MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 13, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:40 p.m., Thursday, May 13, 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

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Gene T. Porter

      Mr. Robert M. Sader

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. (Excused)

      Mr. David E. Humke (Excused)

      Mr. Robert E. Price (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin, District No. 15

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

     

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Dale Erquiaga/office of Secretary of State

      Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association

      Ms. Jan Gilbert/League of Women Voters of Nevada

      Mr. Tom Ray/Deputy Attorney General

      Ms. Nancy Howard/Nevada League of Cities

 

 

 

 

 

AB 528:     Makes various changes relating to campaign contributions and expenditures.

 

Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin, District No. 15, prime sponsor of AB 528, began his presentation by discussing the bill's genesis in 1990 during his election campaign for county commission.  He submitted Exhibit C which began with a definition of a politician and motivated Mr. Toomin to reestablish the credibility of politicians who could be more accountable to the electorate.  His ideas and meetings with the Secretary of State resulted in AB 528 legislation. 

 

AB 528, Mr. Toomin declared, would establish $100 and above as opposed to $500 listing on the form for every expenditure, and would make a loan to the legislator's campaign by the legislator and a repayment of the loan by the legislator, law.  AB 528 would also require the Secretary of State to audit the reports.

 

Reports received by the Secretary of State, Mr. Toomin said, went into a folder, and the folder was filed for approximately six years at which time the information was put on microfilm or sent to archives.

 

Some corporations had umbrella corporations, he explained, and one company gave candidates checks of $500 each which totalled $2500, and which could be reported as one donation.  Under existing law, because the checks were $500 each, they were not listed.

 

He referred to Exhibit C pages with columns and information under "Other."  Present state law did not require any item in the column to be itemized. 

 

Mr. Toomin referred to (Exhibit C) and described how a candidate's loan to himself as a candidate and a repayment of the loan was not a reportable item under existing state law.  Mr. Toomin felt accountability was owed to the electorate, and AB 528 would be a good way to begin.

 

Auditing of campaign reports was done in some states by the office of Secretary of State or a commission.

 

Mr. Toomin referenced a letter he received from Clark County Election Department (Exhibit C) and noted a report, which no one would check, could be submitted to the Election Department with any fictitious amount of money.

 

Mr. Toomin concluded by reiterating he felt accountability was owed to the electorate, and AB 528 would be a good way to begin.

 

Mrs. Williams called attention to the large fiscal note and informed Mr. Toomin if AB 528 was passed, it would have to be rereferred to Ways and Means since $540,000 would be required by office of Secretary of State to monitor AB 528.

 

Mr. Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, confirmed the fiscal note would be prepared by Secretary of State's office because AB 528 would require the Secretary's office to audit forms not currently audited.  AB 528 would require all campaign contribution reports in the state be sent to Secretary of State whose staff of document examiners would examine the reports and prepare a report of their findings.

 

Mrs. Williams asked how many people filed for office, and she assumed AB 528 would mean all offices and anyone elected who received campaign contributions.

 

Mr. Erquiaga noted even those who would not receive contributions were required to file, therefore, it would be everyone who filed for state, county, township or municipal office.  For 17 counties, approximately a thousand documents would have to be reviewed, and the job would run from August until approximately February for even numbered years, the times when legislators were elected.  Then they would begin reviewing city documents typically filed April to August for odd numbered years.  Work would be required almost all the time reviewing documents, subpoenaing records if necessary, or asking the Attorney General to conduct investigations.  Mr. Erquiaga then clarified his use of the word subpoena, and stated the bill would allow Secretary of State to ask for additional documents (bank records) which she would present to the office which would make sure the accounts balanced.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Toomin and Mr. Sader concerning the audit requirement section which had a fiscal note.  Mr. Sader asked Mr. Toomin if Mr. Toomin would want the committee to pass the bill if the committee could only pass the bill with that section amended out.  Mr. Toomin reiterated the bill was not cast in concrete.

 

Mrs. Lambert pointed out when the form was completed by the person running for office, it would be a public document, and anybody could audit it.

 

Mr. Toomin discussed the campaign expenditure form included in Exhibit C which had no other forms attached and nothing to explain where the money was spent.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Toomin if he had history on any other states as to contribution amounts.

 

Mr. Toomin called his attention to the portion of Exhibit C,  entitled, "Option 3 Empowering Enforcement Agencies," and asked Mr. Erquiaga for his comments.

 

Mr. Erquiaga reported state reporting requirements varied.  Louisiana required every dollar received to be reported.  Other states had limits such as $500.

 

Mr. Petrak questioned Mr. Erquiaga regarding the exact amount of money contributed which would be reported on the form provided by the Secretary of State, and Mr. Erquiaga informed Mr. Petrak if the amount was $100, the contributor's name would not appear on the form.

 

Relative to Mr. Sader's earlier comments, Mr. Erquiaga stated Secretary of State Lau realized the budget might not allow audits at this time.  Secretary of State Lau thought an audit was an important function, he said, and she asked the committee not to ask her to audit the reports without additional staff.  She, therefore, would ask the committee if they passed the bill to also pass the fiscal note.  Mr. Erquiaga stated Secretary of State Lau supported the improved definition of contribution given by Mr. Toomin and she strongly endorsed the section which required an itemization of expenditures.  She thought this was also an important addition.  She had always supported a lower reporting threshold of $100.

 

Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in support of AB 528.  Nevada Press Association believed disclosure gave credibility to candidates and more disclosure allowed the public to decide whether they were happy with the candidate in what the candidate did, or unhappy with the candidate in what the candidate did.

 

Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing League of Women Voters of Nevada, stated they had supported lowering disclosure of campaign contributions for many sessions.  She would rather not see the fiscal note on the bill.  She itemized the lines in AB 528 which had $500 and felt they should all be uniform at $100.  She felt reporting should be straightforward and encouraged committee to pass "this type of bill."

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on AB 528.

 

ACR 29:     Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of exemptions to laws governing public records and books.

 

Assemblyman Gene Porter, District No. 8, testified ACR 29 was a recommendation of an interim study which he chaired between July 1, 1991 and 1992.  ACR 90 (of the 66th Session) study was charged with trying to rewrite the 1911 public records law.  The budget covered five hearings, and recommendations were developed as a result of those hearings.  AB 364 (referred to Committee on Government Affairs) defined what was and was not in a public record and what was and was not open for purposes of reworking the 1911 law.  Page 3 of AB 364 specifically dealt with those records currently closed by statute, Mr. Porter said.  Over 100 exceptions to the open public records law were on the books in the state of Nevada.  Mr. Porter stated they did not have the budget or the time to examine each of the 100 exemptions as to which ones should or should not be retained in the statute and which ones should or should not be repealed.  He stated the exemptions had been crafted over 80 years. 

 

Mr. Porter concluded by stating, "This resolution would basically conclude step 2 of the entire public records process, and that is to now go through and examine all the exemptions under statute to see which ones should be retained and which ones should be eliminated".

 

Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, stated her organization supported ACR 29.  She spoke briefly regarding exemptions and pointed out to Mr. Porter over 300 exemptions existed to Nevada's public records law. 

 

Mr. Tom Ray, Deputy Attorney General, read a letter addressed to Committee Chairman Myrna Williams from Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa in support of ACR 29.  See (Exhibit D.) 

 

Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, a proponent of ACR 29, stated she served on the interim committee and in an advisory capacity during the interim and would like to serve again.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on ACR 29 by reminding the committee ACR 29 was a study, and since a limited number of studies were allowed, the committee would wait until all studies were heard and then prioritize them.

 

Reminding Mr. Porter and Mr. Sader no money was available to support the fiscal note, Mrs. Williams asked them to review AB 528 and consider anything which might improve the bill or anything in the bill which might not be achievable.  She suggested more explicit language concerning itemization of the category called Other.  Mrs. Williams stated her concern about Mr. Toomin's statements on loans not being specifically reported and asked that they make sure people would not siphon money from campaign contributions for personal use.  She pointed out everyone probably did itemization for Other, particularly people not experienced in running for office. 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

May 13, 1993

Page: 1