NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
Park |
DATE TYPED: |
02/10/03 |
HB |
39/aHGUAC |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
State Employee Driving Privileges |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Geisler |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
300.0 See Narrative |
Recurring |
GF/OSF |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
General
Services Department (GSD)
State
Highway & Transportation Department (NMSHTD)
Office
of the State Engineer (OSE)
Department
of Health (DOH)
SUMMARY
The amendments`
specify that DUI convictions within the last ten years would count toward the
prohibition.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 39 would
prohibit state employees with two or more convictions for DUI or one conviction
for aggravated DUI from operating a state motor vehicle. DUI convictions under local jurisdictions or
similar laws from other states would be counted. The new section would be compiled in the
enabling act of the Transportation Services Division (TSD) of the General Services
Department (GSD).
Significant
Issues
This bill goes beyond the existing TSD rule
which requires a valid driver’s license to operate a state vehicle. The state’s liability could be reduced by
this prohibition. The kind of research
mandated by this bill may require National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
checks across state jurisdictions.
Whether these background checks will be the responsibility of individual
agencies or be a centralized function remains unclear.
Employees whose state job requires driving but
who have prior convictions which are many years old would be prohibited from
driving a state vehicle. Could such
employees be accommodated in other jobs that do not require driving a state
vehicle?
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
NCIC checks on state
employees who must drive state vehicles or personal vehicles as part of their
job duties could be required to determine DUI/ DWI convictions, especially
those in other states. If NCIC checks were required, the cost could be in the
range of $50 per check, including staff support. The actual price for the NCIC
raw data is $32 per check and then staff must follow-up on positive hits to
determine if arrests resulted in convictions. Data on convictions is often not
in the raw NCIC data.
The Department of
Public Safety could do these checks for $50. GSD has arbitrarily estimated a
first year cost of $300.0, which would accommodate 6,000 NCIC-based checks. The
recurring costs would depend on the number of new employees hired who would require
the background check.
The scope of the
fiscal impact is unknown for agencies not under TSD jurisdiction. One option to
reducing the start-up cost may be to make it a termination offense if an employee
fails to self-report prior convictions. While not as reliable as an NCIC based
check, it could avoid the fiscal impact of the checks.
This law could result
in lower insurance premiums for the state by reducing risks and asserting to
insurance companies that we have a system designed to preclude persons with
DUI/DWI convictions from driving state vehicles. A year of test data would be required to
adequately estimate what reductions in premium costs might be.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The process of hiring employees into positions that require use of a
state vehicle would be lengthened by the amount of time it would take to
conduct a NCIC check for prior DUIs in addition to checks on current state
employees.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES
Section 15-8-5 NMSA 1978 authorizes TSD to
“establish and enforce standards for drivers of state vehicles, including
revoking driver privileges”. Section 15-8-3 NMSA 1978 defines
“state vehicle” as “an automobile, van, sport utility truck, pickup truck or
other vehicle used by a state agency to transport passengers or property”. The
current rule requires a valid driver’s license to operate a state vehicle,
prohibits operating a vehicle under influence of alcohol or drugs, and requires
automatic suspension of authorization to drive a state vehicle if a state employee’s
driver’s license expires, is revoked or suspended. TSD or an agency may suspend an employee’s authorization
for failure to comply with any provision of the TSD rule, which includes a
section on drug and alcohol use. State
agencies are required to report to TSD any suspension or revocation. (1.5.3.18 NMAC)
TSD conducts driver
standards checks on a periodic basis for all drivers of state-owned vehicles
and also for state employees who lease a TSD vehicle on a short-term basis. In 2002, state agencies were requested to
provide GSD with a list of all their employees who drive a state car. Because compliance was slow, a cross-check
was done of 23,000 employees comparing name and date of birth from state
payroll records with TRD / MVD and 1,100 employees were reported as not having
a valid driver’s license. Reasons
include DUI revocation, failure to pay child support, failure to appear in
court, traffic violations, a person simply forgot to renew, or because of operational
difficulties with MVD records.
Approximately 20% of the reports were inaccurate because of such things
as MVD field office records had not been properly input into the main MVD data
system and misspelled names.
The State Highway and Transportation Department has an Administrative Directive that provides for the dismissal of an employee in the event the employee’s license is suspended or revoked or officially taken for a period of more than 90 days and the license is required as a condition of employment. This directive has been in effect since 07/01/99 and as of this date twenty-two employees have been dismissed in accordance with this policy.
Require random
drug and alcohol testing of personnel authorized to drive state vehicles.
Centralized
monitoring of DUI convictions could be established in TSD or TRD Motor Vehicle
Division to include all state vehicles in the executive, legislative and judicial
branches.
A new DUI
arrest or conviction could be the trigger to research an employee’s driving records
and then count prior offenses as opposed to doing background checks on all
employees.
The bill could
specify a number of years for research of recent DUI convictions as opposed to
unlimited past prior offenses. This
would provide a “grace period” for those who had convictions decades or more in
the past.
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
The definition of “state vehicle” should be clarified to ensure
it covers all vehicles used in state business, including leased/rented GSD
vehicles, commercial rental cars, and state employed personal vehicles.
AMENDMENTS
GSD suggests
consideration of the following amendments: