three years, he had received a “rolling start” permit to take material from the wash area, however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was investigating whether that was a legal procedure, and whether a “section seven” permit would be needed to remove material from the wash area in order to minimize the effects of the action on endangered species.  Mr. Elkins stated the city had received permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the most difficult governmental agency he had ever dealt with, to remove approximately 100 yards of silt temporarily from the wash above the culverts.  He likened that procedure to placing a “bandage” on the problem, and indicated that the first major flood would wash the sediment back into the hole that had been dug.

 

According to Mr. Elkins, he had reviewed the plat map of the Caliente Youth Center (CYC), and its property lines included the road and culverts.  He had spoken to Charles Pyle, Superintendent of CYC, who indicated that because of the budget situation, he would be unable to secure the necessary money to address the problem, even though the road and culverts were on state property.  Mr. Elkins stated that was the reason the City of Caliente had requested A.B. 121, in the hope that the problem could be corrected for both the CYC and the City of Caliente.  He pointed out that when water backed up behind the culverts, it was forced to take another direction, and that direction was to flood the City of Caliente.  Mr. Elkins realized that Caliente was a small city, but those who lived there did not relish the thought of six feet of water flowing through their basements. 

 

Because of silting in the wash, Mr. Elkins reported that the water table had risen and inundated the city’s sewer collection system and had entered basements, which caused residents to drill holes in walls and install sump pumps for water drainage. 

 

Mr. Elkins opined that $350,000 was a substantial amount of money, but he stated he used to live in Washington, D.C., where millions of dollars were discussed as “pocket change” in Congress.  He noted that $350,000 would probably not seem like a small amount to the Legislature, particularly in light of the state’s budgetary problems.  The bridge referenced in A.B. 121 had been planned, and Mr. Elkins stated that in concert with the bridge construction, the pre-stressed concrete span also included designs for power, sewer, and water connections to the CYC. 

 

Mr. Elkins reported that as the Director of Community Development, he had been able to obtain federal and state funding for major improvement projects in the industrial park water and sewer systems, however, he noted that the city had reached the maximum at the present time regarding the possibility of matching funds.  The City of Caliente simply did not have the ability to deal with a situation of the magnitude of the proposed bridge, as the county was at the maximum tax cap of $3.64, and the city had no taxing capabilities.  Mr. Elkins stated that was the reason the city was approaching the Legislature for funding, and he prayed that funds would be appropriated to correct the problem for the CYC before there was a loss of life.  He explained that localized storms often “dumped” a significant amount of water in a matter of minutes in one particular area, which immediately ran off into the collection system.  A scenario such as that in the Clover Creek Wash area could result in the death of children at the Caliente Youth Center (CYC).  He appealed to the Committee to make passage of A.B. 121 a priority for the state in order to address the problem at the CYC before a major disaster occurred.

 

Assemblywoman Chowning stated she had visited the facility at Caliente and found the city itself quite beautiful.  She asked whether the city had applied for funding from the Emergency Assistance Account within the Disaster Relief Fund and, if so, what had been the outcome of that application; she indicated those funds were supposed to be allocated to local entities.  Mr. Elkins stated he had not applied for that particular funding, but had researched the possibility of other grant funding.  However, because the construction would be located on state property, he had been advised to apply for state funding.  Mr. Elkins reported that he wore about 26 different “hats” in the community as the single employee of the City Council. 

 

Mrs. Chowning asked whether any form of state funding had been received to date.  According to Mr. Elkins, the primary funding had been received from community developmental block grants, which were, in essence, federal money that was channeled to small groups.  The city had also received an Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant of $1.2 million, and monies for rural development from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the amount of approximately $1.3 million.  Mrs. Chowning stated it appeared the request would be a perfect use for funding from the Emergency Assistance Account, and wondered why an application had not been presented for that funding. 

 

Mike Baughman, Ph.D., President, Intertech Services Corporation, advised that he worked with the City of Caliente, and voiced appreciation for the suggestion to research the Emergency Assistance Account as a possible funding source.  He noted there would be many priorities for the very few dollars available in the state, and it was uncertain whether the city could be successful in raising its project to a priority level that would result in funding via the aforementioned account.  Dr. Baughman stated if there were match requirements associated with that funding, as previously pointed out by Mr. Elkins, the City of Caliente was at its match limit, and was experiencing difficulty in securing the final match for the $1.2 million it had secured from the EDA for its industrial park.  That industrial park would contribute an additional tax base and allow the city to undertake projects such as the proposed replacement bridge.  Dr. Baughman indicated that the city would definitely pursue that possibility, however, at the present time, no matter what the source of the funding, it clearly appeared to be a state problem, as the bridge was located on state land.  Dr. Baughman commented that if the Committee could send a message to the state that the bridge should be a priority for funding, it would be appreciated. 

 

Apparently, the CYC would approach the Legislature for budget funding, and Dr. Baughman suggested that perhaps the replacement bridge could be allocated from that budget as a participating state agency.  Dr. Baughman indicated that the City of Caliente did not believe that solving the problem of the bridge should strictly be a burden on the city, as it appeared there was a definite state role to be played. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for confirmation regarding the population of Caliente.  Mr. Elkins replied there were 1,100 people living in Caliente.  Ms. Giunchigliani then asked about the total area population.  Mr. Elkins stated the population of the entire county was approximately 4,500 over a landmass area greater than the state of Massachusetts.  If residents could inhabit the land owned by the federal government, Mr. Elkins stated the county would be in “better shape,” because more than 98 percent of the county’s land was under federal control.  Ms. Giunchigliani noted that would affect the assessed valuation; Mr. Elkins reported the county had no economic development possibilities.  Ms. Giunchigliani then asked why the county was building an industrial park and where would it be located.  Mr. Elkins explained the main employer for Lincoln County and the City of Caliente had been the Nevada Test Site, and when the site downgraded from 11,000 to 2,500 employees, most of the jobs for people in Lincoln County were eliminated.  Caliente was on the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad and had 30 to 60 trains per day traveling through town.  Mr. Elkins stated with a spur off the main line, the city could bring heavy manufacturing into the area, and there was one firm with the potential for 300 jobs interested in the area, which would almost double the economic base of the county.  That firm had indicated that it wanted to locate in Caliente’s industrial park. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked who controlled the water in Caliente, and was there sufficient water available for the industrial park.  Mr. Elkins replied in the affirmative, and explained that Nevada actually had a great deal of water.  He noted there was an area just outside the city where the surface water remained, even in the middle of winter.  He reiterated that Caliente had a great deal of water available, and it was good water without the arsenic problems experienced in other areas.   

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the $350,000 requested in A.B. 121 would complete the project.  Mr. Elkins replied in the affirmative.  Ms. Giunchigliani concurred with Mrs. Chowning that the Emergency Assistance Account might be an appropriate place to seek funding.  Mr. Elkins stated the City of Caliente did not care how the money was raised for the project, but simply wanted the problem corrected.

 

Assemblyman Parks asked why there had not been an attempt over a period of time to clean up the sediment that had been deposited.  Mr. Elkins stated the major problem had been with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; he further explained that after many attempts, a biologist from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had accompanied him into the wash to view the culverts.  Mr. Elkins asked what the city could do to alleviate the problem, and the biologist pointed out that vegetation could be removed within a 100-yard area.  According to Mr. Elkins, that would amount to an approximately 6 percent decline into the culverts, however, as soon as the first “flush” occurred, it would fill in the hole, and the condition would be as bad as it had been in the first place.  Mr. Elkins indicated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforced the Endangered Species Act, which controlled trees and riparian growth, and the city had not been allowed to take any action that might influence migratory birds.  He reiterated that he had finally obtained a “rolling start” permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and perhaps could begin to remove some of the sediment. 

