MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      January 26, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:32 a.m., Tuesday, January 26, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman

      Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman

      Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mrs. Marcia de Braga

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mrs. Joan A. Lambert

      Mr. James W. McGaughey

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Wendell P. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Dana Bennett

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Secretary of State; Mr. Larry L. Wissbeck, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State; Mr. Ted Wehking, Executive Vice President, Nevada Banker's Association.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 34 -  Revises provisions concerning time in which notice of intention to become candidate for town board must be filed if proposal for town board form of government is submitted to electors for approval.

 

Mr. Dale Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Secretary of State, for the record introduced and read Exhibit C.

 

Mrs. Freeman questioned if the bill was an act relating to unincorporated towns, specifically to town halls.  Mr. Erquiaga agreed it was specific to that form of government which was very limited in the state of Nevada.  Under the law there were only four or five.

 

Mr. McGaughey drew attention to subsection 3, subsection (a), and asked if at a special election, 30 days was adequate time for printing the ballots and campaigning, or should the time be longer.  Mr. Erquiaga stated the counties had no objection to the 30 day time frame.  Steps to prepare initiatives were taken well in advance, therefore, he found it to be adequate unless the county tried to put it on a general election ballot.

 

The hearing on AB 34 was closed with no action taken.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 26 -  Makes various changes relating to notaries public.

 

Mr. Larry L. Wissbeck, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State, and Margie Grode, Notaries Chief, appeared on behalf of Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State.  Mr. Wissbeck stated the bill made minor changes in the language of the bill and explained, specifically, what the changes were.  He reiterated the changes were minor and corrected archaic language.  In addition, he pointed out there had been no major change in the fees, which were first established in 1865, except for adding the jurat at the fee of $1.00 in 1975.  On this basis he felt the fee increases were justified.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked what Section 1, subsection 3, meant.  Mr. Wissbeck replied it pertained to someone who had committed a felony and had his civil rights removed disallowing such a person from becoming a notary.

 

Mr. Garner clarified the language did not apply to someone who had his civil rights restored.  Mr. Wissbeck agreed.

 

Mr. Williams queried what in the performance of the duties of being a notary prompted the change in the language.  He indicated he was concerned about endangering doing "the right thing" by a person who performed the job of notary without having civil rights.

 

Mr. Wissbeck replied a notary who notarizes signatures is performing a legal duty with implications in the justice system.  Therefore, he felt it was important fraud be kept to a minimum and the records be kept straight within the justice system.

 

Mr. Williams continued, "So if a person who has been found guilty of a felony, say for instance shop lifting and he obviously stole an amount which would constitute a felony, if that person was sentenced to 3 years in prison and he served that time, not working as a notary, do you feel that would in some way penalize that person who has already paid back the debt for the crime he committed which has nothing to do with notarizing items.  Taking this away from them, it seems to me they are being penalized for a crime they have not committed yet.  It has nothing to do with the crime they committed in the first place."

 

Mr. Wissbeck explained ex-felons who have not had their civil rights restored should "perhaps" not be dealing in matters which were so important to the justice system.  If a person could have civil rights restored he would be suitable under this law to be a notary.

 

Mr. Williams stated, "It just seems when you say 'perhaps' it means that is a judgment we're making on a person who has already served a crime and paid back a debt for something else, and you are saying 'perhaps' now he can qualify for something totally different."  Mr. Wissbeck's reply was, "I am certainly not going to argue with your logic, sir."

 

For the purpose of clarification, Mrs. Kenny used the illustration of a 16 year old who committed a crime which would "perhaps" later prohibit him permanently from serving as a notary for a mortgage company later in life.  Mr. Wissbeck said the person could go through the formal process of having his civil rights restored.  Mr. McGaughey added there was a process of restoring ones civil rights after one had paid back his debt to society; and if the person was of good character, had led a decent life, and had his civil rights restored, they could then be a notary.  Mr. Wissbeck agreed.

 

Mr. McGaughey then referenced Section 2, the fees.  He felt they reflected a drastic increase and asked a compromise be worked out regarding the fee schedule.  He mentioned the time element to perform the service was not long and it was a service provided by several institutions, rather than a service someone provided to earn a living.  Referencing the current economy, he suggested the fees be revised as he was opposed to them as presented in the bill.

 

Mr. Wissbeck agreed someone in need could find the service available at institutions such as banks or law firms free of charge.  Other organizations such as mailboxes could not go through the expensive procedure of qualifying an employee as a notary and get a return on their investment for less than $5.00. 

Mr. McGaughey then said, "In other words you have crafted into this bill a set of fees specifically designed for all these mailbox places.  If they can't handle the fees then don't become notaries, just let the people go to these other services.  I don't think we should have legislation that is looking out for the financial interest of these mailbox outfits."  Mr. McGaughey concluded by saying an increase was justified but he found the percentages of these increases too high, some up to 500 percent.

 

Chairman Garner pointed out the fees had not been changed since 1865, over 100 years ago, thereby warranting a change and giving an organization a return on its investment.  He also questioned whether the fee for subsequent pages might be too high, but closed his statement by saying he did not have a problem with the fees.

 

Mr. Neighbors mentioned he was a former notary and recognized much of the work had been done as a courtesy, but he wanted to know what the cost was today to become a notary and if the cost had changed since 1865.  Margie Grode replied the last was $35 with the Secretary of State's office, a bond purchase of $100 or more for a surety bond which ranged in price, $15 to the County Clerk's office to file the bond, and a stamp purchase of $20 or more.  Mr. Neighbors asked when the $35 took effect.  Mrs. Grode did not know but said it used to be $25.  Mr. Neighbors said he had a problem with the fees as most of the time the service was provided as a courtesy, as a cost of doing business.

