MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 2, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 2, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Chairman

      Mr. Robert E. Price, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr.  Val Z. Garner

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Gene T. Porter

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Robert M. Sader (excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Christina R. Giunchigliani, District No. 9

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

      Mr. John R. Crossley/Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Janet Gilbert/League of Women voters

      Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens

      Ms. Bonnie James/Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Williams requested committee introduction of BDR R-1785

commending the Clark County Housing Authority on its fiftieth anniversary.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT.

      MR. SADER WAS ABSENT.

 

AJR 11:     Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions.

 

Mr. Price submitted Exhibit C.  Nevada was one of three states who did not have annual sessions, Mr. Price said.

 

Mr. Price felt sessions could be shortened by procedures.  He stated Utah used procedures which allowed the legislature to accomplish annual sessions in 45 days.  Utah used standing committees instead of special committees for interim studies, he advised, and once each month every member of the legislature gathered at the state capitol to hold hearings on bills and other subjects.  On rare occasions when the Governor needed the legislature, Utah used that day for a special session.  Even though it was called a "special session," Mr. Price pointed out, the cost was small since legislators were already paid for an interim meeting.

 

Mr. Price explained Exhibit C was a reprint of his previous proposal.  Mr. Price stated he had no strong feelings for the time line of 90 and 60 days.  He felt if pressure was put upon the legislature by a constitutional change to complete in 60, 50, or 90 days, legislature would be completed.  Under the language in the proposed amendment which had gone to the Supreme Court of the United States, on the 60th or the 90th day as it was set in AJR 11, no legislation could be passed beyond midnight, Mr. Price reported.  Any action would be unconstitutional and would be thrown out as soon as anyone challenged the action, he testified, and the deadline would be a direct incentive to complete the work.

 

At this point in his testimony, Mr. Price called attention to the public opinion survey by the University System in November 1992 (Exhibit C, Page 5, The University of Nevada Poll).   Approximately 70 percent of the citizens of Nevada felt the legislature should meet annually either by having a session limited to specific issues such as the budget and/or regular sessions. 

 

He further added a few states had limited sessions such as budget sessions, and most states had a procedure where, with three quarters vote of either house, a bill could be introduced on whatever subject happened to be needed.  Several states, including Utah, who started that way, eventually changed over to regular sessions.

 

Mr. Price then reminded the committee AJR 11 had been passed out of the Assembly for the last three sessions prior to the 67th Session.  He concluded success had not been achieved in the Senate.  He further commented it did not make sense to deal with a business or corporation the size of Nevada ($2 billion) and have those people who set the policy (the legislators) only meet every other year to project budgets.  "The legislators are now projecting to June 30, 1995 when the Budget Committee is estimating how much money will be coming in to fill the budgets," he reported. 

 

Mr. Price affirmed if AJR 11 passed the Assembly, passed the Senate, went through the next session, and a vote of the people in four years, 1998 would be the first annual session. 

 

At this point in Mr. Price's testimony, Mr. Dini questioned if Mr. Price had any statistics about the states which had the short sessions.  Utah eliminated their short session a few years ago, Mr.Price responded.  He did not have specific statistics.  He had not heard any complaints, but understood most of the states had the provision where, by some mechanism, the states could add subject matter.

 

Mr. Dini commented New Mexico did things a lot different from Nevada.  New Mexico had a short session, he said, but would call special sessions often.  New Mexico also had a different budgeting system, he added.  New Mexico's House of Representatives usually wrote the entire budget, and the Senate concurred.  Mr. Dini further commented each state had unique characteristics of annual session, and asked if a guide with this type of information existed.  Mr. Price replied a budget guide published by NCSL showed how budgets were put together in all states.

 

Mr. Dini stressed Nevada legislature needed to start the process.  "Nevada has increased competition from gaming in other states," he said, "and things change day to day.  At some point in time, we must make the decision to stay with times and be ready to solve problems as they occur, not a year later or two years in advance," he added.

 

At this time, Mr. Price pointed out to the committee language in AJR 11 would allow the legislature to adopt any types of procedures for shortened legislatures.  Mr. Price and Mr. Dini then discussed procedures for filing and hearing bills in connection with legislature starting dates.  Procedures used by the state of Utah were also discussed by Mr. Price and Mr. Dini.

 

Next, Ms. Janet Gilbert, League of Women Voters, Nevada, spoke in favor of  AJR 11.  She called attention to the number of bills introduced in different states of similar size to Nevada.  Utah in the even year 1990 introduced 890 bills, and in the odd year, Utah introduced 808 bills.  Wyoming, she stated, met for 20 days one year and 40 days the second year, and Wyoming's bill numbers were down to 404 on the even year and 745 on the odd year.

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, spoke in favor of AJR 11.  She noted Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens had in years past opposed annual sessions legislation because of reservations as to whether the sessions would be limited to the length of time specified.  AJR 11 solved that problem, she added, by placing a provision in the constitution where any action taken after the 60 day or 90 day period would be void.  As long as the provision stayed in the legislation, Ms. Lusk felt comfortable her organization would support AJR 11, and she felt AJR 11 would streamline and improve the process of state government for the legislature and for the people of Nevada.

 

AB 150      Requires synopsis of each bill drafted for legislature.

 

Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, prime sponsor of AB 150, testified AB 150 attempted to define legislative intent.  After legislation had been written, she contended, someone else reinterpreted the interpretation of the legislators' interpretation during the session.  Groups of people went back through the process the legislators already had gone through in hearings during the session.  "After legislature leaves, regulations are established," she pointed out and continued, "It is very difficult because we don't get contacted as a general rule as to the intent of this language."

 

She reiterated the bill attempted to define legislative intent.  She felt if legislators could more succinctly place into law the sponsor's intent, it would assist in the interim and would give legislators a reference point when they convened.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani had one suggestion on AB 150.  Under Section 1, Line 3, she quoted, "The legislative counsel and the sponsor shall prepare a synopsis...".  Ms. Giunchigliani felt the sponsor of the bill should guide the language, and added if the committee was open to amendments, she would make that suggestion.

 

Mrs. Williams believed all members of the committee at some time had bills drafted, and after reading the bills, discovered the bills were not what the legislators intended. 

 

At this point in Ms. Giunchigliani's testimony, Mr. Dini asked Ms. Giunchigliani if another synopsis would have to be made when a bill was amended.  He next questioned how a new synopsis would affect staffing.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered if the amendment would not substantially change the intent, she would not want staff to go through it again.  Mr. Dini then advised when a bill was amended and the original intent was added to and changed, a final synopsis to the original intent would be required.

 

Mrs. Williams then stated she believed AB 150 was an initial explanation.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered it was an initial explanation.  However, she felt AB 150 went beyond an initial explanation.  She continued if an initial synopsis was given and upon the passage of the bill, intent was noted, if the intent was different from the original synopsis, then, as Mr. Dini said, a final synopsis to the original intent might be required.

 

Mr. Dini concluded if AB 150 would be used as a way of tracking legislative intent, a follow up for major amendments would be necessary.

 

Mr. John R. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, believed the basis was initial submission only and stated he would get back to Ms. Giunchigliani if it was not.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani related the fiscal note required a commentary for each section of every bill.  She believed the bill might be more cumbersome than it needed to be, and she said if the committee would like, she would get with Mr. Crossley and put clarifying language together.  She reiterated intent was to keep AB 150 simple.  She wanted to see something which noted legislative intent when legislation was passed so there were no reinterpretations of the interpretations.

 

Mr. Porter addressed Ms. Giunchigliani and reminded the committee the only body which had to grapple with what the committee meant was the courts because any dispute over what the committee meant would end up in a courtroom somewhere.  He further stated 200 years of case law existed which dealt with statutory construction and rules the court applied to try to determine legislative intent.  Mr. Porter could not envision how legislative intent could be written in the synopsis of a paragraph.  It was difficult to agree on amendments and language of a bill, he continued, and once the language was agreed upon, he could foresee the problem of disagreeing on the intent.  He also pointed out even though individuals would agree on a bill, the words would be interpreted differently, which was a critical point.

 

Mr. Scherer also expressed his concern about having to describe in detail the effect of every section of a bill, especially routine "clean-up" language.  He thought a synopsis of the bill for the public's use would be valuable.  However, committee minutes, he felt, if tailored correctly and if lawyers presented them to the regulatory body, would provide the same kind of source of legislative intent in many cases.  Mr. Scherer thought too many people did not currently avail themselves of this source.

 

Mr. Humke addressed Ms. Giunchigliani and noted his observance of the words "synopsis," "explanation," "purpose" and "commentary."  He asked if these words were different words to describe the same thing, or if Ms. Giunchigliani wanted separate sections of a bill to show a synopsis.  Ms. Giunchigliani answered the words were meant to be the same thing. 

 

Mr. Humke then declared his agreement with Mr. Porter and commented from reading AB 150 and listening to Ms. Giunchigliani's testimony, he understood it was her desire to have an effect on legislative intent.  He asked for clarification of her statement in amended versions of the bill, the synopsis would not have to be done again. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani replied if amendments were not substantive, the synopsis would  not have to be rewritten, but if amendments were totally different, the synopsis would probably have to be looked at.

 

Mr. Humke then expressed his disagreement. 

 

Subsequently, a discussion ensued between Mr. Humke and Ms. Giunchigliani pertaining to bill amendments which would require synopsis changes.  Mr. Humke felt committee work would be stretched out because argument would occur about statutory language and the synopsis.

 

Mr. Garner wondered if the only commentary really needed was a commentary on any proposed part of the bill which changed.  The remainder of the bill would be existing law.  Mr. Garner thought this method would cut down considerably on the amount of work required.

 

At this time, Ms. Giunchigliani asked the committee if a trial of AB 150 would be possible to see how it would work.  She, however, did not wish to create more bureaucratic problems.

 

Mr. Petrak expressed his frustration when many months before legislators came to Carson City, they received   BDR's of all bills, and wished to get information but the legislator's name was not printed on the BDR.  The name on a piece of drafted legislation by the requestor was key, he felt, and asked if the name could be inserted in the synopsis.

 

A discussion ensued between Mr. Petrak and Ms. Giunchigliani

regarding identification of authors of BDR's.

 

Mrs. Williams then explained another bill existed, as there had been every session, to require people to identify themselves when they requested.  She believed a proposal would be submitted in this session that bills listed by committee would have the name of the requestor.  Mrs. Williams acknowledged this was a separate issue, but wished to answer Mr. Petrak's concern.

 

Mrs. Lambert addressed Ms. Giunchigliani and suggested before regulations were passed, the minutes be reviewed on the bill which allowed those regulations to be passed.  Mrs. Lambert also suggested the committee send a specific letter of intent aside from the legislation.  After trying this method in other committees, Mrs. Williams explained, it was found not everybody paid attention to the letters.

 

Mrs. Williams then appointed a subcommittee composed of Mr. Porter, Mrs. Lambert, and Ms. Giunchigliani for AB 150.

 

Ms. Janet Gilbert, League of Women Voters, spoke in favor of AB 150 and stated the purpose of the League was "citizen participation is essential to democracy."  Ms. Gilbert agreed with Assemblyman Petrak and would like to see the names on the bill drafts.

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, spoke in favor of AB 150.  She suggested the statement be expanded to cover each major concept in the bill.  She felt it would be a major benefit to an individual citizen attempting to work with that legislation.  She gave a bill example which she felt was deficient and a bill example which she felt covered all major concepts in the bill from her organization's perspective. 

Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, stated the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce supported the concept of AB 150.  Ms. James revealed frustrations when they tried to determine what was in a bill or what was the intent.  They read the fiscal note and always had concerns about the amount of money which was spent and whether the money accomplished the work.  Ms. James had the impression when LCB was going through the bill, LCB had concerns about whether they could put in the synopsis every single thing within a bill and do it succinctly enough so the bill could be understood without making it even more convoluted.

 

Mr. Porter indicated his support for giving the public more information but admitted he did not know how everyone could agree on something as complicated and critical as the concept of collective intent.

 

Responding to Mr. Porter, Ms. James commented she was not sure more information was wanted in a bill.  Clearer information would be helpful, she noted.  They were not always sure where a bill was going, what the intent was, or why the bill was even brought forward.  She agreed with Mr. Petrak if the requestor of the bill was known and the original problem was known, the bill might be better understood.

 

Mrs. Williams stated a letter from Common Cause would be entered into the record. (Exhibit D)  She stated the letter was from Ms. Armstrong supporting AJR 11 and AB 150.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

 

                         RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                      

                         BOBBIE A. MIKESELL, Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

March 2, 1993

Page: 1