MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 20, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:37 p.m., Thursday, May 20, 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. Robert M. Sader

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Scott Scherer   (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Louis A. Toomin, District No. 15

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

      Mr. Gary Crews/Legislative Auditor

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose

      Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association

      Ms. Heather Shaffer/Legislative Intern, Sixty-seventh Session, and Student, University of Nevada Reno

 

 

 

 

 

 

AJR 30:     Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that certain proceedings of commission on judicial discipline be open and public.

 

Chairman Williams recognized Chief Justice Bob Rose, Nevada Supreme Court, who spoke for himself because the Court had not been polled for their position, as a proponent of AJR 30.  Chief Justice Rose felt adding the additional ground of reprimanding a judicial officer and stating in the constitution that after probable cause determination was made, all proceedings would be open and public was a positive move for the judiciary and the public.  He explained it was stated in general terms in the adopted rules, but putting it in the constitution and making it unequivocal should be done.  He had no reservations about making all matters public once a probable cause determination had been made.

 

Mrs. Evans asked Chief Justice Rose for his definition of reprimand and how it differed from censure.

 

Responding to Mrs. Evans' inquiry, Chief Justice Rose declared beyond the degree of reproach he did not know.  The court had not defined the rules, he stated, and reprimand and censure were given their common and ordinary meaning.  Censure was a stronger word and addressed more reprehensible conduct than reprimand, but the words to some degree overlapped.

 

When Mrs. Evans asked what censure entailed, Chief Justice Rose stated censure was a public statement that the Board formally censured someone.  A public letter of reprimand would be a softer rebuke.  Censure had a connotation of serious wrong-doing. 

 

Mrs. Evans emphasized a public statement meant censure would not be a private hearing and the public would know, and Chief Justice Rose confirmed her statement.

 

A letter from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline in support of AJR 30 was brought to the attention of the committee by Chairman Williams. 

 

Mrs. Williams conveyed her understanding the censure of someone could be public but not the reasons for censure.  She added hearings had not been open.  According to AJR 30, upon finding of probable cause, hearings and subject matter would be open to the public, and Mrs. Williams asked Chief Justice Rose if this was unlike what had happened in the past.  Chief Justice Rose replied he did not know.

 

Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in support of AJR 30.  Mr. Dennis Myers, Society for Professional Journalists, could not attend the meeting, she stated, and at the time the Judicial Commission was created and language was enacted, the press objected to the court being allowed to make rules governing the opening.  At that time, the court and someone who represented the judicial commission promised everyone all meetings would be open and they would make such rules providing for open meetings.

 

Ms. Engleman continued her testimony and proclaimed, according to Mr. Myers, only three or four meetings had been open over the years.  While Nevada Press Association supported AJR 30, their concern was from experience with the commission, once the commission had made determination to reprimand or censure someone, there would be no further meetings and no further actions taken to be opened up.  AJR 30 specified it would be open after the commission had made the determination to do so.

 

Mrs. Williams corrected and said the commission had only made the determination for probable cause to continue on to find out whether or not the commission should reprimand.

 

Ms. Engleman asked if the intent was the final hearing where determination was made would be open and public.

 

Responding to Ms. Engleman, Mrs. Williams felt that was a fair thing to do as people made allegations, and probable cause would have to be ascertained before it could be open to the public.

 

Ms. Engleman recanted a situation which had occurred during last election wherein candidates had filed complaints with the Judicial Commission who would not confirm or deny this information with the press.  In the same situation, the candidates had each informed the press they would agree to have the hearings open in the Judicial Commission if their cases came up prior to the election.  However, the Commission said the Commission rules would not allow for those hearings to be open even though the participants wanted them open.

 

Mrs. Williams expressed her hope AJR 30 would take care of that type of situation.

 

Ms. Heather Shaffer, Legislative Intern, Sixty-seventh Session, and Student, University of Nevada Reno, began her presentation reading from prepared text in support of AJR 30 (Exhibit C).

 

Referencing Ms. Shaffer's testimony, Mrs. Lambert asked for her thoughts on amendments for AJR 30.  Ms. Shaffer was not sure if her concerns would be appropriate for a resolution which would amend the constitution, and pointed out the complainant was not notified when a complaint was in process, and, if disciplinary measures occurred behind closed doors, a complainant might never know what happened.  Ms. Shaffer expanded her explanation stating the general public did not turn in complaints because they either did not know about the Commission or if they did know, they did not believe anything occurred because they never heard back, therefore, the general public never felt a sense of justice. 

 

Mrs. Lambert asked Ms. Shaffer if she thought the new language

would require the results to be open.  Ms. Shaffer replied only if they continued in the way in which they had up to this point.  She referenced the chart in Exhibit C which showed 24 reprimands which included private and informal contact with jurists which meant the reprimand did not result in censure, removal or retirement.  If something did occur and they felt it was necessary to reprimand the judge, they did not tell the complainant and it never became public.  Therefore, a statement of probable cause was never filed because if it had been filed, then Nevada Supreme Court rules would have stepped in and said everything beyond this point (meaning the reprimand which was to occur) would have had to be open and public.

 

Mrs. Lambert confirmed the constitutional amendment would have no effect on opening up the process.

 

Ms. Schaffer conveyed it would not have an effect on the reprimands, but it would have an effect on the censure and the removal.  Ms. Schaffer declared disciplinary action was supposed to be open because any disciplinary action required the Attorney General's office file a formal statement of charges after which confidentiality ceased.  The reprimands occurred even though reprimand was not provided under the rules, and it was not becoming public, she expounded.

 

Unfortunately AJR 30 addressed "after a finding of probable cause" and did not address whether or not disciplinary actions could be imposed before probable cause.

 

Mrs. Lambert asked if Ms. Schaffer thought AJR 30 would make a difference or did she want the determination to become public.

 

Ms. Schaffer thought it would make a difference because it would open this up after a finding of probable cause, but it was not addressed, she pointed out, that some disciplinary actions were taking place before they got to probable cause.

 

Mrs. Williams agreed with Ms. Schaffer.  She would be very careful about how much detail was put in the constitution since it was easy to put in and hard to take out.  Flexibility should be allowed due to changing times, she advised.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Ms. Schaffer for her thoughts on adding the word "reprimand" in AJR 30 within the constitution, and discussion ensued between Ms. Schaffer and Mrs. Williams concerning "reprimand" as a provision which would make it be open, and Ms. Schaffer thought it would assist.  She did not know whether or not "reprimand" would encompass certain measures of discipline since measures had not been previously applied.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Ms. Schaffer the definition of "reprimand" as defined in the law.  In response she did not believe it had been defined before because "reprimand" had not been in the law.  Mr. Petrak asked if she thought a definition of reprimand in AJR 30 would be a good idea because the committee did not know what reprimand meant.

 

Mr. Erickson stated typically definitions were not placed in the constitution, and counsel would probably advise against it.

 

Ms. Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in favor of AJR 30 stating once probable cause was found, any further hearings should be open and public.

 

Chairman Williams closed the hearing on AJR 30.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS AJR 30.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN DINI, SADER AND SCHERER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the formal hearing and opened Work Session.

 

AB 4:Requires lobbyists to provide additional information in registration statements and monthly reports.

 

Assemblyman Bob Price, District No. 17, and Assemblyman Lou Toomin, District No. 15, appeared before the committee as sponsors of AB 4.  Mr. Price explained proposed amendments to the committee.  He discussed lobbyists' behavior inside the building as a possible amendment, and discussion ensued between Mr. Price and Mrs. Williams which resulted in their agreement the subject probably should be covered in the rules. 

 

Mr. Dini referenced page 3, line 3 and questioned whether a fiscal note had been made.

 

Responding to Mr. Dini, Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, declared any impact would depend upon frequency of the audits or investigations.  Audits would be infrequent it was anticipated, and the impact would therefore be minimal.  Mr. Crews felt, and the Director concurred, this procedure should be started with the Legislative Commission rather than Director of Legislative Counsel Bureau. 