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was any further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 121, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed.  He opened the hearing on A.B. 148.

 

Assembly Bill 148:  Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR S-808)

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23, indicated that legislators who had been members of the Committee during the 2001 Session would recognize A.B. 148 as being very similar to A.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Session.  He explained that A.B. 148 required the Legislative Auditor to conduct an audit of the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), and the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada.  Speaker Perkins informed the Committee that the last audit of the system had taken place in 1996. 

According to Speaker Perkins, the objective of the 1996 Legislative Audit had been to determine whether the UCCSN budget and expenditure controls ensured that resource use was consistent with priorities established by the Legislature and the Board of Regents.  It included an examination of budgetary and expenditure activities in effect between FY1992 and FY1996.  Speaker Perkins noted that audit did not include the University foundations, various alumni groups, and athletic booster organizations, since those were separate entities.  Because the Legislative Auditor was not allowed access to some records, the audit had not been a complete evaluation of controls.  Speaker Perkins stated that, nevertheless, the Legislative Audit Report from 1996 contained ten recommendations to improve the methods used by the Board of Regents to control the budgets and expenditures of the institutions.  In its initial response, UCCSN fully accepted only four recommendations, partially accepted three recommendations, and rejected three recommendations.  Speaker Perkins noted that after further consideration, UCCSN either fully or partially accepted all but one recommendation.

 

According to Speaker Perkins, the 1996 Legislative Audit Report found that although the Nevada Constitution required the Board of Regents to control and manage the financial affairs of the University System, most of that responsibility had been delegated to each of the seven institutions.  Because responsibility had been delegated, those institutions had been allowed to develop seven different methods to manage and control the expenditure of funds.  According to the audit, stated Speaker Perkins, those methods included a number of inconsistent procedures and practices, many of which were ineffective.  The lack of strong, systemwide management controls also diminished Board oversight, reduced accountability, and required the use of additional resources. 

 

Speaker Perkins noted that the Board of Regents had a constitutional responsibility to manage public funds, and establishment of systemwide management control should be one of its priorities.  He stated that in 1996, a great deal of information important to the auditors had not been available, such as the performance evaluations of institutional presidents.  In many cases, stated Speaker Perkins, the auditors reported that basic financial and budgetary information provided to them during the audit was incomplete and inaccurate.  Another important find revealed by the audit was the fact that when the Board of Regents approved the operating and self-supporting budgets, it reviewed and approved only about 80 percent of the UCCSN revenues and related expenditures. 

 

Speaker Perkins pointed out that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 396.380 required the Board to control the expenditures of all money for the support and maintenance of the system, and all money received from any other source.  He stated that A.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Session had been passed by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and, with amendment, by the Senate Committee on Finance.  Speaker Perkins indicated that on June 4, 2001, the Senate adopted the amendment and ordered the bill to third reading; however, he pointed out that June 4, 2001, had been a rather hectic day, and A.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Session simply languished for lack of time.  The amendment proposed by the Senate Committee on Finance would have deleted the phrase, “without limitation,” as it appeared throughout the bill.  Speaker Perkins remarked that he had instructed the bill drafter to return that phrase to A.B. 148 because he did not wish the Legislative audit to be denied access to any records it deemed important to accomplishing the task, as might have occurred in 1996.  Speaker Perkins assured the Committee that he had every reason to expect cooperation from the Chancellor’s Office and the institutional presidents.  In fact, he stated, in 2001, Jane A. Nichols, Ph.D., Chancellor, UCCSN, had pledged to the Committee on Ways and Means that auditors would receive full cooperation from the UCCSN.  Speaker Perkins commented that he did not want to imply that the UCCSN had deliberately hidden information from the public or the Legislature in the past.  There were concerns revealed by the 1996 audit, and many legislators were uncertain as to whether all of those concerns had been taken into account.  Speaker Perkins noted that A.B. 148 contained essentially the same provisions as A.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Session with one addition, and the items listed for analysis in A.B. 148 included:

 

·        Capital construction projects

·        The cost of athletic programs

·        The cost of administration

·        Utilization of host accounts

·        The validity and reliability of enrollment data

·        The generation and distribution of investment income

·        Programs with statewide impact

 

Speaker Perkins stated to that list, he had added:

 

• Contracting and bidding procedures, including construction, retrofit, and repair projects aimed at utility costs and energy conservation

 

According to Speaker Perkins, legislators had heard and read allegations that procedures were not aboveboard in that area, and he believed the UCCSN would welcome an opportunity to address those concerns.  A.B. 148 provided for a performance audit rather than a financial audit.  It was Speaker Perkins’ understanding that each of the institutions of the UCCSN sustained an annual audit of their financial statements.  Financial audits were completed in accordance with the standards developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and determined whether financial statements accounted for all revenues and expenditures properly, and whether all assets were recorded on balance sheets. 

 

Speaker Perkins stated that recently, the PricewaterhouseCoopers group had conducted those audits, and the annual audits were aggregated into a single financial report for the UCCSN.  The audit proposed by A.B. 148 would be conducted in accordance with performance audit standards, and Speaker Perkins stated that NRS Chapter 218 required the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Audit Division to follow performance audit standards developed by the U.S. General Accounting Office.  Such an audit covered economy, efficiency and effectiveness of programs, and allocation of resources.  The end result, Speaker Perkins had been told, would attest to the accuracy of information such as enrollment data.  With the exception of a few, small private institutions in postsecondary education, the institutions of the UCCSN were responsible to meet the higher education needs of Nevadans, and Speaker Perkins noted that on those institutions were pinned the “hopes and dreams” for a brighter future for Nevada and Nevadans. 

 

According to the UCCSN, stated Speaker Perkins, over 93,000 people were enrolled in one or more courses at its institutions, and those students drove the funding formula.  The UCCSN had requested an approximately 24 percent increase in its budget for the 2003-2005 biennium, and Speaker Perkins noted that equated to approximately $1.2 billion dollars.  The Governor had recommended less in The Executive Budget, and it remained to be seen what the Legislature would appropriate.  Speaker Perkins indicated the UCCSN also proposed a 15 percent increase in registration fees paid by resident undergraduates.  Regardless of the final appropriations, there would be a substantial amount of money invested by Nevadans in those institutions. 

 

In addition, stated Speaker Perkins, since the 2001 Legislative Session, the Board of Regents had adopted a new master plan for higher education in Nevada.  In April 2002 the Board adopted a plan that identified several key proposals or concepts, which included building a more comprehensive base of effective and collaborative partnerships with, among others, state government.  That plan focused on inter-institutional collaboration rather than competition, emphasized internal efficiencies, and developed a public accountability plan for student learning outcomes and institutional effectiveness.   

 

In conclusion, Speaker Perkins stated he was hopeful that the UCCSN and the Legislature would continue to move forward in a cooperative relationship in order to lay to rest any lingering doubts or concerns that the Legislature might have with regard to the performance of Nevada’s system of higher education.  Speaker Perkins urged the Committee to act favorably on A.B. 148.  He noted that the Legislative Auditor was present and could answer questions pertaining to the bill. 

