MINUTES OF THE

      ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 7, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Subcommittee on Government Affairs was called to order by Subcommittee Chairman Rick Bennett, at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, May 7, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Subcommittee Chairman

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Pete Ernaut

      Ms. Vivian L. Freeman

      Ms. Gene W. Segerblom

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association

      Melanie Mehan-Crossley, Deputy Attorney General

 

 

 

 

Subcommittee Chairman Bennett announced the committee would only consider various amendments to the bills, but would take no public testimony unless clarification on a bill was needed by a committee member. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 364 -     Makes various changes regarding access to public books and records.

 

Drawing attention to Exhibit C, a proposed amendment to AB 364, the Chairman observed there had been a great deal of discussion regarding personnel files and whether the information within those files should be open or closed.  The controversy surrounded public access and public information as opposed to individual rights to privacy regarding information in the files.  For his part, Mr. Bennett opined those files should be closed and the individual's right to privacy outweighed the public's interest and public access.  He then brought attention to the first amendment shown on Exhibit C and discussed the changes proposed.

 

Ms. Segerblom asked if the language regarding annual and sick leave on page 2, line 38 was to be retained.  In response, Mr. Bennett said he would leave it to the subcommittee members to decide what to leave in the list, what to delete or what to revise.  Ms. Segerblom thought the language dealing with sick and annual leave should be deleted;  however, Mr. Bennett opined it should be left as it appeared.  He believed it had been clearly indicated the amount of annual or sick leave would be public, but the reasons for taking the leave would not be public.  He agreed with Mrs. Segerblom this could cause some problem in record keeping when certain records showed not only the sick leave amount but also the reason for taking the leave.  However, he thought this could be dealt with by revising forms to separate the time taken from the reason for taking the leave.

 

Mrs. Segerblom believed there would be occasions when an individual needed to take a block of sick leave time.  If this was later viewed by someone a question could arise as to the individual's reliability. 

 

Mrs. DeBraga supported retaining the present language.

 

After discussion, Chairman Bennett asked for a vote on the amendment which would place employment files of a governmental entity within a "non-public record" category. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 2, PAGE 2 OF AB 364 BY INSERTING AFTER LINE 26 AN ADDITIONAL SUBPARAGRAPH "(10) ANY RECORD RETAINED IN THE PERSONNEL FILES OF A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      ********

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE IN AB 364, PAGE 2, LINE 38.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

 

The Chairman called for a vote on an amendment on line 27 which would delete "includes but is not limited to" and insert "employee information."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 2, PAGE 2, BY DELETING THE WORDS "INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO" AND INSERTING THE WORD "MEANS" AFTER THE WORDS "EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION" FOLLOWING SUBPARAGRAPH (10).

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)

 

Clarifying, Chairman Bennett noted these amendments would leave the list, (a) through (l), as it was but would clearly indicate the list was limited to only what was shown. 

 

Moving on to a discussion of Section 3, Chairman Bennett said he hoped the committee had taken the time to read the decision in the court case of Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630, 798 P.2d 144 (1990).  He went on to review and discuss the various concerns expressed throughout previous meetings.  In reading the Donrey decision, he said he concluded the court was saying in the absence of legislative intent, a balancing test would be used to determine whether records were to be open or closed.  If Section 4 served to indicate legislative intent that various records should be closed, then he thought Section 3 should not be applied; and only when legislative intent had not been provided should a balancing test be used.

 

Drawing attention to the amendment shown on Exhibit C, Chairman Bennett stated it had not been his intention to delete Section 3, however, the bill drafters thought with the opinions Mr. Bennett was trying to promote, the language in Section 3 was no longer appropriately placed.  In fact, it was thought the language in Section 3 should be moved to Section 4 at the end of the long list of records which would normally be closed. 