 

Mrs. Lambert referred to page 2, line 27 and asked Mr. Price how he arrived at 10 legislators.  Mr. Price declared this number had no particular meaning, and discussion ensued between Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Price and Mrs. Williams regarding lobbying events attended by legislators and lobbyists' reporting of events attended by a certain number of legislators.  Mr. Price clarified if a big event was held and more than 10 legislators attended, the lobbyist would not have to identify each legislator.  His concern was not the number of legislators listed, but for big events where he felt identification of each attendee was not necessary. 

 

Mr. Erickson questioned Mr. Price regarding events where eight legislators attended and asked if an amount would be attributed to them on a per capita basis based on number of people who attended.  Mr. Price replied it would and explained his reasoning by giving an example of the Air Force Thunderbird luncheon.

 

The Chair recognized Mr. Humke, who asked for clarification from  Mr. Price that he wished to change the concept on page 2, line 28 from invited to those who attended.  Mr. Humke opposed using the number 10 because 9, which was under the number 10, was a quorum of almost every Assembly committee and the totality of every senate committee.  If a lobbyist wanted to have a party in Palm Springs for a Senate committee, it would be exempt, and Mr. Humke felt this was not right.

 

Mr. Price reiterated the actual number of 10 listed on line 27 was not important and stated he used this figure because of the large traditional events given by lobbyists.

 

Mr. Garner questioned Mr. Price on page 3, line 3, subsection 4 the process by which the audits were requested, and asked who set into motion the activities which required the Director of Legislative Counsel Bureau to order an audit.  Responding to Mr. Garner's question, Mr. Price explained his perception was if a lobbyist, a citizen, a legislator or anyone filed a complaint, the Legislative Commission would be involved.

 

Mr. Garner pointed out the language on line 3 specified the Director would authorize the audit, and Mr. Price reflected Mr. Crews' testimony also concerned the Director's authorization of the audit.

 

At this time, Mr. Crews testified there was a suggested revision to the amendment which would omit the Director, and the Commission would make the assignment.  They felt very strongly the Commission, which was an independent body, should be the one to make the determination.  Mr. Garner clarified the request could come from anyone, but rather than go to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, they would go to the Legislative Commission.

 

Mr. Crews expressed suggested language stated the Director could request the Legislative Commission to direct the auditors to perform an audit.  Mr. Garner replied the request to conduct an audit could go directly to the L.C.B. or directly to the Legislative Commission.  Mr. Crews said the Legislative Commission should be involved in the process, and this was not provided for in the Reprint.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Price if a lobbyist could state he had 13 people instead of 9 for dinner and thereby avoid the paperwork of listing names.  Mr. Price said a lobbyist could not legally do so.  Mr. Price further said the easiest way would be for the lobbyist to get separate checks, and discussion ensued between Mr. Petrak and Mr. Price regarding lobbyists' reporting methods under AB 4.

 

The Chair recognized Assemblyman Lou Toomin, District No. 15, a sponsor of AB 4, who stated he was present to support AB 4. 

 

Mrs. Williams reminded the committee this was a work session and asked for comments.

 

Mr. Sader asked if AB 4 would go to Ways and Means.  Mrs. Williams answered Mr. Sader that Mr. Crews anticipated the cost impact would not be significant because of scrutiny by the Commission.

 

Mrs. Lambert pointed out language at the top of page 2 which she felt for more full disclosure should include volunteer services.  The lobbyists would list names of the legislators who received volunteer services by lobbyists.  She noted the services listed at present were for compensation.

 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Williams and Mr. Dini regarding language which would require lobbyists, whether compensated or not compensated, to report names of legislators who received lobbyists' services. 

 

Mr. Humke expressed his opinion in favor of the lobbyist listing in AB 4 names of legislators who received uncompensated services from the lobbyist.

