MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 25, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order by Chairman Myrna T. Williams at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 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

      Mrs. Jan Evans

      Mr. Val Z. Garner

      Mr. David E. Humke

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. Robert M. Sader

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

      Mr. Gene T. Porter

      Mr. Scott Scherer

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert Erickson/Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

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

      Mr. Gary Crews/Legislative Auditor

      Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich/Legislative Counsel

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Darrel Daines/Nevada State Controller

      Mr. Robert L. Seale/Nevada State Treasurer

      Dr. Jim Richardson/Nevada Faculty Alliance

 

 

 

 

 

SB 48:      Authorizes constitutional officers and board of regents to submit proposed bill drafts directly to legislative counsel.

 

Mr. Darrel Daines, Nevada State Controller, and Mr. Robert L. Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, attended the meeting in support of SB 48.  Mr. Daines stated Senator Smith sponsored SB 48 because they were not able to introduced the bill through normal procedures.  Mr. Daines referenced Page 2, line 10 which requested board of regents, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state controller or state treasurer be permitted to introduce legislation directly to the legislature without submitting legislation to the governor's representative.

 

Mr. Robert L. Seale, Nevada State Treasurer, stated AB 48 would allow for a more efficient process for legislation which constitutional officers wished to introduced. 

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Seale to explain further his statement that constitutional officers could not introduce legislation.

 

Responding to Mr. Petrak, Mr. Seale discussed the practice of constitutional officers sending proposed legislation to the budget office which would determine whether or not the legislation would be introduced.  Mr. Seale felt constitutional officers had the right to present petitions directly to the legislature where proposed legislation would stand on its own merit rather than have a gubernatorial appointee make the decision as to whether or not the legislation was good.  He went on to say from eight BDR's submitted to the budget office, two survived which, in his opinion, was not proper.  Mr. Seale told the committee he felt SB 48 was good legislation. 

 

Mr. Humke noted the board of regents was included on Page 2, line 11, and asked Mr. Seale if the state school board, which was also elected, asked to be included in the legislation.

 

Mr. Seale understood the first amendment to SB 48 was addition of the board of regents.  The bill was requested to cover the constitutional officers.  Mr. Daines replied he had not heard the state school board had made any request, and Mr. Humke added he felt it was the responsibility of the school board to ask if they wanted to be included.

 

Mrs. Evans confirmed legislation and not budgets was the purpose of SB 48.  She questioned if the six BDR's rejected by the budget office, previously referred to by Mr. Seale, had fiscal notes.  Mr. Seale replied none of the bills had fiscal notes; they concerned items other than budget.  Mr. Seale asked the budget office if the rejected BDR's had a budgetary problem, and he was told there was no budgetary problem.  It was felt by the budget office the legislation he proposed to submit was not something the Governor supported.  However, some of the proposed bills had been introduced and passed both House and Senate and had been signed by the Governor, he declared. 

 

Mrs. Evans clarified under the present arrangement, Mr. Seale's bill drafts could not go forward as his own bill drafts and he had to ask an Assemblyman or Senator to sponsor the legislation rather than let legislation come directly from the Treasurer.

 

Dr. Jim Richardson, representing Nevada Faculty Alliance, testified in support of SB 48.  The board of regents would like the privilege of submitting BDR's directly to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and Nevada Faulty Alliance supported their wish, he declared.  The number of bills would be small, eight or nine this session, and only four were printed.  He thought it was demeaning for a constitutionally established body to find it necessary to seek in other ways introduction of legislation which was voted in an open public meeting where open discussion was held to submit the bills to legislature, and the bills were not presented.

 

Mr. Seale disclosed the Governor had indicated his support of SB 48. 

 

Mr. Price asked if SB 48 would change in any way the rules set with limits in former sessions of how many bills would be taken from administration.

 

Mrs. Lambert referenced ACR 45, submitted from the commission this session for limits on bills and stated a limit on the number of BDR's for each constitutional officer was given on Page 2.  ACR 45 had not been heard, but if it passed, she assumed a limit would be set for the regents as separate from the executive branch.

 

Mr. Crossley stated they were aware of this and were following.

 

Mrs. Williams closed the hearing on SB 48 and opened the hearing on SB 177.

 

SB 177:     Requires legislative auditor to include in audit report certain recommendations concerning programs and services provided by state agency or private contractor.

 

Chairman Williams stated no one was present from the Senate committee regarding SB 177.

 

Assemblyman Joan Lambert, District 29, recognized the legislation came from the interim study on privatization on which she served as a member.  The legislation was a proposal which she had made, and since no one from the Senate was present, Mrs. Lambert wished to testify. 

 

Mrs. Lambert stated SB 177 was a mechanism by which the state could try to find the most efficient way of providing a service, whether the service could be performed more efficiently by a private contractor, or, if a service was being performed by a private contractor, could be performed more efficiently by the state government.  After review of Nevada's legislative audit procedure, Mrs. Lambert stated it was determined Nevada's audit procedure of periodically reviewing state government and finding efficiencies was the best way.  This was the proposal submitted by the interim study.  She asked for favorable consideration of SB 177.  Mrs. Lambert added during the study the legislative auditors were asked if this would be a burden on them, and they said it would not.

 

Mr. Price stated he was not overly supportive of privatization, but he felt a policy matter would normally be handled by a policy body as opposed to a technical item which auditors reviewed.  He questioned if a for-profit organization could be presumed to do something more efficiently.

 

Mrs. Lambert, responding to Mr. Price's comments, discussed the audit staff was accredited for performance audits.  Pointing out lines 14 through 15, she noted the commission could ask for more careful cost analysis and an in-depth review to determine whether or not it was a candidate for privatization or to go from a privatized category into the general government category. She emphasized SB 177 was a mechanism not only to look at areas which might benefit from being privatized but also the reverse.