 

As to the wording of Section 3, Chairman Bennett clarified this would read, "As to a particular record, the status of which has not been specifically addressed by statute, the general policy in favor of open records is outweighed by a person's expectations of privacy or a justification for non-disclosure based on public policy."  He reiterated he thought the balancing test was used in the absence of legislative intent.  If the Legislature had clearly indicated by statute a record should be confidential and not be disclosed, then it should not be disclosed.  If it was not specifically mentioned by statute it would be considered open unless otherwise determined by the courts there was a good reason why it should be closed.

 

This was discussed by the Subcommittee.

 

Mr. Ernaut said he disagreed with the premise of all the public record bills, AB 364, 365, 366, 367 and 368.  Currently, records were considered open.  He believed the bills served to close certain records which should remain open, and he adamantly opposed deleting the provision which provided a balancing test.

 

In response, Mr. Bennett said while he shared Mr. Ernaut's concern and support for open government and access to public records, he thought over the past 80 years, various statutes and regulations had been written which had reflected genuine and justifiable concern for the confidentiality of certain records.  Part of the study was to propose another study for the interim period which would look at the individual statutes exempting various public records from being disclosed.  It would then be determined whether each one of the exemptions should be withheld, revised or repealed.

 

The Chairman remarked on the great amount of work which had gone into studying the issue.  When they looked at the records currently designated as being confidential and not to be disclosed, he did not believe the subcommittee should open the issue up to the courts by way of Section 3, to decide what should be open and what should be closed.  This was a proper duty of the Legislature, he opined.  Thus, he said he was not necessarily saying some of the statutes should continue in place, but he did think the Legislature should go slowly and leave it to the next interim study and the next legislative session to repeal or keep in place the various statutes and other limitations regarding the closure of records.

 

Mr. Bennett volunteered to ask the bill drafters to draft additional language, but he stated it was clearly his intent to maintain what the policy was for open records as opposed to the expectation of privacy or other justification for non-disclosure. 

 

Mr. Ernaut agreed with Mr. Bennett, but he did not believe this was what the bill said.

 

Legislative Counsel, Kim Morgan, stated she would draft whatever the subcommittee wished.  Clarifying, she said the current state of the bill said the court could balance anything under subsection 2.  Thus, the Legislature would be stating, "You can't disclose it unless the court decides to open it."  This would include anything made confidential by a specific statute.  However, she said, the current state of the law was if the Legislature was silent the court could balance.  She said she had tried to say a record must not be disclosed if the Legislature was silent and the general policy in favor of open records was outweighed by the expectation of privacy or a public policy consideration.

 

Restating, Mr. Bennett said in the absence of Legislative intent the general policy was in favor of open records unless sufficient argument could be made as to why the record should be closed.  Ms. Morgan agreed the language as amended expressed this.  She said they could also add a sentence earlier in one of the sections to state the general policy so it was understood this was a substantive provision.  It would then be clear to the court this was the initial direction.

 

Mr. Ernaut believed the bill should specifically state what items were closed.  The balancing test should address items in the gray area. 

 

Mr. Bennett said he agreed completely; however, he thought the bill muddied the waters somewhat. 

 

After some discussion, Ms. Morgan perceived a desire to change from a "balancing test" to a "presumption."  She surmised what the subcommittee wanted was the concept that once there was a clear list of what they thought should not be closed leaving only the gray area, there would remain a presumption that the record was open and the court could not protect the record unless -- and then the list would be added. 

 

Following discussion, Mr. Bennett suggested if the majority of the subcommittee was in agreement with the general concept, they should let Ms. Morgan work further on the language to state a clear intent in the bill.

 

Discussing amendments for Section 4, the Chairman again drew attention to Exhibit C.  An amendment on page 3, line 13 would delete "except as otherwise provided in Section 3 of this act."  Also in Section 4, page 3, line 17, an addition was proposed which would insert the language, "(2) By a specific statute of this state or a regulation authorized specifically by statute to declare such a restriction."  He noted there had been suggestions to include "regulation" as well as "statute," but he was not comfortable with adding such a broad inclusion of regulation.  Ms. Morgan explained this more fully and discussion followed.