 

Mr. Sader presumed the language was in the bill because some lobbyists had been campaign consultants and run advertising,  and a lot of public criticism of that practice had resulted.

Mr. Sader stated although it might be a legitimate issue, he felt it was not the intent of the legislation and included totally different people with totally different activities.  He expressed his agreement with Mr. Dini that it was difficult to get ethics bills passed when the bills were narrowly drawn.

 

Mr. Petrak interpreted AB 4 was asking for accountability and felt AB 4 was a good first step in the right direction.

 

Mr. Price suggested adding language which would total the average per capita spent for a legislator. 

 

Mr. Humke preferred something which would show his name as not showing up at events since he seldom attended events.  He commented he did not like lists which showed an average.

 

Mr. Dini addressed Mr. Humke stating leadership was expected to attend events and greet everybody.  It was a protocol expected of leadership.  Mr. Humke understood and stated he was sensitive to the other end of the spectrum.

 

Mr. Erickson said AB 4 was presently drafted for reports to identify each legislator on whose behalf more than $50 was spent by one lobbyist in the course of a month.  If a legislator attended several events by one lobbyist, then the legislator's name would appear.  Mr. Price confirmed this was the intent.

 

Mr. Humke reiterated he felt this should also apply to the executive branch as he had stated in the earlier hearing. 

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Humke, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Dini and Mr. Price regarding Mr. Humke's suggestion and his additional suggestion of including all appointed and elected officials and the implications of both suggestions.  Mr. Price concluded the discussion by stating he did not disagree they should be included in reporting, but he felt AB 4 was a good start for lobbyist disclosure.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 4.

 

Mr. Sader offered an amendment on page 2, line 28, to delete the first two words were invited and insert attended; and on page 3, lines 3 and 4, to add a new section to read, "The Legislative Commission may authorize audits or investigations that are proper and necessary to verify compliance."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER AND SCHERER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Erickson to obtain the amendments.

 

AB 104:     Requires that candidate for nonpartisan office who receives majority of votes cast for office in primary election be declared elected.

 

Mrs. Williams declared Mr. Porter had to leave the meeting and amendments for AB 104 were not ready.

 

AB 145:     Makes various changes relating to elections.

 

Mr. Sader stated amendments to AB 145 would be ready May 25 and asked Chairman Williams if a list of proposed amendments in concept form could be submitted for discussion as he would like to discuss the amendments in concept before the amendments were drafted.  Mrs. Williams agreed. 

 

AB 150:     Requires synopsis of each bill drafted for legislature.

 

Mrs. Lambert, a member of the subcommittee, stated the sponsor, Assemblyman Giunchigliani, submitted language to the subcommittee which was not agreeable to the subcommittee.  Mrs. Lambert advised the subcommittee (Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Porter) did not support the bill or the amendments and could not find a way to make the bill work.  She further offered the committee could vote with no recommendations from the subcommittee.

 

Mrs. Williams cited AB 150 was a bill which would result in problems because of a large work load and fiscal note.  Mrs. Lambert then explained reasons she felt the bill was unworkable.

Chairman Williams suggested the committee consider fiscal note impact on Counsel Bureau and the time consideration.  She then asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 150.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SADER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN EVANS, PORTER, PRICE AND SCHERER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

AB 206:     Requires legislative auditor to conduct performance audit of state's program of group health insurance that is provided by committee on benefits through plan of self-insurance.

 

Mr. Dini read the subcommittee's proposed amendment to AB 206 (Exhibit D), and in response to Mr. Sader's question, stated it would go to Ways and Means.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS AB 206.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GARNER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.

      ASSEMBLYMEN EVANS, PORTER, PRICE AND SCHERER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.

 

AB 424:     Provides alternative locations for polling places for challenged voters.

 

Mrs. Williams told the committee Mr. Scherer was excused from the meeting, and, since he was working on amendments for AB 424, the bill would not be discussed.

 

Ms. Leola Armstrong, Common Cause, submitted Exhibit E for the record.

 

 

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

May 20, 1993

Page: 1