 

Mrs. Lambert referenced the book, "Reinventing Government," and stated it was not important whether a government entity or a private entity performed the service, but competition for providing the service promoted efficiency.  Monopoly situations promoted complacency, and no worry about the cost or being very efficient.  When competition came into the situation, the entities would look at how to be efficient and how to do the best job with the money available.  SB 177 assured the opportunity for competition, she related.

 

Mrs. Evans referenced Page 1, line 6 the words, legislative auditor determines and questioned if guidelines or criteria existed to assist legislative auditor in determining.  She pointed out effectiveness should be observed in addition to cost and efficiency.

 

Responding to the portion of Mrs. Evans' question pertaining to effectiveness, Mrs. Lambert related more than cost was involved, and discussion was held during the privatization study.  A framework followed after a target area was found.  Many public policy considerations affected the final decision, she said, and they required a lot of review and fairly expensive analysis which was the reason not every agency of state government would have the analysis. 

 

Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, responded to Mrs. Evan's question which related to Page 1, line 6, legislative auditor determines.  Criteria would have to be established for measuring each agency audited, but he felt it was more of an awareness process.  In economy and efficiency type audits, awareness was now a basic objective.  He discussed awareness of potential competition in the private sector and awareness of state contracts awarded to the private sector which might be done more efficiently or cheaper within state government.  His understanding of SB 177 was not an extensive amount of work would be done by the auditors but more of an awareness process where results would be brought to the attention of the Legislative Commission.  The Legislative Commission would determine if further auditing was warranted.

 

Mrs. Williams asked for further testimony on SB 177.  There being no further testimony, she closed the hearing on SB 177.

 

Mrs. Williams then opened the hearing on SB 310.

 

SB 310:     Requires that regulation be received more than 10 working days before meeting of legislative commission for commission to be required to review it at that meeting.

 

Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, testified SB 310 was requested by Legislative Commission as a result of problems over the last few interims.  When an agency adopted a regulation during the interim, it was submitted to Legislative Commission, he explained.  If commission did not meet for 35 days, it was filed unless someone objected in the meantime and then a hearing wa held.  If the commission met within the 35 day period, it was submitted to the commission so long as it was received three or more working days before the meeting, he continued.  Some agencies submitted bills to Legislative Commission four working days before Legislative Commission meeting which made it very difficult to have regulations reviewed.

 

As a result, the commission recommended SB 310 be drafted to change to ten working days which would be two weeks as a general rule before the commission meeting.  Ten working days would allow time to look at the bills, get them to commission members if they would like to see them and have a meaningful review by the commission. 

 

Mr. Price felt even ten days seemed close.   He asked if the commission had considered approving the regulations as opposed to just reviewing them.

 

Mrs. Lambert recalled a Supreme Court decision resulted in losing ability to approve regulations.  Legislators could object to them and then go back to the agency.  The agency could ignore or comply. 

 

Responding to Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Malkiewich gave a history of the district court ruling.  After the district court opinion, however, the statute was amended to take out the legislative veto.  The legislative review rather than approval was now a matter of statute, he said.  He further said the commission's authority was to review the statute, and, if the commission objected either to the authority of the agency to adopt it or the regulation was consistent with the intent of the legislature in granting authority, the commission could still object, but the agency now had the option of saying "file it anyway." 

 

Mr. Malkiewich requested the committee hold SB 310 for possible technical changes.

 

Discussion ensued between Mrs. Williams, Mr. Malkiewich and Mr. Humke regarding review of regulations by legislative commission.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Malkiewich if he referred to Page 2, line 8, and then questioned if 15 days would be better.

 

Mr. Malkiewich told Mr. Petrak the ten day period was the period after the commission had objected.  The change made on Page 1, lines 14 and 15 changed three working days to ten.

 

Mrs. Evans and Mr. Malkiewich discussed time limits for an agency to adopt regulations, and Mr. Malkiewich said nothing compelled the agency to act by a particular time in the absence of a legislative mandate.

 

Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Malkiewich for his opinion regarding insertion of a time certain in all bills, and she further asked what time limit would be reasonable.

 

Mr. Malkiewich replied he would be somewhat concerned with an absolute rule that agencies required to adopt regulations must in each case comply within a certain period.  He qualified this by stating it was something to consider when a program required the regulations be in place in order for the program to function.

 

Mr. Humke gave an example of a bill he sponsored which was passed, but the implementing regulations were delayed by the commission.

 

Regarding SB 310, Mrs. Williams declared the committee would accede to Mr. Malkiewich' request and hold SB 310 for the technical amendments.

 

Regarding SB 48 and SB 177, since so few committee members were present and had not heard the bills, Mrs. Williams stated she would hold the bills for a vote at the next meeting to give members an opportunity to read and review comments.

 

Regarding AB 528, Mr. Sader submitted and explained to the committee basic concepts of the amendment recommended by Mr. Porter and himself.  The concepts were written to give the committee a clear idea, and the bill drafter would draft the language, he said.  Mr. Sader stated he had talked with Mr. Toomin, prime sponsor of AB 528, concerning the concepts of the amendment, and Mr. Toomin expressed he would be pleased to have the bill passed in this form.  After Mr. Sader's explanation, the committee discussed the subcommittee's proposed conceptual amendment to AB 528.  (See Exhibit C.)

 

Regarding AB 145, after discussion, Mrs. Williams gave the committee the proposed conceptual amendment to AB 145, but due to its length and complication, the committee did not discuss the amendment.  (See Exhibit D.)

 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures

May 25, 1993

Page: 1