MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Sixty-seventh Session
March 9, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:35 p.m., Tuesday, March 9, 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. Susan Haase/Office of Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner
Mr. Robert May/Common Cause
Ms. Bonnie James/Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Marlene Henderson/Registrar of Voters, Washoe County
Mr. Dale Erquiaga/Deputy Secretary of State for Elections
Ms. Bobbie Gang/American Association of University Women, Nevada
Ms. Sherry Schroeder/American Association of University Women, Tahoe, Nevada
Ms. Debbie Cahill/Nevada State Education Association
Dr. Eugene Pasloff/State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Ms. Carole Gribble/Sex Equity Consultant, Nevada Department of Education
Ms. Joyce Peirce/Business and Professional Women
Ms. Carolyne Edwards/Legislative Representative for Clark County School District
Dr. Lois Tarkanian/Member Clark County School Board
Mrs. Williams asked that Mr. Sader be marked excused from the meeting.
SJR 7 of the
66th Session: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require open meetings of legislature and its committees, except meetings to consider certain personnel matters.
Ms. Susan Haase testified for Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner in favor of SJR 7. See (Exhibit C).
Mrs. Williams felt members of the committee agreed with SJR 7. Senator Adler had a conflict with another committee, Mrs. Williams conveyed. However, she felt the committee was aware of Senator Adler's views on this matter.
Mr. Price asked if Senate in recent years had any executive sessions. Mr. Dini replied in history no executive session had been held.
Mr. Robert May, member of the Common Cause board representing Common Cause, spoke in favor of SJR 7. See (Exhibit D).
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS ON SJR 7.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS EXCUSED.
AB 105: Revises definition of "candidate" in statutes relating to ethics in government.
Mrs. Williams submitted an Amendment to AB 105 requested by Secretary of State. See (Exhibit E).
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 105.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS EXCUSED.
AB 202: REQUIRES IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE ON WEEKLY LIST OF BILL DRAFT REQUESTS OF NAME OF LEGISLATOR WHO REQUESTS PREPARATION OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURE.
Mrs. Williams announced AB 202 had been heard by committee recently, and noted the committee's familiarity with the bill. AB 202 had been passed several sessions, she affirmed.
Mr. Price spoke in favor of AB 202 and submitted copies of newspaper editorials which appeared in 1993. See (Exhibit F). AB 202 was a result of a movement in Nevada and the United States to make government more open, he remarked.
Mr. Humke confirmed with Mr. Price AB 202 was the exact bill submitted two years ago. In response, Mr. Price pointed out the name of the legislator who sponsored the bill was at present automatically published when the bill was introduced.
Mr. Robert May, member of the Common Cause board representing Common Cause, spoke in favor of AB 202. See (Exhibit G). Mrs. Williams conveyed the committee's long-time agreement with Mr. May's views.
Mr. Humke asked Mr. Price if it was possible to identify other requestors of bill drafts such as agencies, and Mr. Price believed agencies were identified now. Mr. Dini then said the list showed administration (agents).
Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of AB 202. She felt it was important for a person to be able to contact a legislator to discover the reason a bill was written. Ms. James commented AB 150 would put a synopsis in bills so the bills could be better understood. She paraphrased Assemblyman Porter written material was a matter of interpretation by the person reading the printed word.
ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS ON AB 202.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS EXCUSED.
AB 214: Eliminates provision establishing different date for close of voter registration in certain counties.
Mrs. Williams told the committee no action would be taken on AB 214. No difficulties had been apparent, she proclaimed, but telephone calls objecting to AB 214 had been received by her office. The committee would get more information, she related, before considering AB 214.
Ms. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, spoke in favor of AB 214. See (Exhibit H). Ms. Henderson discussed her work schedule and related she would like to see the close of registration 30 days prior to an election.
Referring to the upcoming municipal election in Reno and acknowledging the cost of municipal elections was a little less than a full county election, Mrs. Lambert asked Ms. Henderson for an estimate of overtime cost if registration deadline was not changed. Mrs. Henderson did not have an estimate, but stated overtime would be necessary for sample ballot labels, roster books, for the company which printed sample ballots, and for the direct mail service company which labeled sample ballots. The aforementioned areas accounted for the largest increase in expenditures in the 1992 election.
Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary of State for Elections, spoke on behalf of Secretary of State Cheryl Lau. He testified for the record, Secretary of State Cheryl Lau supported AB 214 for two reasons: Nevada needed a standard close of registration date throughout the state, and Nevada needed the close of registration date to be 30 days before election. He quoted Ms. Henderson when he said Nevada had a 30 day residency requirement for eligibility to vote. For those who registered to vote after 30 days, the clerk had no proof the registrants had resided in the county for 30 days. The registrants could be ineligible voters. All the counties expressed a need for the 30 day requirement to the Secretary of State and asked the close of registration be restored to standard 30 days throughout the state, Mr. Erquiaga proclaimed.
Mr. Price, Vice Chairman of the Committee on Elections and Procedures, then took the gavel and stated three members of the committee, including the Chairman, had temporarily absented themselves for another hearing.
ACR 23: Urges state board of education, board of regents and boards of trustees of school districts to end gender bias in educational system.
Assemblyman Christina R. Giunchigliani, District No. 9, began her presentation from prepared text. See (Exhibit I).
Assemblyman Evans announced her support of ACR 23.
Mr. Scherer declared his support of the concept of ending gender bias in the educational system. However, he contended ACR 23 focused on gender bias against females. Mr. Scherer felt ACR 23 should be gender neutral, and he did not believe the resolution was worded in a gender neutral manner.
Ms. Giunchigliani agreed it was not and stated ACR 23 was focused on girls because gender bias was the study which was done due to its prevalence in classrooms. However, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the university, in creating programs or reviewing teacher education programs, should have the gender neutral component or reverse discrimination would be created. A focus on children, not on sex or race, was needed to be woven into ACR 23, she pronounced.
Ms. Giunchigliani then stated, as a parent, Affirmative Action Programs were dealt with. Not enough males were in education especially at the elementary level, she advised, and as a result, role modeling was disappearing. She could ask the State Board of Education or the Standards Commission when they craft preparation programs, to eliminate bias.
Ms. Bobbie Gang, American Association of University Women, Nevada, spoke in favor of ACR 23. Ms. Gang spoke from the AAUW educational foundation study, "Short Changing Girls Short Changing America." See (Exhibit J).
The study documented the inequities which existed in the school system in relationship to how girls were treated as compared to how boys were treated. Ms. Gang read the last paragraph of Page 2 of (Exhibit J).
Ms. Gang referred to the Nevada AAUW meeting held for one day in Carson City in July 1992 with leaders of industry, business, educators, elected officials and community leaders. The roundtable participants discussed the national study (Exhibit J) and put it into context with Nevada statistics and practices in business and education settings. The roundtable concluded some things needed to be addressed. A second meeting was held in October 1992 in Las Vegas to pursue action needed within Nevada schools, business and social structures to combat gender bias.
Ms. Gang concluded her remarks urging committee support of ACR 23.
Ms. Sherry Schroeder, AAUW Tahoe, Nevada, spoke in favor of ACR 23. Ms. Schroeder also spoke from the aforementioned AAUW study, Exhibit J. She concluded her remarks by stating AAUW was proud of the report which had spawned ACR 23, and AAUW urged the committee to support the resolution.
Next, Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, briefly spoke in favor of ACR 23.
The Chair then recognized Dr. Eugene Pasloff, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The State Board of Education had long recognized gender and racial ethnic bias as a deterrent to quality education, he revealed. Training should be provided to all school personnel, he pronounced. Highest possible academic expectations for all children regardless of gender, race or ethnicity must be established and maintained. He declared ACR 23 provided many excellent suggestions and examples needed as public policy to remove ethnic, gender and racial bias from the schools.
Mr. Garner agreed with Dr. Pasloff bias should be addressed and changed, but he questioned how successful a resolution could be and how realistic it was to achieve the goals if no funds were appropriated for training.
In response to Mr. Garner's query, Dr. Pasloff thought the resolution would be designed to encourage the use of current resources to accomplish as much as possible.
Ms. Cahill added emphasis would be in teacher education and preparation. She believed universities, without too much fiscal impact, could begin to structure courses. Mr. Garner interjected resources were required to accomplish needs, and Ms. Cahill then agreed.
Ms. Carole Gribble, Sex Equity Consultant, Nevada Department of Education, spoke in support of ACR 23. See (Exhibit K). In response to Assemblyman Garner's question regarding funding, Ms. Gribble informed the committee she was paid through Carl Perkins vocational education funds as the sex equity consultant to the State Department of Education for students in public schools, private schools, universities and community colleges. She also noted sex equity-gender equity resource centers and other equity centers had been funded through Carl Perkins monies. Therefore, some funding directed toward gender equity in the schools was available through federal resources, she emphasized.
Ms. Gribble then described the Resource Centers at UNR and UNLV whose purpose was to go into public schools and conduct workshops for teachers, counselors, administrators, parents, and local school boards regarding gender equity.
Addressing Assemblyman Scherer, Ms. Gribble said ACR 23 would let the citizens of Nevada know the Nevada legislature believed in and wanted equity for all students, both girls and boys. She read ACR 23 Page 2, Lines 28, 29 and 30 which related to ending gender bias in the educational system, fostering equitable treatment of students and creating an educational environment which was gender equitable. She concluded her remarks by stating Nevada Department of Education supported gender equity for all students and urged committee support of ACR 23.
Mr. Petrak addressed Ms. Gribble and Dr. Pasloff and stated, "You will see with the passage of this legislation, the entire representation of the state recommends ACR 23." Mr. Petrak then questioned if grants were available from large corporations in the state. He also asked if a pilot program would be in order. With approval of the legislature, both Senate and Assembly, Mr. Petrak believed doors would be opened to obtain grants for pilot projects. Mr. Petrak affirmed his belief ACR 23 was a good piece of literature for use in speaking with executive people throughout the state.
Ms. Gribble agreed and stated the AAUW roundtable was taking this direction. Many members from business and industry in Nevada had expressed the need for legislation to support fairness in this area, and she felt with ACR 23, business and industry would support it with their money.
Mr. Petrak stated the 63 who represented Nevada's 1,300,000 people wanted this legislation.
Mr. Scherer expressed his wholehearted support of the three sections of ACR 23 quoted by Ms. Gribble (Page 2, Lines 28, 29 and 30).
He then read several sections he did not agree with. In Subsection 4, Page 2, Lines 45 through 48, he questioned why girls was referred to instead of children.
Referring to Subsection 5, Page 3, Lines 1 through 3, Mr. Scherer felt teachers should be evaluated on how well children were taught.
In Subsection 16, Page 3, Lines 41 and 42, Mr. Scherer again questioned the use of girls instead of children.
He commented the wording of ACR 23 in the aforementioned sections troubled him. He was 100 percent for equity, he expressed, and said the three sections read by Ms. Gribble (Page 2, Lines 28, 29 and 30) were entirely appropriate; but if the pendulum swung too far in one direction, a backlash would occur in the other direction. Mr. Scherer felt true equity was called for and would not be achieved with gender specific references contained throughout ACR 23.
Mr. Scherer continued he did not know why certain parts were in ACR 23 and illustrated Subsection 27, Page 4, Lines 23, 24 and 25, and Subsection 29, Page 4, Lines 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33.
He agreed Subsection 32, Page 4, Lines 41 through 43, was very positive and excellent.
Ms. Gribble responded and a discussion ensued between Mr. Scherer and Ms. Gribble regarding gender equity and gender bias in the school system, with Mr. Scherer expressing his belief certain provisions of ACR 23 served agendas other than doing away with gender bias.
Ms. Joyce Peirce, Business and Professional Women, spoke in favor of ACR 23. She cited BPW goal was to seek, not just pay equity, but work force equity for working women. Ms. Peirce asked Mr. Scherer what his understanding was of non-traditional employment, and a discussion ensued between Ms. Peirce and Mr. Scherer regarding traditional and nontraditional employment for men and women and associated wages for these jobs. Ms. Peirce concluded her testimony by noting nontraditional jobs would disappear if bias could be eliminated through teachers of school students.
Ms. Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, introduced Dr. Lois Tarkanian, Member, Clark County School Board and stated they were present to support ACR 23 and to recommit the resources of the Clark County School District and its policy and philosophy in regard to gender equity. Dr. Tarkanian then spoke in favor of ACR 23. She felt schools fostered a bias or a nonbias which would be there many years in the future, and she emphasized the need to work with teachers now. Teachers coming into schools were not trained in gender sensitivity, she told the committee. Dr. Tarkanian cited her own experiences and emphasized the importance of beginning training at an early age.
Mr. Price stated no action would be taken on ACR 23.
ACR 24 Commends Clark County Housing Authority on 50th anniversary.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO ADOPT ACR 24.
ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER WAS EXCUSED. ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER, DINI, AND WILLIAMS WERE ABSENT FOR VOTING.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BOBBIE A. MIKESELL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures
March 9, 1993
Page: 1