 

Speaker Perkins informed the Committee that probably the most feared person in state government was Legislative Auditor Paul Townsend, as an audit was necessarily somewhat adversarial.  Speaker Perkins emphasized that he did not want to leave the impression with the Committee that the Legislature had an adversarial relationship with the UCCSN.  He believed a strong partnership existed, and noted that the leadership from the Chancellor, Dr. Nichols, had been extraordinary; he stated the relationship with the institutional presidents had been much better over the past few years.  Speaker Perkins opined that the audit could be completed with all entities working together.  When the UCCSN was spending over $1 billion to accomplish a particular goal, he believed an introspective audit would be healthy, particularly as the state was facing a fiscal crisis, to ensure the UCCSN was spending money in the best possible manner. 

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked for clarification regarding Section 2 of A.B. 148, which addressed excess funds that would be reverted back to the UCCSN rather than the General Fund.

 

Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), advised Mrs. Gibbons that any remaining balance of the $90,000 transferred to the Audit Division to conduct the audit would revert to the UCCSN. 

 

Speaker Perkins explained that the sum of $90,000 would be transferred from the UCCSN budget to the Audit Division of the LCB to carry out the provisions of the bill.  Those funds would pay for any number of things that contributed to the work of the auditors.  According to Speaker Perkins, the money would be transferred from the UCCSN budget, and, in essence, UCCSN would contract with the Audit Division of the LCB to conduct the audit.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked how long it would take to conduct the audit, and how many people would be involved in the process.  Mr. Townsend explained it would be a large audit that would take from three to five staff members from ten months to one year to complete.  Mr. Marvel inquired whether the audit would be completed prior to the next session of the Legislature; Mr. Townsend replied in the affirmative. 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani disclosed that she was a paid employee of the UCCSN, and clarified that she had introduced another bill that requested an audit.  The summary of her bill read as if it would be the same audit referenced in A.B. 148, however, she assured the Committee that the audits were not the same.  The audit referenced in Ms. Giunchigliani’s bill would focus on the Carlin Fire Academy, and the bill had been submitted at the request of an individual who had since left the state.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she would not, therefore, move her bill forward, and reiterated there would not be two separate audits of the UCCSN. 

 

Dr. Jane Nichols, Chancellor, UCCSN, introduced Dan Miles, Vice Chancellor for Finance, and informed the Committee that she would speak in support of A.B. 148.  The comments that had been made by Speaker Perkins were welcome, and Dr. Nichols stated she appreciated his confidence in the UCCSN.  Dr. Nichols indicated the UCCSN had worked hard since the 1996 audit to address the concerns that were raised, and had put many new policies and procedures in place that it was felt would address many of the areas that the proposed audit would cover.  According to Dr. Nichols, conducting the audit would be wise, and the UCCSN welcomed the opportunity to have another set of eyes and another set of professionals look at the way the UCCSN conducted business. 

 

As the Committee was undoubtedly aware, the UCCSN had an established internal audit procedure.  That procedure, explained Dr. Nichols, consisted of internal auditors who continually audited all programs and performed exit audits when presidents left their positions at the institutions.  She noted that the audit procedure was a daily occurrence and was valued by the UCCSN; something was always learned from every audit.  Dr. Nichols said the UCCSN anticipated that would also be the case in the proposed audit.  What she hoped would evolve because of the audit was a strengthened partnership between the UCCSN, the Board of Regents, and the Legislature, with the common understanding that the UCCSN was doing a good job, or should there be areas that needed improvement, that the UCCSN would move forward in those areas.

 

Dr. Nichols believed it was key to the proposed audit that many of the myths surrounding the UCCSN would be set aside, such as the myth that the UCCSN was not using its funds wisely or even legally.  The Legislature was aware of the criticisms that had been raised against the UCCSN, and Dr. Nichols emphasized that the system had taken steps to eliminate those myths, but she believed the proposed audit would indeed set those myths aside, both for the public and the Legislature.  Dr. Nichols stated that the UCCSN looked forward to a cooperative relationship with the LCB Audit Division, and also looked forward to discussing the results of the audit with the Legislature during the 2005 Session. 

 

Accountability, explained Dr. Nichols, was part of the UCCSN master plan, which was critical for public confidence in public institutions, and she believed the audit would contribute to the sense of accountability for the system.  Dr. Nichols asked Vice Chancellor Dan Miles to address the Committee regarding the suggestion from the UCCSN to amend the wording of the bill.

 

Mr. Miles referenced Exhibit D, “Proposed Amendment to Assembly Bill 148,” that suggested a slight wording change within Section 1(f), which dealt with the generation and distribution of investment income.  That change was recommended based on the UCCSN’s understanding that the auditor did not want to be required to audit back to the donors.  Mr. Miles stated the bill stipulated that the audit must include, “The generation and distribution of investment income.”  The UCCSN was simply concerned regarding how far “generation” of income would be researched, and whether it meant the auditors would be visiting donors to the system, which the UCCSN felt would not be in its best interest.  Mr. Miles advised that the UCCSN was very interested in learning how the auditors perceived its processes and procedures regarding the generation and distribution of investment income.  The UCCSN was interested to learn whether that procedure met standards of national organizations, whether it was wise, and whether it took into consideration the fiduciary responsibility of the Board.  Mr. Miles reiterated that the UCCSN was very interested in the auditor’s opinion of that procedure.  The proposed amendment (Exhibit D) suggested that the words, “Policies and procedures for. . .” be added at the beginning of Section 1(f). 

 

According to Mr. Miles, the second amendment proposed by the UCCSN would be the deletion of Section 2 of A.B. 148.  He stated the UCCSN would be remiss if it did not request the deletion of Section 2 from the bill as, quite frankly, $90,000 would be a substantial sum of money from its budget.

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked about funding for the audit.  Mr. Miles stated the UCCSN had been working hard to identify all sources of revenue, and noted that the financial crisis facing the state also affected the UCCSN.  Mr. Miles emphasized that it would be difficult for the UCCSN to provide the $90,000 for the audit procedure.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated that the Legislature appreciated the efforts put forth by the UCCSN.

 

Assemblywoman McClain asked whether the audit would cover grant funding received by the UCCSN.  Mr. Townsend explained that some areas were identified in the bill, such as athletics, host accounts, and the cost of administration, and he assured the Committee that the audit would cover all sources of funding.  While the intention was not to audit the foundations, Mr. Townsend said the audit would capture that source of funding as it entered the system.  He explained that the audit procedure would look for a full accounting of all funds from grants, contracts, or donations that would flow into any of the aforementioned areas, as well as the construction area. 

 

Speaker Perkins asked Mr. Townsend for his opinion regarding the proposed amendments to A.B. 148 (Exhibit D), particularly as it related to the generation and distribution of investment income as stated in Section 1(f).  Mr. Townsend believed that the proposed language would probably be followed in any event, because one of the first places the audit would commence would be with the Board of Regents Handbook, where policy was established for the entire system.  The policies and procedures in the Handbook would be reviewed during the course of the audit as a matter of normal procedure, so if the language was added for further clarification, Mr. Townsend did not believe it would be problematic. 

 

Speaker Perkins asked if the language was amended to specifically refer to “policies and procedures for . . .” would it still allow the audit to investigate the generation of investment income and its distribution.  Mr. Townsend replied that the bill also included the term “without limitation,” which he believed would alleviate any constraints surrounding the audit procedure. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani opined that grant funding would be key to the audit, particularly in the area of the administrative costs accessed from those grants, because the Legislature would hope that as much funding as possible would be funneled into the actual programs.  She indicated it would be interesting to see the amount of funding utilized in other areas, and hoped that the audit would not review only the areas of athletics and construction. 