 

Ms. Morgan stated it appeared if the Legislature had currently specified what a regulation could do to close a record, then those regulations would remain valid.  However, if the regulation closing some health record, for instance, was simply under the auspices of the Health Department or the Board of Health's authority to adopt necessary regulations, those would fail. 

 

Mr. Ernaut was concerned as to which entities would be empowered to make decisions for open records.  Ms. Morgan pointed out this list was stated in their legislative interim study booklet on the subject of public records, Bulletin No. 93-9.

 

Mr. Ernaut believed the decision regarding Section 4 should be postponed pending work by an interim study.  Mr. Bennett asked if it was Mr. Ernaut's wish to leave it as stated by specific statute of Nevada.  Mr. Ernaut agreed and opined they could come back and amend it during the 1995 Session.  Ultimately, he said, he would rather err towards open records than to err toward closed records. 

 

Following further discussion, there was general agreement to stay with the language in the proposed amendment in Exhibit C.  This was a middle ground, Ms. Morgan stated. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDED LANGUAGE SHOWN ON PAGE 6 OF EXHIBIT C, "(2) BY A SPECIFIC STATUTE OF THIS STATE OR A REGULATION AUTHORIZED SPECIFICALLY BY STATUTE TO DECLARE SUCH A RESTRICTION."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Moving on to a discussion of Section 4, page 3, and the deletion of lines 22 and 23, Chairman Bennett clarified the language would read, ". . .evaluation or similar data, unless the disclosure is in statistical form which does not associate the information with the identification of a particular person." 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 3, LINES 22 AND 23 WITH LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD READ, ". . .DATA, UNLESS THE DISCLOSURE IS IN STATISTICAL FORM WHICH DOES NOT ASSOCIATE THE INFORMATION WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR PERSON."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Continuing, Chairman Bennett stated language on page 3, lines 24-29 dealt with personnel files.  While it was not listed on the proposed amendment, if the subcommittee accepted the amendment withdrawing personnel files from Section 4 and indicating they were not a public record, subsection (c) would be deleted.  The remainder of the proposed amendment merely changed the lettering of the paragraphs.  As indicated earlier, Chairman Bennett remarked, the last proposed amendment to (p) as shown on page 2 of Exhibit C had to do with the balancing test; and it had been decided this concept would be restudied by an interim committee.

 

Mrs. Freeman proposed another amendment to AB 364 attached hereto as Exhibit D.  This amendment reflected earlier concerns expressed by Mrs. Freeman having to do with public/private partnerships and language proposed by the Attorney General's Office.  Particularly in Washoe and Clark counties, Mrs. Freeman said, there were examples of public/private partnerships.  It was important on one hand for the public to have access to information, but the private entity also needed protection for their business interests.

 

The Chairman observed there had been a number of similar amendments suggested.  If, in fact, they clarified Section 4 by stating that records would not be disclosed if the statutes specifically stated they should not be disclosed, many concerns would be addressed.  Chairman Bennett questioned Ms. Morgan whether Mrs. Freeman's proposal would also be covered by statute.

 

Responding, Ms. Morgan deferred to the Attorney General's Office to clarify specifically what they had in mind.  She thought if the Legislature made it impossible to balance out of the statute, they would have to see whether there were additional holes that needed to be filled.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked Ms. Morgan whether the terms seen in the section, "directly" and "substantially" were common legal terms.  Ms. Morgan observed this was not her language and she preferred tightening the wording somewhat.  She acknowledged there would be a point at which some judgment call would need to be made and some words would have to be used to address this, but whether they could tighten it up would remain to be seen.

 

Acknowledging his support of public/private enterprise, Mr. Ernaut said nevertheless, as a contest between a list and the amendment on Exhibit D, he would be more comfortable with a list.  Ms. Morgan said she would work with the Attorney General's Office to tighten the language.

 

Chairman Bennett invited Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, to come forward to address the language of the amendment.  Assistant Attorney General Nielsen agreed the language could and should probably be tightened up.  The words "substantially" and "directly" were common legal terms which were generally understood and in this instance would refer to a direct connection to the public business.  Obviously, she said, someone could not reach into the records of a private company on things that company was doing in another part of the world which had nothing to do with what was going on in Nevada.  Assistant Attorney General Nielsen said she would be happy to work with Ms. Morgan in adopting tighter language.

 

Assistant Attorney General Nielsen said by the language in Exhibit D they were trying to say there was a right to privacy for the business interest; yet at the same time, the public had a right to access those things which directly affected what the company was doing for the public.

 

Chairman Bennett supported Mrs. Freeman's request for Assistant Attorney General Nielsen and Ms. Morgan to work together to develop more appropriate language.

 

Another amendment to page 3, lines 37 and 38, proposed by the Attorney General's Office, would delete the words, "unless the investigation had been closed." 

 

Chairman Bennett indicated he had read and considered the case presented by the Attorney General's Office and Mr. Porter (who chaired the interim study committee), and he was not swayed to the extent he was prepared to support changing the language relating to investigation, court cases, etc.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 365 -     Substitutes civil enforcement of access to public records for criminal penalty.

 

Two sections had received comments, Chairman Bennett noted.  In Section 2 there had been considerable discussion regarding the recovery of costs and attorneys' fees.  As currently written, if the requester prevailed, he was entitled to recover his costs

 

and attorneys' fees in the proceeding, from the agency whose officer had custody of the record. 

 

Chairman Bennett also recalled there had been discussion regarding whether the agency should also be able to recover the costs and attorneys' fees associated with the action, if the agency prevailed.  The primary argument against the agency recovery, was this would restrict people from going to court to try to gain access to certain closed records.  As AB 364 was written, Chairman Bennett stated there was a large gray area presented which would lead to increased litigation.  Limiting some of the gray areas in AB 364 would somewhat alleviate the number of suits which might be brought regarding access to records.

 

Chairman Bennett said he was of a mind to leave the language as it was written except to add the word "reasonable" before the words "attorney's fees." 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO INSERT THE WORD REASONABLE ON PAGE 1, SECTION 2, LINE 8, MAKING THE LANGUAGE READ ". . . COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Discussing Section 3, Chairman Bennett reminded the subcommittee there had been some testimony having to do with expanding the "public officer or employee" to also state, "governmental entity."  After discussing this with the bill drafters, they believed the words "And his employer" could be inserted making the language read, "A public officer or employee and his employer who act in good faith in disclosing or refusing to disclose information is immune from liability for damages either to the requester or to the person whom the information concerns."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO INCLUDE THE WORDS "AND HIS EMPLOYER" ON PAGE 1, SECTION 3, LINE 11.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked to have the word "malfeasance" defined.  She said earlier testimony had suggested when a person was unable to get information, there needed to be some definition given to the word "malfeasance."  Dennis Neilander, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Analyst, came forward to clarify.  Mr. Neilander said a number of options had been put forward and one was related to the notion of malfeasance.  This was for a civil penalty to be imposed on a public employee who acted in bad faith.  Although some states had taken this approach, Mr. Neilander said the Nevada subcommittee had rejected the approach, deciding a civil penalty would not be appropriate.  Additionally, the misdemeanor penalty would possibly prove unconstitutional because there was no definition of public record.  The subcommittee had finally approved the allowance for expedited process. 

 

Mr. Neilander told the committee the operative language in Section 3 was a "good faith" standard.  If, indeed, there was a lack of good faith shown on the part of a public employee, NRS 41, which addressed discretionary acts, would take force.

 

Recapping, Chairman Bennett indicated the rest of AB 365 would remain as written.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 366 -     Establishes procedures for public inspection of public records.

 

Chairman Bennett drew attention to Section 2.  Concerns had been expressed regarding the language on line 5 regarding the words, "or other electronic means."  Primarily, the interim study had assumed this to mean a FAX machine.  If this, indeed, was the intent, Chairman Bennett suggested deleting the words, "other electronic means," and stating, "facsimile machine, if available."  (See Exhibit E.)

 

Mr. Ernaut thought the Chairman's language was too narrow and the present language of the bill was too broad.  Discussion followed. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN EXHIBIT E.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Following a short break, Chairman Bennett resumed discussion on AB 366, Section 3.  Reviewing, the Chairman said he had heard concerns regarding the problems for state or local offices in ensuring that a requester had reasonable access to facilities to make copies, abstracts, etc.  Also, there had been concern regarding what "readily available or retrievable" meant.  He brought attention to Exhibit E, which indicated the deletion of the words "readily available or retrievable" on page 1, lines 21 and 22, and insertion of the words, "produced in the normal course of his duties."  Chairman Bennett opined the words "produced in the normal course of his duties" better represented the original intent.

 

Mrs. Freeman noted Mr. Isaeff had judged this language to be too broad.  Mrs. Freeman, Mrs. DeBraga and Chairman Bennett discussed the concept.  Finally, Chairman Bennett said if the subcommittee wanted to give this amendment further thought to devise other language, he was agreeable. 

 

Mrs. DeBraga and Mrs. Segerblom both thought the language should reflect "if the material was available or retrievable and could be produced in the normal course of his duties."

 

Referring to the amendment proposed in Exhibit E, Dana Bennett, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Analyst, said the way the amendment was worded and placed into paragraph 3 on page 1, lines 20-22, it referred to the information, not the compilation or the summary.  Thus, if the subcommittee wanted to say the compilation or the summary was what should be provided if readily available and normally produced under the duties of that person, then an additional amendment would need to be made in the language.

 

Mr. Bennett suggested this be further worked on.

 

Referring to Section 6, Chairman Bennett asked if the subcommittee thought the time frame was reasonable or whether they wanted to shorten or expand the period.  Mrs. Segerblom replied she would like to see this amended to 20 working days rather than 13.

 

Mr. Ernaut believed it should remain at 13 working days; and Chairman Bennett stated a desire to see it changed to 15 working days which would be inclusive of the three days.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINES 19 AND 29 TO READ 20 WORKING DAYS RATHER THAN 13 WORKING DAYS.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

 

      ********

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 2, LINES 19 AND 29 TO READ 15 WORKING DAYS RATHER THAN 13 WORKING DAYS.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.)

 

Mr. Ernaut proposed an amendment to Section 6, line 32, which would read,  ". . . unusual circumstances include, but are not limited to:".

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND LANGUAGE IN SECTION 6, LINE 32 TO READ, ". . . UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:".

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Bennett noted there had been some suggestions for amended language in Section 7, page 3, lines 5-9; however, the bill drafters had opined the bill as written which said, ". . .pursuant to NRS 41.031. . ." was the appropriate statute.  As to also changing the wording on line 7 from "officer knew at the time. . ." to "officer knew, or should have known at the time. . ." he believed the bill should be left as written.  Agreement was expressed by the other subcommittee members.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 367 -     Defines "public record" to accommodate various forms in which records are maintained.

 

The Chairman said AB 367 had been created as a back-up just in case AB 364 did not pass.  It did appear AB 364 would pass, so Mr. Bennett said they would not take the time to discuss AB 367.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 368 -     Requires charges for copies of public records not to exceed cost.

 

 

Reviewing, Chairman Bennett said this bill had to do with the fees charged to the public for copies.  He discussed previous testimony dealing with the pros and cons of certain charges.  The one side of the issue was posed by local governments who covered many of their operating expenses with revenue produced by copying fees.  Alternatively, there was the possibility large fees would restrict access to individuals.  In considering the various requests, Chairman Bennett said while he understood both sides of the argument, he had been unable to devise compromising language which would lessen the budgetary burden while making sure the public had access and the cost of copies was not a barrier to that access.  He asked for suggestions.

 

Mr. Ernaut saw the greatest problem lying in access to all the materials having to do with elections.  He said it had not been the intent of the study committee to hamstring the Secretary of State's Office in its fees, but nonetheless, he believed as a matter of policy, election records should be exempt from restrictive costs.

 

Mrs. DeBraga did not think there was a problem just with election records.  She believed this affected other public offices.  Chairman Bennett asked how they were to define those particular ordinances, notices, etc., which should be free or at cost; and by doing so, to indicate that all other copies would be at a reasonable charge.

 

One way or another, Chairman Bennett said, the taxpayer would pay for the copies.  Either the individual taxpayer would have to pay $1.00 a copy, which could be a burden, or if by statute they could only charge the actual supply cost plus depreciation of equipment, revenue being generated by that particular office would be reduced.  If this was the case, the agency would have to return to the Legislature to ask for additional revenue to support that office.  Thus, the question was whether it was more appropriate for the local taxpayer as a group to fund the office or whether it was more appropriate for the individual taxpayer requesting information to pay for it.

 

Mrs. Segerblom pointed out many libraries had documents available which could be copied at $.15/page.

 

The problem was further discussed.

 

Appearing for the Nevada Press Association, Ande Engleman said the study committee had recommended an amendment which would allow the Secretary of State's Office to retain its fee schedule except for election records, where they believed copies should be available to the public at cost.  She predicted when AB 368 reached the Senate there would be a number of amendments offered to clarify and set exact fee schedules, and to make certain kinds of copies available to the public free of charge.

 

Without access to the amendments Ms. Engleman had mentioned, Chairman Bennett said he was basically concerned only with what the subcommittee decided and how the Assembly would amend it.  He suggested perhaps the Senate should inform him of the amendments they would be proposing.

 

The Chairman pointed out there had also been suggestions to phase this in over a period of time to allow the various agencies to rework their budgets.

 

In studying the charges levied in different states, Mrs. Segerblom said Utah charged $2.00/page and Idaho, which Nevada studies had been based on, charged $1.00/page.  She added the Clark County Recorder wished it to be maintained at $1.00/page.

 

Coming forward to clarify, Mr. Neilander pointed out there was an appendix in the subcommittee's report which set forth the formula used by the Idaho Attorney General's Office.  After the Idaho Public Records bill passed, the Attorney General had sent a memorandum to each agency stating the formula necessary to achieve what the statute required.  This formula took into account such things as depreciation of equipment.  The subcommittee, however, had not wanted to mandate the use of the formula.  It had only been included in the report in order to support the concept of state governments using the formula to achieve an actual cost level for photocopying.

 

Mr. Bennett believed the bill should be left as written with the amendment regarding the Secretary of State's Office, and then to take the bill back to the full committee the following week for further discussion and decision.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AB 368 ONLY IN RESPECT TO AN EXEMPTION FOR ELECTION RECORDS IN THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Returning to AB 364, Mrs. Segerblom drew attention to page 3, line 37.  She said she remained concerned regarding the prospect of disclosing information after an investigation had been closed.  She did not think people would testify about such things as child abuse if the information was open once a case was over.  She thought it was important to aid the Attorney General's Office in investigating certain cases.

 

Although Chairman Bennett understood her concern and concerns expressed by the Attorney General's Office, he told Mrs. Segerblom he could see just as good a case to be made in support of making the information available.  He also said he had no problem with her bringing her concerns and the concerns of the Attorney General's Office before the full committee when it considered the bill.

 

Mrs. Freeman pointed out she had heard additional concerns expressed by local law enforcement officers.  She asked for consideration to delete the words, ". . . unless the investigation has been closed" on page 3, lines 37 and 38.

 

Referring to earlier remarks, Mr. Ernaut said he did not think it could be assumed there would be a tremendous run on public records if AB 364 was passed.  Thus, he did not believe it was the crucial issue it appeared to be.

 

Chairman Bennett said although they had not specifically amended AB 364, he believed the intent of the subcommittee was clear regarding the language in Section 3 (page 2, lines 41-44) and its application to Section 4.  He said he would work with the bill drafters to better frame this intent before the bills were returned to the full committee for consideration.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:36 a.m.

 

 

                                          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                 

                                          Iris Bellinger

                                          Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Subcommittee on Government Affairs

Date:  May 7, 1993

Page:  1