 

Mr. Hettrick asked how long the fees were good for.  Mrs. Grode answered 4 years.  Mr. Hettrick then said the cost per year would be relatively low.  He too disagreed with the fees per page suggesting subsequent pages be lowered as most notary services were provided, again, for free.

 

Mr. Wissbeck pointed out the fees "may be charged," and if so, many of the committee's concerns would be addressed by a free marketplace.  He agreed the signature of a notary was not a tremendously valuable commodity as it was often given away as a cost of doing business, but said if a mailbox business set up a fee of $5.00 and received no business then the pressures of the marketplace might determine what the real fees would be.  The fees were not provided as an absolute value of a notary's service, they only capped it.  Mrs. Augustine agreed, stating the fees were standardized and the language read "may charge."  Mr. Wissbeck then named several neighboring states which had already adopted these fees.

 

Mrs. Freeman noted the difference of the power a notary held in this country versus in Mexico, but she was in opposition to the fee which could be charged per subsequent page using senior citizens as a case in point.  She found an increase justifiable but found these fees too high.

 

Mr. Hettrick again commented on the subsequent page fee, citing a 30 page document.  At $5.00 a page no one would want to give the service away.  A discussion then took place as to whether certification was required for each page or for the first page only.  Mr. Hettrick then stated he had, in the past, had to have each page certified.  His concern was for the person who requested a page by page certification.  He had no problem with the rest of the fees stated in the bill.

 

Mrs. Lambert wanted to know if there was a shortage of notaries in Nevada and if the fees were being raised to encourage more people to become notaries.  Mr. Wissbeck said he knew of no shortage.  Mrs. Grode replied there were 18,000 notaries and no shortage.

 

Mr. Ted Wehking, Executive Vice President, Nevada Banker's Association, representing the commercial banks and savings and loan associations in the state supported AB 26.  One point he wanted to bring out was it was incumbent upon the notary to go through a due diligence before notarization; taking the time to identify the person, stamping signatures and dates, and recording the document.  He, therefore, felt the fees should be raised as shown to offset the current expenses needed to take the time to effect the process.  He too addressed the fact certification was to the lead page only, not to subsequent pages.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked if a person wanted a copy of each page, he would only be charged for the first page.  Mr. Wehking said he was speaking to the certified copy.  It would be $5.00 for the certification process, but there could possibly be a charge for making copies of the document which would be nominal.

 

Mr. McGaughey stated it would probably be misinterpreted.  He suggested most people would think a certified copy would include all the pages within the document and would charge accordingly.  If the first page was the only one to incur charges he proposed it be clarified in the definition.

 

Additionally, Mr. McGaughey referenced the fact banks normally gave the service away as a service to their customers.  Mr. Wehking agreed.  Mr. McGaughey then asked, "Why are you now wanting to increase the fees to this level if you are not going to charge them.  What difference does it make what the fees are if you are giving it away for free?"  Mr. Wehking replied it was commonly known non-customers seeking notary service would stop by because of the convenience of the location.  Mr. McGaughey stated most banks, for free or for a fee, would not notarize a document for a non-customer.  He said he had personally had the experience and felt others had too.  Mr. Wehking replied he was not aware of the problem.  Mr. McGaughey told the committee  he would work on the history of the fees and validate the information.  Again, he suggested a workable compromise.

 

Mr. Neighbors asked if the bank paid all the fees for the individual staffed as the notary and if the bank would keep the revenue too.  Mr. Wehking answered yes.

 

Mrs. Kenny gave her own experience of certifying documents.  She explained in her case each page had to be certified, verifying costs could be staggering, particularly if one was attempting to start a new business. 

 

Mr. Garner closed the hearing on AB 26 without calling for a vote.  In addition he asked Mr. Hettrick to meet with Mr. Wissbeck and the Secretary of State to consider adjustments to the fees and to make proposals for change.  He also suggested it was important to pass the bill as there had been no changes since 1865 and it was necessary to make everything current.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO.13 -   Exempts automobiles used by investigators of securities division of office of secretary of state from requirements of being labeled as property of state and being furnished with distinguishing license plates.

 

Mr. Larry L. Wissbeck, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State, stated the office of the secretary of state had the duty and responsibility to investigate matters regarding securities, it being the only investigatory power in that body.  As securities operations were sometimes approached with an investigator, the ability to do so without revealing it to be an investigatory body and to operate with unmarked vehicles was needed.  He referenced other bodies which were listed in the bill and asked to be added to it.

 

The hearing on AB 13 was closed.  Chairman Garner explained he would call for a vote on AB 34 and AB 13 at the next meeting, January 27, 1993.  Additionally, Mr. Garner requested committee introduction of the following bill draft request:

 

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1291 -  Exempts certain works by general improvement districts from provisions governing licensing and regulation of contractors.

 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF    BDR 54-1291.

 

      MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

Mr. McGaughey instructed the new legislators how to mark their bill books for work sessions and motions with easy referencing,

Mr. Garner reminded everyone not to remove their bill books from the committee room and, lastly, Mrs. Freeman introduced her intern, Nixie Cox.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m.

 

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BETTY WILLS

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Government Affairs

January 26, 1993

Page: 1