 

James Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, stated he wanted to go on record in support of A.B. 148.  He noted that A.B. 26 of the Seventy-first Session had been caught-up in the lack of time for action at the end of session, therefore, had not passed as expected.  Mr. Richardson voiced appreciation for the remarks made by Speaker Perkins regarding the cooperation between the Legislature and University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), because that was crucial to the very positive relationship.  He hoped that the audit would foster that relationship. 

 

Mr. Richardson stated it was his personal view that any study of the UCCSN would demonstrate that the state received a tremendous “bang for the buck” for the money it invested in education.  That was well demonstrated in the formula study that had been conducted a few years ago, where a new set of formulas was established.  According to Mr. Richardson, the funding for those formulas was now being discussed at 86 percent of the standard or “norm” throughout the United States, and the fact that the system functioned as well as it did with 79 percent funding levels for those formulas, compared to other similar institutions, was rather remarkable and demonstrated that the state was indeed receiving a substantial “bang for the buck.” 

 

Mr. Richardson also voiced support for the proposed amendments contained in Exhibit D.  He noted there had been concern during the previous audit regarding access to confidential personnel files for top administrators, and he wanted to go on record on behalf of those he represented.  He suggested to the Committee that access to personnel files was a very problematic issue for everyone concerned, and he hoped that the LCB Auditor and his staff would not seek personnel files as a part of the audit proposed by A.B. 148.  

 

Mr. Richardson stated there had been some question regarding whether the UCCSN would accept all of the 11 recommendations made by the 1996 audit, however, a decision had eventually been made to accept those recommendations.  He stated, for the record, that he disagreed with that decision, mainly because there seemed to be a philosophical bent to the recommendations made by the 1996 audit in the direction of considerably more centralization than had heretofore been present in the UCCSN.  Members of the Faculty Alliance believed that represented a very serious encroachment into institutional autonomy.  Mr. Richardson commented that the institutions were all different in that they served different populations, were in different geographic areas, and were vastly different in size.  It was the view of the Alliance that some of the recommendations seeking more centralization of authority over finances and, by implication, nearly everything else, would prove problematic and would undercut institutional autonomy. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Richardson stated he had made those comments on the record, not because he anticipated serious problems of that nature, but simply to alert the Legislature and the LCB Audit Division staff that there were concerns about institutional autonomy; it was believed that the UCCSN would serve the state better if it was allowed to fulfill the missions, which differed greatly, for each institution.  Mr. Richardson urged the LCB Audit Division staff and the Legislature to recognize the value of institutional autonomy in Nevada for the vastly different institutions. 

 

Speaker Perkins thanked Mr. Richardson for his testimony and stated that while he did not disagree with his comments, there might have been a difference in philosophy, perhaps in the centralization or decentralization discussion, during the 1996 audit.  He noted that the three recommendations rejected by the UCCSN were:

 

1.      Revise Board policy to require system administration approval for accounting transfers, which could be viewed as a centralization factor.

2.      Establish a Board policy requiring system administration approval for budget revisions and Board of Regents approval for those exceeding a certain level, which was somewhat of a check and balance. 

3.      Replace the exception reporting process with regular monitoring of budgets at the system administration level.

 

Speaker Perkins stated the audit had been aimed at some internal monitoring or control process, and many of those recommendations had been initiated.  He indicated that when such recommendations were rejected, it caused some concern; he did recognize the need for some autonomy, but believed there were many areas within the system where there had been head-to-head competition between institutions, rather than collaboration.  Speaker Perkins opined that some competition was good, however, redundancy was bad, and collectively, those recommendations would be helpful.  Speaker Perkins believed that what auditors had been looking for during the 1996 audit from personnel records was the assurance that records were timely and appropriate, rather than negative comments within a person’s narrative.  He believed that was still an important part of the audit procedure, which had been utilized during every other agency audit with great results regarding confidentiality.  He asked Mr. Townsend whether that was a fair representation of what the audit would look for in terms of personnel records.

 

Mr. Townsend explained that the LCB Audit Division dealt with confidential records continually within the Department of Human Resources and other agency audits, and followed a strict statutory responsibility in that area.  At the time of the 1996 audit, auditors were looking at systemwide accountability, and the position of the UCCSN was that accountability had been delegated to each institution and its president.  Mr. Townsend noted that one of the reasons the audit wanted to review the evaluations of the presidents was to ascertain whether the presidents had been held accountable for maintaining strong internal controls within their institutions.  That information would have assisted in acceptance of the presidents’ positions in those cases, and when auditors were denied access to the personnel files, it had been considered a scope limitation.  Mr. Townsend believed that denying access to personnel files on any audit would be considered a severe scope limitation.

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there were any other persons present to testify for or against A.B. 148.

 

Greg MacRenaris informed the Committee that he was a resident and small business owner in Reno, and wanted to express his concern regarding misused and misspent tax dollars at the university level, which occurred primarily because of questionable bidding practices and the lack of oversight in construction projects.  As an example of how the UCCSN conducted business, Mr. MacRenaris stated he would quote a portion of a conference called between UCCSN staff and a business representative, “. . . by doing things this way, at least it looks like a legitimate bid, and maybe other contractors would recognize this for what it is and not bid on it.” 

 

According to Mr. MacRenaris, the original system for performance contracts had been set up by the state of Nevada so that when it invested one “buck,” it got back two.  He stated that for one project, the UCCSN had invested $5 million, had paid $4 million in interest, and now had to replace equipment put into place in the institutions, specifically 11 chillers that used Freon as a coolant, which had been outlawed for quite sometime.  Mr. MacRenaris stated he had been trying to bring the situation to the attention of the Committee for the past nine years, and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to do so. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked whether there was further testimony either for or against A.B. 148. 

 

Assemblyman Goldwater asked whether Mr. Townsend would accept reports from the public as part of the audit procedure, or at least for background or informational purposes.  Mr. Townsend indicated that construction situations, such as identified by Mr. MacRenaris, would be addressed by language in the bill.  Mr. Townsend stated he had spoken with Mr. MacRenaris on previous occasions, and was familiar with the issue; he emphasized that the information would be included in the audit procedure. 

 

With no further information forthcoming regarding A.B. 148, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing closed, and opened the hearing on A.B. 158.

 

Assembly Bill 158:  Reclassifies peace officers employed by Capitol Police Division of Department of Public Safety as category I peace officers. (BDR 23-2)

 

Kenneth Hewlett, Capitol Police, stated he was present to voice support for A.B. 158, which would affect the training for Capitol Police officers.  Mr. Hewlett stated there were 26 officers in Carson City and Las Vegas, and all of those officers were trained as Category I peace officers, even though they were identified as Category II peace officers.  According to Mr. Hewlett, the administration of the Department of Public Safety had stated that if officers were listed as Category II peace officers, that would be the level of training offered. 

 

Mr. Hewlett explained that the Capitol Police Division was a complete police agency that serviced state property in Carson City and Las Vegas.  The Division patrolled approximately 60 buildings in Carson City, and the officers utilized marked police vehicles with lights and sirens.  He further explained that Category II peace officer training would not provide for emergency vehicle training, building searches, traffic laws, or patrol procedures.  The proposed legislation would move the Capitol Police from Category II to Category I training. 

 

Mr. Hewlett remarked that when a new officer was hired and trained as a Category II peace officer, additional training would be required at a later date.  That would create a cost to the state and the Capitol Police because of the overtime necessary to cover shifts for an officer who required further training.  Mr. Hewlett believed it was imperative to train Capitol Police as Category I peace officers.  Per Mr. Hewlett, an example of the necessity to utilize the Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) training had recently occurred when he was on patrol and received a call for an intrusion alarm at the Gaming Control Board facility, which contained sensitive material, and necessitated the use of lights and sirens to respond.  Mr. Hewlett pointed out that if EVOC training were not available, Capitol Police officers would not be permitted to operate emergency vehicles.

 

Chairman Arberry asked whether the duties of the Capitol Police included high‑speed chases.  Mr. Hewlett replied that the Capitol Police did not have a pursuit policy. 

 

Speaker Perkins asked for clarification regarding the aforementioned alarm response.  Mr. Hewlett explained that an intrusion alarm had been activated at the Gaming Control Board facility, and he had responded to that alarm using lights and siren.  Speaker Perkins asked whether there was a historical reason why Capitol Police officers were listed as Category II peace officers.  Mr. Hewlett stated that when he first joined the Capitol Police Division approximately 26 years ago, he had received training as a Category I peace officer.  However, during the reorganization of the 1980s, the category was changed to Category II peace officers. 

 

Speaker Perkins asked whether Capitol Police officers responded to search warrants, burglary investigations, and traffic stops.  Mr. Hewlett replied in the affirmative, however, officers did not perform those duties on a full scale.  He explained there were 60 buildings in Carson City under control of the Capitol Police, and many times those officers would be the first responders regarding traffic accidents.  Speaker Perkins asked when Capitol Police officers were the first responders in such situations, would the officer secure the scene or investigate and complete a report.  Mr. Hewlett stated as a first responder, an officer would secure the scene and call the appropriate agency for response.  Speaker Perkins asked whether the Capitol Police were charged at any time with investigating Category VIII felony offenses.  Mr. Hewlett replied in the affirmative.  Speaker Perkins asked if a Category VIII felony occurred in one of the buildings under control of the Capitol Police, would that entity be the primary jurisdiction rather than the Carson City Sheriff’s Department.  Mr. Hewlett indicated that the Capitol Police handled the situations in the buildings under its control. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked whether there was further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 158. 

 

Robert Romer, representing the State of Nevada’s Employees Association, American Federation ofState, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local No. 4041, spoke in favor of A.B. 158 in support of Capitol Police officers, who he felt did an outstanding job for the state of Nevada.  Mr. Romer opined that the officers should definitely be classified as Category I peace officers.  

 

Tammy Whatley, representing the Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District Police Department (CCSDPD), respectfully requested that the Committee consider amending A.B. 158 to include school police officers.  Ms. Whatley informed the Committee that school police officers currently trained as Category I peace officers, but per NRS 289.470, were classified as Category II peace officers.  She asked that Section 1, number 12, be stricken from the bill and that the remaining sections be renumbered.  Ms. Whatley stated she asked for that amendment because school police officers trained as Category I peace officers.  She explained that action would cause absolutely no fiscal impact to the Clark County School District.  The Clark County School District Police Department was simply attempting to service the school district, the students, the staff, and the property in the best possible manner. 

 

Ms. Whatley reported that there were currently 277 schools, approximately 255,000 students, and approximately 30,000 employees, and in the 41 school days of the 2003 school year, the CCSDPD had already been involved in 8,400 incidents and 1,973 criminal acts.  Those acts, explained Ms. Whatley, varied in severity and were basically a reflection of society. 

 

The CCSDPD also operated patrol vehicles and were first responders to accidents.  Ms. Whatley reported that at her campus alone over the past six weeks, she had been the first responder to three very serious accidents.  Although she had not been the primary investigator, she was required to provide aid to victims, secure the scene, and gather information that would be helpful to the responding jurisdiction. 

 

In closing, Ms. Whatley urged the Committee to consider including School District Police Departments in A.B. 158. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick noted that Ms. Whatley reported there would be no fiscal impact on the Clark County School District, and asked whether other school district police departments were trained at the same level, and whether there would be a fiscal impact on those departments.  Ms. Whatley indicated she could not speak on behalf of any other school district, and could only provide the facts and figures for the Clark County School District.  Mr. Hettrick asked whether the Clark County School District would support the Category I designation for the school police officers.  Ms. Whatley did not see any reason why the school district would not support the request, because the officers were trained as Category I at the present time, and would not be able to perform the job at its current level without that Category I peace officer training.  Mr. Hettrick stated he simply wondered whether Clark County School District would support the request. 

 

Speaker Perkins believed it was important for the Committee to understand that although there was a level of training that was very important to first responders in securing the scene, there was also a great deal of other training that would be important for the officers and entities that would complete the investigation, which included filling out reports, conducting the investigations, and collecting the witnesses’ statements and evidence. 

 

Assemblyman Marvel asked whether the University Police were classified as Category I peace officers.  Mr. Hewlett replied in the affirmative. 

 

Ms. Whatley explained that while the officers of the CCSDPD might not be required to investigate accidents on city streets and public roadways, there were accidents that occurred on school property which, in essence, could be viewed as private property.  Students, staff, or other individuals who entered school property sometimes became involved in accidents, which required investigation and completion of the appropriate forms.      

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 158, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed.  He opened the hearing on A.B. 159.

 

Assembly Bill 159:  Requires payment of additional compensation to state employees in classified service for performance of certain dangerous duties. (BDR 23-841)

 

Marilyn Yezek, Human Resources Manager, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), introduced Ruedy Edgington, P.E., Assistant Director – Operations, NDOT, and informed the Committee that NDOT believed the language in Section 1(1)(c), “. . .immediate vicinity. . .” could be open to several interpretations.  Additionally, the NDOT was concerned about the definition of “railroad equipment.”  Ms. Yezek stated the NDOT would request differentiation between “active” equipment and “inactive” equipment, such as abandoned railroad tracks.  She advised that the NDOT anticipated greater costs than those projected by the Department of Personnel, and explained the fiscal year cost would be estimated at approximately $40,000, which was a $30,000 increase over the NDOT’s current cost of approximately $2,400 per fiscal year for the performance of dangerous duties.  That increase was attributable to: (1) The addition of language pertaining to the proximity to railroad equipment; and (2) The extension of payment of dangerous duty pay to all hours in a scheduled shift, rather than the current practice of only paying for the hours of dangerous duty worked.  According to Ms. Yezek, the NDOT believed that the proximity to railroad equipment would have the greatest impact.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked how the NDOT would regulate the pay.  Ms. Yezek replied that dangerous duty pay was coded on an employee’s timesheet, which generated the additional 10 percent in compensation.  Mr. Edgington explained that whenever an employee was earning hazardous duty pay, that employee logged the hours on the timesheet, and the supervisor would then be required to sign off on that timesheet, which was the method used by the NDOT to regulate the procedure.  He noted that the NDOT would stand neutral regarding A.B. 159, but would request some clarification regarding how to proceed, should the legislation be adopted.

 

Mrs. Gibbons asked why the state employees were paid extra for performing duties associated with their job description.  Ms. Yezek pointed out that many hazardous duties were not normal to the classification, and she noted that most employees were not required to work 16 feet above the ground.  The NDOT did have a few employees who performed such work, which would be the crews that changed the lights on extremely high light poles; she reiterated that was not the norm for either an electrician or a highway maintenance worker.  Ms. Yezek explained that the NDOT actually had an employee who scuba dived, which was not a normal duty for an average civil engineer.  She emphasized that certain dangerous duties came about in unusual situations.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he could understand added duties or duties that were not included in the classification, however, noted that Section 1(1)(d) read, “Be a passenger in a single engine aircraft or helicopter.”  He stated that he would have a problem adding hazardous duty pay for a passenger in an airplane or helicopter, particularly for persons such as members of a fire crew, which would include being a passenger in a helicopter.  Mr. Hettrick stated the question would be whether such persons would receive 10 percent extra while riding as a passenger in a helicopter, or for the full day because of the flight to the fire site.  He believed the language of the bill was somewhat broad in scope, and most of the people involved in hazardous duty were hired with some understanding of what their job would entail. 

 

Mr. Edgington explained it was not the NDOT’s position to question what regulations were established, but rather it would be responsible for paying its employees according to the regulations.  In his personal opinion, working on a highway was probably more dangerous than working next to a railroad.  Mr. Hettrick agreed, and believed the bill attempted to isolate individual classes; he reiterated that most people were aware of their job duties at the time they were hired.  Mr. Hettrick concurred that there were many instances where other job classifications might be more dangerous than those listed in A.B. 159, and the addition of hazardous duty pay for those specific classifications could become problematic.

 

Speaker Perkins believed that such discussions were important, notwithstanding action contemplated by A.B. 159, and noted that it was important to discuss the hazardous duties that existed in state government, what levels of pay would be appropriate, and whether certain classifications should receive hazardous pay, or whether there should be separate classifications.  According to Speaker Perkins, A.B. 159 was not an attempt to circumvent any of the rules, or create significant loopholes that a number of state employees could “jump” through.  He reiterated it was a healthy discussion in order to discover what type of hazardous duty jobs were being handled by state employees.  Whether or not the bill went forward, Speaker Perkins believed it was important to find out from various state agencies what type of dangerous work was handled by state employees.  That was the primary motivation for those who sponsored A.B. 159.

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony forthcoming either for, or against, A.B. 159.  He advised the Committee that the bill had been scheduled for removal from the agenda, however, it had been determined that testimony would be received by the Committee. 

 

David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission (PUC), stated that Section 1(1)(c) of the bill would impact four positions at the PUC in the classification of Railway Safety Specialist.  Those persons spent approximately 90 percent of their time conducting safety inspections of track operations and other aspects of railroads within the state of Nevada.  Mr. Noble explained those positions worked in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and were FRA certified.  That classification ensured that the tracks in Nevada were inspected by at least four specialists.  According to Mr. Noble, those positions worked around hazardous materials, rode on moving trains, and were in rail yards with constantly moving trains.  In talking with the manager of the PUC’s Safety Division, Mr. Noble discovered that personal injuries in that classification were usually severe, and involved the loss of limbs or worse; it did not appear that minor injuries ever occurred.       

 

Mr. Noble explained that the PUC had enjoyed a very good safety record with its employees, but did experience difficulty retaining railway inspectors.  Over the past two years, stated Mr. Noble, the PUC had lost two inspectors to the FRA program, which paid approximately 50 percent more than the state.  Mr. Noble explained that state pay for a Railway Safety Specialist was between $39,000 to $56,000 per year, and the FRA pay was approximately $68,000 to $89,000 per year.  The 10 percent additional compensation requested by A.B. 159 would assist the PUC in retention of employees in the classification of Railway Safety Specialist. 

 

Per Mr. Noble, the definition included in Section 1(1)(c) might be somewhat broad and encompass other positions within the state that were not initially intended for inclusion, and the proposed amendment to A.B. 159 by the PUC, Exhibit E, would make Section 1(1)(c) specific to those four Railway Safety Specialist positions within the PUC.  Mr. Noble did not believe there were any other positions in Nevada at the present time that would be encompassed by that section.

 

Speaker Perkins asked whether the PUC had approached the Department of Personnel to have those four positions reviewed, investigated, or compared to other positions, and taking the hazardous duty into consideration, requested a reclassification of those positions.  Mr. Noble commented that the PUC had initiated that process regarding those positions two years ago, however, the reclassification or increase in pay was rejected.  Speaker Perkins asked whether there was a reason given for that rejection.  Mr. Noble stated he was unaware of the specifics, but it was his understanding that the Department of Personnel did not believe those jobs were any more hazardous than other jobs within the same pay grade; the hazardous aspect of the job was apparently considered when the positions were established as a pay grade 35. 

 

Speaker Perkins asked which agency had requested A.B. 159.  Mr. Noble stated he did not know, and also advised that it had not been requested by the PUC.  Speaker Perkins indicated he would question the bill since the reclassification process conducted by the Department of Personnel had proven unsuccessful, and it appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the personnel system.  He reiterated it was important for the Committee to understand the type of hazardous duties handled by employees, however, there were more appropriate processes to effect the requested changes.

 

Chairman Arberry asked whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 159, and hearing none, declared the hearing closed.  He opened the hearing on A.B. 173.

 

Assembly Bill 173:  Increases salaries of certain forensic specialists employed by State. (BDR S-113)

 

Larry Arnold, Forensic Specialist IV, Mental Health Unit, Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), and Chief Steward, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 14, informed the Committee that he was present to voice support for A.B. 173, and thanked Chairman Arberry for introducing the bill.  Mr. Arnold explained that a forensic specialist was a correctional officer who had also received medical training.  Legislation created the position of forensic specialist to serve a dual purpose:

 

1. To be correctional officers under peace officers status.
2. To be medically trained in order to assist medical staff with the care and needs of criminals with mental disorders, or medical problems of inmate patients.

 

According to Mr. Arnold, the position of forensic specialist had worked with great success.  Forensic specialists were non-uniformed officers that had all the basic training of correctional officers along with associated responsibilities, in addition to mental health and/or clinical training.  Because of the extra training and responsibilities, forensic specialists were traditionally one pay grade higher than correctional officers.

 

Mr. Arnold stated he would request the Committee’s support of A.B. 173 for the increase of two pay grades for the forensic specialists at the NDOC and the Lake’s Crossing Center.  He explained that would compensate for the last two increases in pay grade approved for correctional officers by the Legislature, which overlooked the forensic specialist positions. 

 

According to Mr. Arnold, the NDOC forensic positions were addressed in The Executive Budget under Budget Account 3706, page NDOC-19, Prison Medical Care, decision unit 805, which requested reclassification of the forensic specialist positions to align with correctional positions, and would change the class code from 10 to 12.  That action would ensure that forensic specialists would not be left behind again when a pay increase was received by correctional officers.  He explained that the 49 forensic specialists at the NDOC would be reclassified from Forensic Specialist III to Senior Correctional Officer, and the three supervising forensic specialists would be reclassified to Correctional Sergeant.

 

Mr. Arnold stated there appeared to be some problems, and it was felt that perhaps an amendment to A.B. 173 would be needed.  He pointed out that a forensics specialist’s seniority should not be adversely affected by the proposed reclassification, and the employee’s time should be calculated from the time and date of hire with the NDOC, rather than the date of the reclassification.  Mr. Arnold indicated that a forensic specialist’s work area and duties should remain consistent with the current work arena, such as, working in the mental health clinic or infirmary medical facility as non-uniformed officers.  The reason the NDOC forensic specialists felt strongly about their non-uniformed status was because the patients they dealt with suffered from criminal mental disorders and were often anti-authority, and the absence of a uniform made it easier for the forensic specialists to establish rapport with those inmates.  Mr. Arnold indicated that helped build trust, and allowed those inmates to open up and talk with the specialists, which aided in charting and providing information to psychologists and psychiatrists regarding the status of the inmate, and facilitated faster treatment. 

 

Mr. Arnold explained that forensic specialist positions would change from class code 10 under the Prison Medical Care budget account to class code 12, however, under the proposed amendment would remain “correctional” forensic specialists with the following options:  (A) Mental health correctional forensic specialists, who worked with inmates with criminal mental disorders; and (B) Correctional forensic specialists who were trained as Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA’s), and would assist more efficiently with terminally ill inmates at the NDOC’s clinics or infirmaries.

 

According to Mr. Arnold, forensic specialists felt that it was important to ensure they would not be pulled from their specialized areas unless it was because of an emergency that required assistance as correctional officers.  Mr. Arnold believed it was important to remain within the working arena to better assist staff and the inmate patients.  He explained that in the past, the chain of command for forensic specialists had been under the Medical Department, which had not worked, because forensic specialists, as officers who were medically trained, were supposed to be a check and balance for the Medical Department.  Mr. Arnold stated the work performed by forensic specialists was approximately 85 percent custody, and when the positions were under the Medical Department chain of command, it created situations where forensic specialists were advising supervisors about the custody aspect.  Mr. Arnold stated that Jackie Crawford, Director, NDOC, placed forensic specialists under the custody chain of command to “test the waters,” which worked quite well, and forensic specialists were then able to perform their duties as a check and balance for the Medical Department.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater asked for clarification regarding the relationship of forensic specialists relative to custody staff.  Mr. Arnold explained that forensic specialists were Category III peace officers who worked in the various prisons and the Lake’s Crossing Center, and were also trained as mental health therapists and as Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA’s) working in the medical clinics and infirmaries at the NDOC.  When the Legislature created the position, it received more “bang for the buck” because of the dual status of the forensic specialist.  Mr. Arnold stated that forensic specialists had traditionally received a 5 percent higher pay grade than custody officers because of that dual role. 

 

Mr. Goldwater asked for clarification regarding Ms. Crawford’s change in policy regarding the forensic specialists.  Mr. Arnold explained that forensic specialists had been under the medical chain of command, and the charge nurses supervised those positions.  Since the forensic specialist positions acted as a check and balance for the Medical Department, that chain of command caused a problem in performance of duties.  When Ms. Crawford placed the forensic specialists under the custody chain of command, since 85 percent of their duties were custody-oriented, forensic specialists were able to perform their duties. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Arnold reiterated that forensic specialists were requesting the Committee’s assistance in passage of A.B. 173, which would assist in alleviating the oversight that omitted forensic specialists from the last two increases in pay grade received by correctional officers.  It would also assist in the recruitment and retention of qualified employees, hence helping to maintain a safe and secure environment for the community, staff, and inmates.  Mr. Arnold advised the Committee that he would be available to answer questions at any time.

 

Chairman Arberry asked Mr. Arnold to provide a copy of the proposed amendment to A.B. 173 to Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff.  He inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 173.

 

Michael Mason, Forensic Specialist IV, Lake’s Crossing Center, stated he represented the 38 forensic specialists at Lake’s Crossing, which was a facility under the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services that housed mentally ill offenders.  Mr. Mason commented that Lake’s Crossing Center was a maximum security forensic facility that housed inmates committed from the 17 counties within the state.  Those inmates had been convicted of charges ranging from trespassing to multiple murders, and the facility also received persons for evaluation that were facing the death penalty.  Mr. Mason reported those persons suffered from a varied range of illnesses, mental illnesses, and personality disorders; the facility also housed hard-to-handle inmates from county facilities, such as suicidal inmates. 

 

According to Mr. Mason, high-profile inmates were often delivered to Lake’s Crossing Center by armed officers using various methods of restraints, for example, chains, shackles, ”shock boxes,” or pepper spray, however, once delivered to Lake’s Crossing, those inmates were escorted into the facility by a forensic specialist where they were housed, evaluated, and treated for competency.  When those inmates left Lake’s Crossing, they were once again placed under restraints and escorted by armed officers. 

 

Mr. Mason explained that forensic specialists at Lake’s Crossing Center were the custody staff for that facility, and were Category III peace officers that had received the same training as correctional officers at the NDOC.  Forensic specialists at Lake’s Crossing Center were also mandated to acquire mental health certification, which required approximately 150 class hours at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), along with continuing in-service training to maintain the certification.  Per Mr. Mason, the forensic specialists were responsible for control room duties, performance of headcounts, and medical transports without the assistance of outside agencies.  In addition, he explained that specialists sat as members of treatment teams, assisted in the development and implementation of treatment plans, and assisted in behavioral observations which ultimately led to competency and return to court.  Mr. Mason stated that inmates at Lake’s Crossing Center came from all aspects of the criminal justice system, from booking to sentencing. 

 

Mr. Mason emphasized that Lake’s Crossing Center was not a mental hospital, and noted there was a separate facility in the area that acted as the mental hospital.  The clientele at Lake’s Crossing Center were actually inmates, but were labeled “clients” at the facility, and remained as dangerous at the Center as they were within other facilities.  He stressed that the correctional duties performed by forensic specialists at the NDOC and at Lake’s Crossing Center under the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, were the same, as were the additional duties.  Mr. Mason stated forensic specialists were simply asking for equal pay with correctional officers, who received between 10 and 15 percent higher pay at the present time.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie asked whether there had been a problem recruiting and retaining forensic specialists at Lake’s Crossing Center.  Mr. Mason replied in the affirmative, and referenced Exhibit F, “Salary Parity Between Forensic Specialists and Correctional Officers,” which he had provided for the Committee’s perusal.  He stated Lake’s Crossing Center currently had 38 funded forensic specialist positions, however, only 33 of those positions were currently filled.  Mr. Mason stated in the past approximately three years, Lake’s Crossing Center had experienced a turnover of approximately 28 employees, and 70 percent of the employees had been at the facility less than three years.  He noted that it took at least three years for employees to become well-rounded because of the specialized needs.  It was both difficult to hire and retain people in forensic specialist positions. 

 

Mr. Mason further explained that some persons who applied for a position at Lake’s Crossing Center were ultimately hired by the NDOC.  The question of higher pay often arose, and Mr. Mason noted that the pay for the forensic specialist positions was governed by the state.  He noted that much time was spent in the development of skills and the special expertise needed for the positions at Lake’s Crossing Center.  Ms. Leslie stated she had visited Lake’s Crossing Center, and also worked in the court system and was well aware of the very difficult clients sent to the facility; she believed the staff at Lake’s Crossing was doing a great job.

 

Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 173.

 

Tania Arguello, Forensic Specialist IV, Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC), voiced support for A.B. 173.  She indicated that correctional officers had enjoyed a 10 percent pay increase from the 2001 Legislature, and inadvertently, forensic specialists were forgotten and omitted from that pay increase.  According to Ms. Arguello, providing care for the infirm at the Regional Medical Facility (RMF) located at NNCC entailed a great amount of “dirty” work.  She advised the Committee that her written statement, Exhibit G, contained the specifics of that work, and as pointed out by Mr. Mason in his earlier testimony, forensic specialists dealt with the “worst of the worst.”  Ms. Arguello indicated that the medical aspect included all of the clean up work for those inmates, and over the past six months, there had been a total of 18 cancer patients housed at the RMF, with 8 patients remaining in the infirmary.  She explained that the care of those patients required a substantial amount of “dirty” work; those Committee members familiar with the care of cancer patients would undoubtedly understand that work. 

 

Basically, stated Ms. Arguello, forensic specialists were correctional officers and had always assumed the extra duties of a CNA in the medical area, or working with mentally infirm patients.  Forensic specialists were charged with responsibilities that were merged from the fields of nursing and corrections.  Ms. Arguello explained that hardships were inherent in any job where the employee had to watch people suffer and some die, and provide care for those who were potentially dangerous.  Ms. Arguello and her coworkers would humbly request the Committee’s consideration and endorsement of the pay raise, so that forensic specialists working at the NDOC and Lake’s Crossing Center would receive the pay increase that was not received from the 2001 Legislature. 

 

Ms. Arguello reiterated that forensic specialists were Category III peace officers that would be an “entity within an entity” under the custody chain of command, and would continue to work under either class option A, mental health, or class option B, medical in the continued care of inmate patients.

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there were further questions from the Committee.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted that during prior budget hearings, the director of the NDOC had proposed to reclassify the forensic specialists position.  Ms. Giunchigliani believed A.B. 173 would move in the direction of fixing the error that had been made when correctional officers received a pay increase of two grades.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she did not want to jeopardize the medical component of forensic specialist positions, and was fearful that the classification would be “lumped” with correctional officers and the description would be lost.  She believed that care for the patients had to be the main issue.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether forensic specialists wore uniforms.  Ms. Arguello indicated that forensic specialists did not wear uniforms at the present time, and would not ask to be placed in uniform.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated she simply wanted to clarify that point for the record, and wondered whether that would be a requirement under a reclassification to correctional officer.  She noted that in many mental health cases, uniforms would remove the relationship that could be established between the forensic specialists and the patients. 

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 173.

 

Mr. Mason reiterated that forensic specialists at Lake’s Crossing Center were not in the same positions as those under the NDOC, and he would request that the forensic specialist classification be maintained for those positions.  He noted that forensic specialists did not wear uniforms during working hours, however, when performing transport duties, a badge would be worn, and the inmate would be in restraints. 

 

Gary Wolff, Teamsters Local 14, apologized for his lateness to the hearing, however, explained he had testified in front of another committee regarding the collective bargaining issue, and he pointed out that if the state had collective bargaining, it would not encounter such problems.  He referenced Mr. Goldwater’s question regarding the duties of a forensic specialist compared to a correctional officer, and likened it to a situation where firemen were trained at an academy to learn how to put out fires, but as training progressed, some of those firemen also entered Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training for medical response to homes.  Mr. Wolff stated that was somewhat similar to the forensic specialists, who were correctional officers on the medical staff.  That classification had been omitted when the correctional officer classification received a pay increase during the 2001 Legislature.  Mr. Wolff voiced support for A.B. 173 and hoped the Committee would address the inequity that had occurred. 

 

Mr. Wolff noted that Ms. Giunchigliani’s statements regarding “lumping” classifications together were correct, and that issue had been addressed in other venues between plainclothes and uniformed officers.  He opined that when dealing with certain people, uniforms seemed to be a “turn off.”  Mr. Wolff stated he was unsure how he felt about the proposed reclassification, but noted that action was supported by forensic specialists, who wanted to be placed under the NDOC.  However, he pointed out that when taking such action there was always the fear that people would be moved from their specialty to another area.  Mr. Wolff believed that issue could be resolved in-house, because it was not felt that any of the current forensic specialists should lose their status as they were highly trained in their profession and should not be placed in gun towers when they should be part of the medical staff.  That issue could be addressed through attrition and collective bargaining. 

 

Mr. Wolff informed the Committee that he also wanted to go on record in support of A.B. 158.

 

Scott Hilderbrand, Forensic Specialist III, Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC), advised the Committee that the request contained in A.B. 173 was not new, and the situation had been addressed by passage of legislation during the 1999 session, however, forensic specialists had been left out at that time.  His personal feeling was that it was a budgetary problem that the NDOC and the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services did not want to address, which promoted the idea of a class code discrepancy.  Mr. Hilderbrand explained that forensic specialists were class code 10 and correctional officers were class code 12; he pointed out that forensic specialists performed the same jobs plus the extra duties.

 

Both the bill and proposal contained in The Executive Budget were attempts to fix the disparity of pay, however, were somewhat conflicting, and Mr. Hilderbrand did not want the Committee to think they were done in opposition of each other.  The reclassification in The Executive Budget was an attempt to correct the pay discrepancy, but the problem was that being placed under the correctional classification would eliminate the forensic specialist position that was originally created by the Legislature to address a specific problem.  According to Mr. Hilderbrand, the budget item would not address many problems such as seniority and uniformed position issues, and he believed A.B. 173, which he strongly supported, would correct the problem.  He referenced the aforementioned proposed amendment to change the class code from 10 to 12 to eliminate future problems.  Mr. Hilderbrand noted that the change brought about in NRS Chapter 202 by the earlier legislation stipulated that forensic job duties and descriptions would qualify that position as a peace officer.  When the issue had been addressed in the past, the class code discrepancy was what caused the parity; initially the issue of uniforms was brought up, however, even those not in uniform, such as classification personnel, had received pay raises because they were class code 12. 

 

Mr. Hilderbrand voiced strong support for A.B. 173 and explained it would bring the forensic specialist classification up-to-date and correct the previous oversight.  He asked that the Committee support A.B. 173 and amend the bill to change the class code, and hopefully the item in the budget could be eliminated. 

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there were further questions from the Committee, or further testimony regarding A.B. 173.

 

Bob Romer, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local No. 4041, spoke in favor of A.B. 173, and echoed the former testimony that had been presented to the Committee.  He believed the bill was necessary to correct an inequity that had occurred when forensic specialists were not included in the cost-of-living adjustment received by the correctional officers in 2001; it was simply  a matter of equal pay for equal work. 

 

Chairman Arberry inquired whether there was further testimony to come before the Committee regarding A.B. 173.

 

Michael Henzel, Forensic Specialist Supervisor, Lake’s Crossing Center, stated when the classification was created, the forensic specialists had received an additional 5 percent, or one pay grade above correctional officers, and at the present time, the difference in the starting pay for a forensic specialist and a correctional officer was three pay grades, or 15 percent.  Mr. Henzel indicated that forensic specialists were simply attempting to receive equal pay with correctional officers.  When the forensic specialist classification was created, a correctional officer was not qualified to fill that position, as certification was required from the community college as a mental health technician, along with the correctional officer training.  Mr. Henzel voiced support for A.B. 173 and hoped that the Committee would give it favorable consideration.

 

With no further testimony forthcoming, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 173 closed. 

 

Chairman Arberry asked the Committee to consider introduction of the following bill draft request:

 

• BDR S-453 - Repeals prospective expiration of provisions that expand purposes for which board of trustees of county school district may issue general obligations. (A.B. 240)

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-453.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), provided information regarding future meetings.

 

With no further business to come before the Committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the hearing at 9:53 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Carol Thomsen

Committee Secretary

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: