DRAFT

NEVADA EQUAL RIGHTS COMMISSIONERS’ MEETING

MINUTES

September 13, 2006

CALL TO ORDER

The Nevada Equal Rights Commissioners’ Meeting was called to order at approximately 1:30 p.m., on September 13, 2006. The meeting was being conducted via videoconference from the State of Nevada, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation Offices located at 2800 E. St. Louis Ave., in Las Vegas, Nevada and 1325 Corporate Blvd., Room 130 in Reno, Nevada.

Dennis Shipley, Chair, called the meeting to order, roll call completed, verified proper posting of the meeting was completed, and moved to agenda item 4 and asked if there was any discussion regarding the minutes that needed to be addressed, stating that thee are a couple of items on the agenda that Mr. Plotkin brought up in the previous meeting that are on the current agenda.

Present- Dennis Shipley, Chair; Aileen Martin, Commissioner; Lee Plotkin, Commissioner; Tiffany Young, Commissioner; David Newton, Deputy Attorney General (DAG); Deborah Madison, Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC); Terry Johnson, Director, Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (DETR); Dean Ishman, President, NAACP; Dennis Maginot, Compliance Investigator II, Nevada Equal Rights Commission; Norma Delaney, Administrative Assistant III, Nevada Equal Rights Commission.

NEW BUSINESS

Lee Plotkin, Commissioner, stated that in reading the minutes are an accurate reflection of what was stated at the June 13, 2006 meeting; that he has concerns regarding the meeting and postings, which he will bring up in public comment unless an element comes into play during the Administrator’s report.

Mr. Shipley asked for a motion to approve the minutes; Tiffany Young, Commissioner, made the motion; Aileen Martin, Commissioner, seconded.

Mr. Shipley moved to agenda item 5, Administrator’s Report by Deborah Madison.

Deborah Madison, Administrator of the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC), referenced Tab B of the packet which contains two reports: one is for state fiscal year 2006 which covers the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 – the second report is for state fiscal year 2007 which began July 1, 2006, which showed statistics ending July 31, 2006. Ms. Madison discussed the handout containing the Commissioners’ Report ending August 31, 2006; advised that there are 30 probable cause cases with the DAG (Deputy Attorney General); for the month of August 2006, NERC recovered $80,795.00 for Charging Parties, representative of 16 cases; advised that from the start of federal fiscal year 2006, October 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006, NERC recovered $977,228.00 through settlements and mediations.

Ms. Madison referenced Tab C of the packet which contains the Performance Indicators for NERC, and advised that Tab C also contains two reports: one covering state fiscal year 2006, covering the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 – the second report is for state fiscal year 2007 which began July 1, 2006, which showed statistics ending July 31, 2006. Ms. Madison discussed the handout containing the Performance Indicators ending August 31, 2006, and advised that there was a change in Performance Indicator 2 at the start of the fiscal year; previously it was the percent of cases open 270 days or less, and based on how NERC was performing, this number was reduced to 180 days, which NERC continues to strive to meet this new number.

Ms. Madison also advised that in regards to Performance Indicator 4, that many cases may not settle in mediation as there is usually a gap between what a Charging Party wants and what the employer is willing to offer for settlement; however, this is also an area that NERC is striving to improve.

Ms. Madison moved on to her next agenda item regarding the recruitment for the Deputy Administrator, advising that Theresa Nicks was the prior incumbent and that she left in mid-July 2006; that this position will be located in the Reno office and will also supervises the Reno staff; the position had been posted on the State Personnel web site for two weeks and it was open competitive which means it was not only open to DETR employees, but other state employees as well as the public; applications were forwarded to the DETR Human Resources Manager who reviewed the applications and determined who qualified and met the minimum qualifications, to which an eligibility list was then created. Ms. Madison advised she was recently provided with the eligibility list and is in the process of scheduling interviews.

Ms. Madison advised that the third item she wanted to address was that she received an invitation from Olophius Perry, District Director of EEOC in Los Angeles, and that she attended the EEOC Las Vegas office open house on August 9, 2006; Mae Flennoy, DETR Public Information Officer and Billie Bailey, Chief Compliance Investigator with NERC also attended; that she faxed a copy of the invitation to all the Commissioners and understands that Mr. Plotkin was in attendance, but that she did not have the opportunity to speak with him.

Ms. Madison advised that the reception was held on the first floor of the building in the jury assembly room and that several individuals spoke, including Carrie Dominguez, EEOC Chair; Nicholas Inzeo, Director of Office of Field Programs; Honorable Judge Pro who is the Chief

Judge of the District Court, and Constable Mariano Lemus. She added that Proclamations of

Certificates were presented on behalf of the Nevada Senators, Harry Reid and John Ensign’s offices, and the Congressional Representative Offices of Shelly Burkley, Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter. Ms. Madison concluded her report by adding that she also providing welcoming remarks on behalf of DETR and NERC.

Mr. Shipley commented that in regards to the statistics, in a historical context over his experience with the Commission over the past nine years, that what is most noticeable is that of the 435 open cases in NERC’s inventory, only 28 are in the previous year; stated that is incredible compared to the way it used to be, adding that cases used to be 3-5 years old; he commended Ms. Madison that only 28 are in year 2005. He also added that the percentage of open cases 180 days or less is notable as well.

Mr. Shipley commented that in regards to the EEOC opening a Las Vegas office, that it may be too early to know, but asked if NERC has felt an impact with their presence in the Las Vegas area in terms of the number of cases coming to NERC.

Ms. Madison responded that NERC has not felt an impact as of yet; that in regards to staffing, they are still working with temporary staffing out of the Los Angeles office and was advised at the open house that they hired a trial attorney who is training with the regional attorney, Anna Park, in Los Angeles.

Mr. Shipley asked if the Commissioners had any questions and/or comments.

Mr. Plotkin stated that regarding EEOC, he has been advised they are accepting complaints directly, and asked Ms. Madison if that is her understanding, to which Ms. Madison answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Plotkin advised that knows one employer attorney in Las Vegas who has a history with NERC that is now specifically directing his employment related clients to the EEOC; that once there is an opportunity to see what the impact will be with the EEOC Las Vegas office being open and taking complaints, believes that the bigger question to keep in mind is what would the NERC office do if NERC’s cases went to zero.

Mr. Shipley asked Mr. Plotkin about the attorney he mentioned and if the attorney explained why he is referring his clients to EEOC, to which Mr. Plotkin advised that this information was passed onto him from another individual he knows, but that knowing this attorney he believes in cutting out the middleman. Mr. Plotkin added that is a very good question for self-examination – why would somebody file a complaint with NERC instead of EEOC, and why would somebody file a complaint with the EEOC instead of NERC.

Ms. Madison responded that an individual has the choice of going to either place; if they file with NERC, and based on Title VII issues, their complaint would be considered dually filed, both with NERC and EEOC; that after NERC’s investigative process, the Charging Party has a

right to request a reconsideration review by the NERC Administrator, and if they disagree with her findings, the Charging Party can request a substantial weight review by the EEOC; when EEOC conducts a substantial weight review, it is not a new investigation, and if they agree with NERC’s findings, they close their file and issue a right to sue letter; that if the person files directly with EEOC, their answer is final with EEOC’s decision; stated that EEOC takes longer to process their cases; and advised that from what she can tell, it looks like a very small percentage of their cases they actually take to court.

Mr. Plotkin asked that when Ms. Madison indicated that the EEOC takes longer to process cases, was the processing time longer before or after the Las Vegas EEOC office opened; stated that he could understand the process being lengthier if individuals had to communicate through Los Angeles as opposed to driving to the Las Vegas office downtown.

Ms. Madison advised that she was speaking in general, not for any individual office; EEOC tries to complete their investigations within 180 days, but it is usually longer.

There was discussion regarding cases being dually filed; what constitutes a case being dually filed; can an individual file with both NERC/EEOC at the same time; sexual orientation cases are state only cases but should another issue on the same charge be equal pay act (federal), this type of case would be handled by both offices; a Charging Party could get a much better settlement under EEOC than with NERC; that it is also more advantageous for the Charging Party attorney also.

Mr. Plotkin commented that with the opening of the EEOC Las Vegas office, knowing that charges can be filed directly with that office, he believes that the Commission should start thinking about some way to assess the impact and that the Commissioners should be informed more frequently regarding the impact of EEOC opening a Las Vegas office; added that the next couple of months will be critical especially should the number of charges being filed be reduced.

Mr. Plotkin advised that another issue he wanted to address was that at the last meeting on June 13, 2006, which was held in Reno, the minutes reflect that the meeting for September 13, 2006 would be at 5:30 p.m., which they have been held at this time since he has been on the Commission, and was curious as to how the time change to 1:30 p.m. came about without having a meeting in-between and questioned the legality of the time change and so that he could better understand the process; stated that when he called the NERC office, he was advised that staff preferred not to meet after 5 p.m.

Ms. Madison responded that the meeting held on June 13, 2006 was scheduled during regular office hours primarily so that it could be done via video conference to both locations, Northern and Southern Nevada; that there was a public workshop conducted at the June 13 meeting so that the regulations could be addressed/approved; that unfortunately the agenda item at the June 13 meeting was not listed as an action item. She added that in discussion with the DAG, Richard Dreitzer, as David Newton was not available, Mr. Dreitzer stated that the Commission needed to be consistent and have the September 13, 2006 meeting set up the same way/time as the prior video conference. Ms. Madison added that the meetings are subject to the call of the Chair, that this is a part-time board, but also the agency has to take into consideration building/staff availability and it was thought that the September 13 meeting would be better during normal business hours, and added that other boards within DETR also meet during the day.

Mr. Shipley responded that in fairness to Ms. Madison, they did discuss the issue of the time change which he had no objection to the change; added that when he first became a Commissioner the meetings were held at 4 p.m., and it was changed to 5:30 p.m. to allow the public time to get off work and be at the meetings. Mr. Plotkin stated that he is all about process and that when something appears in print different that what was the understanding of a public meeting, he has to question what transpired in the interim to create the change; added that he does not believe a mid-day meeting is beneficial to the general public, even though the attendance by the public has been minimal; that he understands the meeting time can also be scheduled at the pleasure of the Commission. He added that with the prior Chair, his intent was always to get the meetings more accessible both to Northern Nevada and also around town so that people can learn more about the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and not just think EEOC before NERC.

Mr. Shipley agreed that in recent years the public has not been coming to the 5:30 p.m. meetings so he had no objection to making the change to 1:30 p.m.

David Newton, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), advised that in regards to the legality issue, the minutes are a separate issue and has nothing to do with the legalities of setting the meeting; the notice has to be posted three days in advance of the meeting and whatever time is on the notice is the legal standard for the meeting. Mr. Newton added that Mr. Plotkin is absolutely correct that the meetings are at the Commissions’ discretion, not at staffs discretion, as per statute.

Mr. Shipley moved on to the agenda item 6, Public Hearing Regarding the Adoption and Amendment of Regulations that Pertain to Chapter 233 of the Nevada Administrative Code, and advised that this chapter deals with the purpose of which is to augment and clarify the manner in which the Nevada Equal Rights Commission continues to achieve expeditious, high quality resolutions of employment discrimination charges and ensures efficient, effective and coordinated civil rights laws are enforced. He stated that one of the provisions of these modifications is to provide for any party to be represented by an attorney; establishing the necessary qualification of that attorney, establishing requirements for the disclosure of information gathered during an investigation after an action has been filed in court and allowing the Commission to request post-hearing briefs; establishing that the consent of the parties is needed before the Commission will allow the presence of non-party representatives other than counsel at an informal meeting. Mr. Shipley concluded his introduction and deferred to David Newton, DAG.

Mr. Newton advised that thee are two things that need to be done regarding this agenda item: 1) Formally open a public comment session; and 2) open to take a motion if there is one to approve the LCB File No. R067-06 contained in the packet. Mr. Newton advised that nothing changed from the last meeting when the workshop was held; the language is the same. Mr. Shipley asked for public comments from the public, being none, closed public comments and asked for a motion to approve. Aileen Martin, Commissioner, made the motion; Tiffany Young, Commissioner, seconded.

Mr. Shipley moved to the agenda item 7, Duties/responsibilities Commission Secretary, and deferred to David Newton, DAG.

Mr. Newton advised that this issue came up at the last meeting when there was discussion that the statute said the Commissioners had to have a secretary; stated he went through the statutes and there is nothing in NERC’s statutes that define the duties of the secretary, it simply states there has to be one; advised that there are other Boards/Commissions where the duties are defined, some are lengthy and others are not. He added that under Statutory Construction Rules, the fact that the legislature laid out specific duties in one section, but did not lay out any specific duties in NERC’s statutes, means the legislature gave no specific duties for the secretary. Mr. Newton stated that the primary duty for most secretary’s is they are the party that signs the minutes as official, which is critical under the open meeting law because if there were to be any open law complaints, the complaint would be directed to the secretary for the minutes to be requested; he added that the Commission could assign other duties to the secretary if they chose to do so.

Mr. Plotkin, to clarify his understanding, stated that the signing duty would be to sign the minutes once approved, with any changes at the meeting after that, to which Mr. Newton responded if there are no changes, you could sign the minutes to the meeting of June 13, 2006.