MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 9, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 12:48 p.m., on Friday, May 9, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation
Roc Stacey, Contract Compliance Manager, Nevada Department of Transportation
Mary C. Keating, Vice Chair, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees
Steven J. Watson, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees
Fred Hinners, Public Information Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Kristen L. Erickson, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office
Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County
Alan Artz, Detective, Detective Division, Sheriff, Washoe County
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada
Brett Kandt, Executive Director, Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Stephanie D. Garcia-Vause, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System
Chairman O’Connell:
I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 174. The sponsor of the bill is not able to be with us today, but we will take testimony from other parties.
ASSEMBLY BILL 174 (1st Reprint): Creates Regional Business Development Advisory Council for Clark County. (BDR S-1004)
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation:
I met with individuals who helped bring forward this legislation. Page 4, line 11, lists the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as a member of the council. The department would like to be removed from this list. We would be happy to sit with the council to discuss issues, but we currently meet reporting requirements of the federal government and our regulations could conflict. We also have our own Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. Mr. Stacy is with me today to testify regarding the bill.
Roc Stacey, Contract Compliance Manager, Nevada Department of Transportation:
In my capacity at NDOT, I oversee the federally mandated business enterprise program which assists small, usually minority, female-owned businesses in obtaining federal highway construction work. A survey is done each year to determine the availability of minority construction firms as opposed to nonminority firms in the State. Overall goals are set which are transmitted and accepted by the federal government. Project-specific goals are then set for federal highway projects so minority and female-owned firms, certified under the DBE program, can get work.
The program described in this bill is broader than the DBE program under the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. §26. If NDOT were part of this, the broadness in this particular bill would conflict with federal requirements. Several items, such as reporting of information, are public record and are available to the committee at any time. As a State agency, NDOT does not feel it should be a part of the council, but we would be happy to work with the council at any time.
Chairman O'Connell:
Does the name of the fund have the word “disadvantaged” in it and if so, can you give an explanation of how that term is used?
Mr. Stacey:
The bill says a “disadvantaged person” as opposed to the federal regulation which clearly states it is “a disadvantaged business-enterprise program.” The federal requirements say persons must be socially and economically disadvantaged; their personal net worth less than $750,000 once the assets and liabilities associated with their business are excluded, and their primary residence, their personal net worth after those exclusions, must be less than $750,000. That is the definition of “economically disadvantaged.” “Socially disadvantaged” is if they are part of a federally recognized and protected group, such as African American, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American, and female. Persons must belong to one of those groups and must show or make a statement they have suffered discrimination because of those two elements.
Chairman O'Connell:
Mr. Wasserman, is there a definition of “disadvantaged” in
the law?
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel:
Page 3, section 3, of A.B. 174, says, “Disadvantaged person is a person who is a member of racial or ethnic minority, female, or physically disabled.”
Mr. Edgington:
I heard the testimony in the Assembly and this bill also dealt with involving minorities in purchasing opportunities in Clark County. Although NDOT does contract work, to include affirmative action goals as well as the DBE goals, NDOT is different.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 174 and open the hearing on A.B. 225.
ASSEMBLY BILL 225 (1st Reprint): Provides that Public Employees’ Deferred Compensation Program approved by Committee to administer the Program may consist of any plan to reduce taxable income. (BDR 23-505)
Mary C. Keating, Vice Chair, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees:
We are recommending passage of A.B. 225. The intent of this bill is to allow enabling legislation to provide other forms of reduced taxable compensation, or other forms of compensation, through the State’s deferred compensation plan.
Currently, the statute recognizes Internal Revenue Service (IRS) plans such as 401(a), 401(k), 403(b), and 457 under code sections which allow for deferred compensation. After the last passage of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, additional language was added to allow a variety of different options for individuals. One of the items the committee would like to explore, if this enabling legislation is passed, is the ability for State employees, as they retire from State service, to transfer sick and annual leave into a tax‑deferred account to pay their post retirement health insurance benefits and any health costs. Under current State law, they are entitled to a certain payout of their sick leave and annual leave. A program like this would be a great benefit to State employees.
There is no fiscal note on this bill because there is no impact; it would be a voluntary program on behalf of the participants, if it were implemented by the deferred compensation committee.
Chairman O’Connell:
Would active employees be allowed this option or is the fund only available for employees when they retire?
Ms. Keating:
It would be upon their retirement. I do not believe the law allows it now; however, Congress has made several changes in the portability of funds. We asked for very general language in this bill saying “such as or any other plan.” We hoped we would not have to come back continually to add specific changes every time Congress made changes.
The compensation committee’s goal is to allow any and all plans which benefit our employees. We have entered into contracts with The Hartford and the ING Group in the last 6 months. An excess of $200 million of State employee funds is invested here. Local governments, general improvement districts, and sanitation districts can join the plan and receive the buying power and interest earnings with no administrative costs.
Mr. Watson and I toured the State 2 years ago and met with local governments. We talked with many representatives from Clark County, City of Las Vegas, Washoe County, City of Reno, and City of Sparks, to see if they were interested in joining. We are hoping over the next 2 years to have most local governments in one State of Nevada deferred-compensation plan, which would bring our buying power from $200 million to over $1 billion. Douglas County has joined and we have several others who want to join.
Steven J. Watson, Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees:
I am a member of the deferred-compensation board and here to support Ms. Keating. We have worked the past few years to make the plan more flexible to State employees. We think these two vendors will provide more support than in the past and this will allow us the flexibility to take advantage of any approved federal changes we can pass on to the State employees.
One of the goals during the bidding process was to be able allow places like Battle Mountain, who might have a dozen people currently paying a higher administrative fee for deferred compensation, to get the buying power the State has without having to be part of our plan. Both companies agreed to this. We will be talking to counties, cities, and local governments to offer this plan to them at no cost. We are pretty excited about it.
Chairman O'Connell:
What is the administrative cost for operating the fund?
Ms. Keating:
Because we have over $200 million in the plan now, there is no specific administrative cost; however, there is always a cost in running this program. The Hartford and the ING Group are not working for free, but they receive their costs in a reduction of interest and earnings. Over the last 2 years, we have gone from 150 to 180 basis points down to zero, depending on which fund an individual joined. The basis points are down because of the size of the fund. Additionally, the companies have eliminated their administrative fees. State employees previously paid $4 per year to cover the costs of running the program, but The Hartford and the ING Group pay those fees proportionately now which provides additional savings. We are excited because we think this will be a great plan and participation from all local governments will help those entities as well.
Fred Hinners, Public Information Officer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
I am a State employee testifying as a private citizen. I am a former member of the Committee on Deferred Compensation for State Employees and I have an idea that will save the State more than $6 million over the next biennium. I am presenting my testimony and information regarding this subject to you (Exhibit C). If it takes legislation to accomplish this, I want to see legislation. This would be good for the State and good for State employees as well.
Chairman O’Connell:
Did you have an opportunity to offer this in the Assembly?
Mr. Hinners:
No, I compiled this information very recently.
Mr. Watson:
We agree with Mr. Hinners’ suggestion. We think it is a good idea for State employees but we do not think legislation is necessary. One concern is once it is implemented, there is no going back. We have an attorney general’s opinion that legislation is not needed. We contacted the two providers, The Hartford and the ING Group, and asked them to provide this for the State employees and municipalities and they agreed to it. We have asked our consultant to analyze the situation and provide input on this idea.
Ms. Keating:
I have spoken with John Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, and the Governor’s chief of staff and we have every intention of implementing this plan. Once the decision is made, it is a mandatory plan; there is no turning back. We feel more research is needed at this time; for example, the university system enters into contracts with part-time professors and we are not sure of the impact on those existing contracts.
Chairman O'Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 225 and open A.B. 459.
ASSEMBLY BILL 459: Authorizes county recorder to deny recordation of certain documents. (BDR 20-283)
Kristen L. Erickson, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, and Washoe County District Attorney’s Office:
This bill would allow the county recorder to deny recording certain documents. They do not have to, they can continue to record every document that comes before them, it is their choice; however, there are certain pieces of paper that are obviously and patently false. These papers have liens or judgments stamped on them, usually liens or judgments against public officials or even neighbors, and are filed in the millions of dollars. It amounts to harassment papers meant to cause havoc in people’s lives. These false documents have not gone through the judicial process; there has been no due process at all and the person against whom these liens are filed usually has no idea they have been recorded. It comes to light when they go to sell their house, obtain a loan, or something to that effect. They suddenly find out they have a $28 million lien filed against them. It can take thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to clear up a false judgment or lien.
This legislation also provides adequate safeguards for the person who attempts to have the document recorded and it is denied. If the document recordation is denied, within 2 days the county recorder must send a letter to the person requesting liquidation and indicating why it was denied and their right to judicial review. The person can then apply to district court to have their piece of paper reviewed to see if it should be recorded. It is even given priority over other civil matters in order to make the recommendation in a timely fashion.
There are safeguards to protect any sort of abuse. It is my understanding this does not happen very often, but when these documents are presented, they are obviously false documents. This type of false lien and false judgment filing has become very commonplace. There are even antigovernment Web sites which give forms and directions. They encourage people to file liens or judgments against local elected officials or people against whom they have a problem. We encourage your support of this legislation.
Senator Care:
I want to make a distinction between a false document and a document that contains incorrect information. Is that right?
Ms. Erickson:
Yes.
Senator Care:
Does this impose a duty on the recorder’s office to conduct some sort of investigation? Why would a recorder delay recording one document, but not delay recording another? Does it look wrong? What would be the standard there?
Ms. Erickson:
Perhaps the best person to answer those questions is the county recorder.
Senator Care:
If it is an authentic document, the requestor, if he prevails, can have his document recorded; but he is entitled to recover filing fees. In the meantime, he has to file the filing fee to file the action with the district court. In addition, there may be an attorney involved. He could get the document filed, but it may cost him a few hundred dollars to do so. I do not know if this would actually prevent some people from pursuing having a document recorded. I suppose it would depend on the document. While there is redress available, as in the case of a legitimate document, it certainly puts a financial burden on the requestor.
Ms. Erickson:
It is my understanding these documents are blatantly false. If there were any question regarding the legitimacy, the recorder would file the document.
Chairman O'Connell:
Ms. Burke, can you answer the question posed by Senator Care?
Kathy Burke, Recorder, Washoe County:
You wanted to know how to discern if the documents are false. The ones I recently recorded are blatantly fictitious. You can tell the judgment did not go through the judicial system. It has not come from the court, so although they are calling it a judgment, there is nothing on it saying it came through the judgment process. I have instructed my staff to bring any documents of this nature to me first. Unfortunately, Nevada does not have a law that allows the county recorder to refuse to record them, even when they are blatant and frivolous. Through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), I have learned quite a few states have enacted and adopted legislation to allow recorders to refuse to record the documents. There are concerns; it is enabling, and there are safety issues.
Chairman O'Connell:
Is this proposed legislation modeled after the language from NCSL?
Ms. Burke:
Yes it is. The attorney general’s office is here to explain how they drafted the bill using language similar to that used by NCSL and other states who have enacted this type of legislation.
Alan Artz, Detective, Detective Division, Sheriff, Washoe County:
I have been assigned in the past to investigate cases involving false liens and false filings. I have some examples to show you. The first example (Exhibit D) is a man who was able, from prison, to file $12 billion in liens against the judge who convicted him and the State attorney who prosecuted him for illegal weapons charges. This example will provide you with the need for this legislation.
The second example (Exhibit E) is a document stamped “unofficial copy” and was actually filed. On pages 5 and 6, you can see this is someone demanding compensatory damages from six people who are all public officials, judges, and attorneys who work in the Washoe County family courts. The total demand is $38.44 million. This document had no judicial process. It was done on a home computer by a person who makes a living filing these documents. Personally, if my name was among those on the document and it was served on me, it would frighten me because it looks like an official document. People want the recorder to record the documents, because the official stamp lends an official credibility to the document. My fellow officers have had these types of documents served on them by former inmates from the county jail. There is no way a layperson can tell if this is a real document.
The third document (Exhibit F) starts as a notice of default and makes claims similar to Exhibit E.
The last document, (Exhibit G) goes back to the point of the stamp giving this an appearance of an official document. Four men came to the visiting section of the county jail with identification cards. This is one of the cards and it looks like an official identification card. It is not clearly visible, but the last page contains a promissory oath which was accepted and filed by the county clerk. These gentlemen came in with “CRTF” (Civil Rights Task Force) emblazoned across the back of their windbreakers and official-looking badges. They asked for a contact visit with an inmate. The booking clerk allowed them in because they had official-looking documents. A deputy district attorney, who was there at the time, recognized these gentlemen and knew they were not law enforcement officers. They had made contact visits with felons awaiting trail on at least two previous occasions. These documents look very real to a layperson and having the county recorder stamp on them lends more credibility.
Senator Care:
There is a difference between a fraudulent document and a document that is bizarre, a one-of-a-kind document. I had a case where these parties had gotten married in a church in another state and there was no marriage license. They felt there was a “legal theory” allowing them to do that and when they came back to Nevada, they recorded a certificate of marriage of coventry, or something similar. It looked like an official document and there was nothing inaccurate or untruthful contained in the document. Is a document like this what is contemplated in A.B. 459?
Ms. Burke:
They are different. That document probably does not need to be recorded. We get bizarre documents which probably should not be recorded. People do not understand they become official public records. They are just trying to find a home for these documents and they pick the recorder’s office. We are talking about extremely blatant documents. As a recorder, for the safety of my staff and myself, I would probably put certain documents on record and notify the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s office. We have been working on this issue for over 2 years as these documents have come through.
The Honorable Greg W. Zive, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, shared his story with me. He cannot be here to testify today. A document was recorded against him in Lyon County and he had to get a court order to protect his rights as a person. This particular document also named First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation, an individual from Stewart Title of Northern Nevada, and two other private citizens. Judge Zive did not know this was recorded. What happens is title companies, even though they recognize these documents could be bogus, refuse to insure the property because of the cost involved of clearing the title. Again, the person whose property has been compromised has the burden of proving the fraudulent document is invalid. We are obligated to record a document that meets the recording requirement.
There was a case in California where the clerk was beaten and her life threatened because she refused to record fraudulent documents for common‑law extremists. She had personal skirmishes with the extremists; however, there is no recognition the common-law advocates are committed ideologists who believe they are reclaiming their god-given or constitutional rights. These people honestly and sincerely believe they are at war with the government.
Chairman O'Connell:
Is this more prevalent in the north than in the south?
Ms. Burke:
I cannot speak for the south, but they have more volume so they probably have the problem. We are very close to our customers. We are at the same desk and they are directly in front of me. We are concerned about the safety of our staff and ourselves. Mr. Artz has been investigating specific cases for quite some time.
Chairman O'Connell:
Is there any recourse for that person when this happens? Without this law, they will not be breaking any laws. Is that correct?
Ms. Burke:
Correct.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Independent American Party of Nevada:
The Internal Revenue Service often files something called “an intent‑to‑lien” which has not been adjudicated in court. Title companies and others accept these as liens. I wonder if this legislation would also apply to them so they cannot file an intent-to-lien document without having a judicial proceeding to show that people actually owe the money. I think this often happens and it destroys people’s credit when there may be an ongoing situation with the IRS.
Mr. Wasserman:
It depends on the interpretation. The recorder should be able to respond to this.
Chairman O'Connell:
We will do some investigating and see if we can answer the question.
Ms. Hansen:
My brother and others have experienced this. If it is filed with the recorder, a person’s credit can be ruined, although it is not a valid lien because it is just an intent-to-lien document.
Brett Kandt, Executive Director, Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys:
I am here to testify in support of A.B. 459. In order to save time, I will submit my testimony for the record (Exhibit H).
Chairman O'Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 459 and open the hearing on A.B. 291.
ASSEMBLY BILL 291 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties. (BDR 22-728)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9:
This bill was originally introduced to eliminate planning commissions. My constituents were frustrated with urban and neighborhood issues where they felt they were not being heard. After the bill was introduced, I met with at least ten local governments from around the State to rework this legislation. The first reprint is before you today. Washoe County decided to exempt themselves, although they did offer valuable suggestions.
Section 1 of A.B. 291 clarifies individuals appointed by local governments serve at the pleasure of the governing body.
Section 2 deals with the issue of continuances. This bill will force groups to sit down with the public before they go forward with a project. I believe many circumstances would be resolved if people would work with their neighbors. Many people often attend the first meeting. If there are several continuances, by the time the voting occurs, only a few people are at the meeting to vote on the issue. Part of this legislation is intended to bring back reasonableness.
Section 3, subsection 3, would prohibit the governing body from granting an aggrieved person more than two continuances on the same matter, unless the governing body determines the granting of additional continuances is warranted. This bill tightens the language.
Section 4 deals with voting by public officers. In certain cases, attorneys recommend not voting and this removes people even though there was no pecuniary interest. We tried to clarify the language as to when they should truly remove themselves from voting.
I want to commend local governments for working with me on this issue. I think we tried to bring balance back to help the commission work more effectively.
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
I would like to go on record in support of this bill. The original version was not palatable to us, but following many long hours of work, the reprinted version will assist us in managing our concerns.
Stephanie D. Garcia-Vause, Lobbyist, City of Henderson:
I would like to echo the comments of Ms. Coyne. We appreciated the opportunity to work with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and we feel the bill will help us make our planning commission meetings more efficient.
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:
We also worked on this legislation and want to go on record as supporting this measure.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
We also support the bill.
Chairman O'Connell:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 291 and open the hearing on A.B. 450.
ASSEMBLY BILL 450 (1st Reprint): Prohibits designation of certain positions in government as being position for which monthly service retirement allowance may be paid when previously retired employee fills position during critical labor shortage. (BDR 23-34)
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This is a third-generation piece of legislation. The original intent of A.B. No. 74 of the 70th Session was to allow teachers to fill critical positions at the university system while temporarily retaining their retirement. Testimony at that time revealed a shortage of teachers and this legislation was thought to be a solution. Later on, the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs amended the bill to a limit of 2 years. The Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) was concerned about the impact and this issue was studied through an interim study. Based on the study, A.B. No. 555 of the 71st Session was introduced which stated retired employees could be rehired, without losing their retirement, in times of critical need. The bill included a list of revised criteria and an approval procedure. Most of the language centered on the shortage of teachers in Grades K through 12; particularly in special education, mathematics, and science. That was the main interest in the bill.
After A.B. No. 555 of the 71st Session passed, and immediately following the session, the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles determined a critical shortage existed for 22 employees in his department, including the chief deputy position. Many of us took criticism in the newspaper over how this occurred because it really was not within the intent of the bill, but the flexible language allowed it to happen.
Now we have the introduction of A.B. 450. The majority of the changes in the first reprint are on page 2. It was hoped this bill would tighten the criteria to indicate there would have to be a history of high turnover, multiple openings, or a lack of qualified candidates. The idea was not to eliminate, but to clarify the language.
Section 1, subsection 5, of A.B. 450 is the most important part of the bill. It says, “A designating authority may not determine that a critical labor shortage exists for … the administrative head of a department, board, agency, school district or commission, or the immediate deputy or assistant of such … .”
Chairman O'Connell:
Is there any opposition to A.B. 450?
George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System:
The retirement board’s primary concern has to do with section 1, subsection 5, beginning at line 42, where it says:
A designating authority may not determine that a critical labor shortage exists for a position if the position is the administrative head of a department, board, agency, school district or commission, or the immediate deputy or assistant of such an administrative head.
Our concern is the bill as drafted presumes certain management positions need some sort of attractive attribute. It presumes whether it is income or something else, there will never be a dearth of qualified applicants in those particular jobs. We also felt the bill further detracts from the purpose of our system. We try to provide uniform benefits to all of our members across the board, regardless of the position held, and the board is somewhat concerned with language which limits the ability with respect to the particular positions.
Another important concern is this legislation requires PERS to cease paying benefits to retired employees previously designated as filling a critical labor shortage position if they are the administrative head of the department, commission, school district, or agency or an immediate deputy or assistant of such an administrative head. Because of its retroactive nature, this language appears to interfere with members’ statutory right to the current language, without replacing it with an equal or greater benefit. This may invite litigation against the system.
In summary, I would like to say Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 286.523, which is the critical labor shortage exemption language, was not created in a void. There was a very exhaustive study done by PERS and this bill has worked very well for us. Approximately 65 retirees, primarily in education, returned to work under this legislation returning as mathematics teachers, librarians, and those types of occupations. We think it has been good for school districts and other public employers as well. This bill would sunset in June 2005 and we will come back to the Legislature with a study on the actuarial impact of the retiree reemployment under this particular designation.
We would like to see the current language remain in the law. We had our own bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 439, where we added a further requirement that employers only designate these positions for a 2-year time period, at which point the critical designation would be reevaluated.
SENATE BILL 439: Makes various changes concerning Public Employees’ Retirement System and Judicial Retirement System. (BDR 23-563)
Mr. Pyne:
We would like things to stay status quo until we come back to the Legislature next session with our study of actuarial experience and cost.
Senator Raggio:
Under the existing law, if positions are filled in this manner, are they reviewed every 2 years?
Mr. Pyne:
No, not under the existing law; it would happen under S.B. 439, which is in the Assembly right now.
Senator Raggio:
You are saying the existing law does not have any period of time to review the filling of these positions.
Mr. Pyne:
That is correct.
Senator Raggio:
It seems to me the language in A.B. 450, section 1, subsection 5, was specifically designed to address Richard Kirkland’s situation and an administrative assistant. I have some concern about this bill because at the time, the Governor was faced with trying to find a top person for a position and these positions do not pay a lot, when you look at the responsibilities, so I did not feel it was an improper use of the law.
I am concerned when a bill is drafted to address some particular situation involving a particular person or individual. I do think the law accommodated, other than just filling these critical teacher positions. I think it was also appropriate to use it in other areas.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will close the hearing on A.B. 450 and adjourn the meeting at 1:49 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: