Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Garnishment Processing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller’s office backs moving state employee garnishments to human resources to limit exposure of personal data
Summary
Chief Deputy Controller James Smack told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Assembly Bill 17 would move service and initial processing of most state employee wage garnishments from the Controller’s Office to the Division of Human Resource Management to reduce handling of personal identifiable information and streamline payroll coordination.
Chief Deputy Controller James Smack told the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee that Assembly Bill 17 would change where state wage garnishments are delivered and initially processed, moving them from the Controller’s Office to the Division of Human Resource Management (DHRM).
Smack, chief deputy controller, said the shift would “reduce the number of eyes on PII as much as anything,” and that DHRM already has the payroll access needed to complete garnishment documentation more directly. He told the committee the procedure is “a relatively simple process” and that his team had practiced it enough to be confident DHRM could be trained quickly.
The bill’s proponents said the change is procedural and aimed at reducing unnecessary exchange of Social Security numbers and payroll data between agencies. Smack told senators the Controller’s Office currently logs garnishments it receives from sheriffs and then verifies employee-identifying details with state payroll and human resources before returning paperwork to the sheriff’s office for service or execution. Under the proposed change, DHRM would receive garnishments directly and complete documentation in coordination with the Controller’s Office as needed.
Committee members asked for scale and operational details. Smack said the Controller’s Office handles only a handful of garnishments most weeks—“maybe 3 to 5” on average—and estimates the annual total is “probably closer to a hundred than 200.” He said garnishments can involve current state employees, incarcerated individuals for whom a sheriff may re-route service, or retirees, and that some matters require returning a writ to a sheriff for service on another agency such as the Department of Corrections or PERS.
Smack also addressed potential increases in garnishments tied to federal or state actions, noting news reports about expanded wage garnishments for overdue student loans. He said such changes “could ramp up some additional garnishment,” but that processing an individual garnishment is not time-consuming and the Controller’s Office could scale if needed. He added that the Controller’s Office currently has two notaries on staff and could provide notary services to DHRM temporarily if necessary.
No public testimony was recorded in support, opposition or neutral testimony; the chair closed the hearing on AB 17 after questions and staff remarks.
Because the committee hearing did not record a vote on AB 17, no formal action or tally is reported here.
