MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 25, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:08 a.m. Tuesday, May 25, 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
Mr. Pete Ernaut
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Erin Kenny, Excused.
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator, Division of Purchasing.
SENATE BILL 163 - Establishes general requirements for determining state agency's cost of furnishing service for purpose of awarding contract for provision of that service.
Mr. Tom Tatro, Acting Administrator for Division of Purchasing, indicated he did not have any testimony but would answer any questions regarding SB 163 and Division of Purchasing involvement.
Mr. Bache asked if the bill came from the SCR 2 interim privatization study committee. Mr. Tatro indicated SB 163 was one of the bills from SCR 2 of the 66th session.
As there were no questions and no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on SB 163 and indicated action would be taken in a work session.
Chairman Garner indicated the committee would hold a work session to discuss bills previously heard in committee (Exhibit C).
ASSEMBLY BILL 14 - Makes various changes concerning purchasing by local governments.
Mr. McGaughey stated there was no agreement between the RTC and the local governments. He said the RTC had proposed the bill and recommended it be passed as written.
Mrs. Augustine pointed out on February 8 amendments had been proposed to AB 14.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 14.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. McGaughey handle AB 14 on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 153 - Directs coordination of governmental collection of money and information from business.
Mrs. Segerblom indicated the bill drafters were still working on AB 153.
ASSEMBLY BILLS 172 AND 177 - 181 - Subdivision of land.
Chairman Garner indicated the amendments for the subdivision of land were extensive (Exhibit D) and he wanted to give the committee an opportunity to look them over. He asked Mr. McGaughey to make a report on it and stated no action would be taken until a later date.
Mr. McGaughey pointed out the amendment was the result of combining Assembly Bills 172, 177, 178, 179, 180 and 181 into one bill. He said it also resolved a conflict involved with AB 362. Mr. McGaughey indicated the amendment had been agreed to by all interested parties. He stated he had not had an opportunity to look into the area dealing with the county assessors or treasurers concerning taxes collected from a master parcel to a subdivided parcel but the problem had been resolved and Kim Morgan was writing the amendment for it.
Mrs. Lambert said she had a call from a county assessor the day before wanting to know if he should testify and she had indicated she would express his concerns. She referenced the amendment Mr. McGaughey indicated was being drafted and stated the assessors did not agree with the language the bill drafters had suggested as a compromise.
Mr. McGaughey gave a brief explanation of the amendment.
ASSEMBLY BILL 251 - Changes certain procedures for making local improvements.
Chairman Garner stated there would be no action taken on AB 251 as it was his understanding the chief sponsor of the bill wanted to delay action until the next day.
ASSEMBLY BILL 364 - Makes various changes regarding access to public books and records.
Mr. Bennett reported the subcommittee had met three times on the public records bills. The first two meetings were to hear additional testimony on all five of the bills. He indicated there were several proposed amendments for the bills.
Mr. Bennett introduced and reviewed all portions of the proposed amendment to AB 364 (Exhibit E) excluding Section 3 which he indicated he would go over in detail later.
Mrs. Lambert asked for clarification on the amendment in Section 2, (new) subsection 11, "Can you give me an example, the public/private partnership that comes to mind is the Honey Lake Project where we have a private developer and Washoe County in partnership to bring water to Washoe County. What sort of information would be public and what sort of information would remain private in that situation?"
Mr. Bennett replied if the private entity had other projects in other states, the information relating to those projects would not be related to the referenced project in the partnership with the local government.
Mr. Bennett continued with his review of the amendment.
Discussion ensued on the changes in the amendment.
Mr. Bennett indicated he felt it would be easier to take a motion on the amendment excluding Section 3 and then he would review Section 3 for a separate motion.
Chairman Garner said a motion would be to accept Amendment 498 (Exhibit E) excluding Section 3.
Mr. McGaughey referenced Section 4, subsection 2(g) and thought the word "governmental investigation" was supposed to be changed to "criminal investigation."
Mr. Bennett replied Mrs. Segerblom had made the proposal and she would be introducing the amendment.
Chairman Garner indicated votes would be taken on the acceptance or rejection of amendments first, and after all amendments had been addressed a vote would be taken to amend and do pass the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 364 WITH AMENDMENT 498 EXCLUDING SECTION 3 OF THE AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bache stated for the record he was a teacher and public employee and these bills affected him no differently than any other public employee and he would be voting on them.
Mr. Bennett reviewed Section 3 of Amendment 498 (Exhibit E), indicating it had received a considerable amount of attention and there was considerable difference of opinion regarding the wording and its original development. He said there was much discussion on the supreme court case of Donrey of Nevada v. Bradshaw. Mr. Bennett indicated he had asked Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, for an analysis of the case and its application to AB 364 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Bennett felt the bill as currently written would open certain restricted or closed records to anyone who chose to challenge them. He also thought the intent of the original interim study was to clarify the state's public record statute. Mr. Bennett reminded the committee that there was a proposed resolution for the interim study to review the several hundred exemptions of the confidential records to determine whether they should be maintained, repealed or revised. He felt in the absence of legislative intent a record would be considered open unless otherwise proven differently.
Mr. McGaughey questioned the last two lines of the amendment which read, "unless, ... the general policy in favor of open records is outweighed by an expectation of privacy." and asked who determined the privacy and could it be arbitrarily used anytime someone wanted to keep the records closed.
Mr. Bennett answered it was possible, but it also had to do with individuals or businesses who had provided information to a governmental entity with the understanding of confidentiality.
Further discussion ensued regarding the amendment to Section 3.
Mr. Ernaut voiced his opposition to the amendment.
Chairman Garner called for a vote to amend Section 3 of AB 364.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 364 WITH SECTION 3 OF AMENDMENT 498.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Ernaut, Lambert, McGaughey and Williams opposed. Assemblymen Freeman and Kenny were absent.
Mr. Bennett stated there were additional amendments to be reviewed. He indicated Mrs. Segerblom had an amendment which related to Section 4 (Exhibit G).
Mrs. Segerblom referenced and reviewed the attachment to Exhibit G which had examples of investigations which could be opened if the language, "Unless the investigation has been closed." was not eliminated.
Mr. Ernaut expressed his opposition to the amendment as he felt there would be some rationale for opening investigative records at some point, and he felt this language was too restrictive. He hoped the Senate would be able to examine this area of the bill in greater depth and find some middle ground.
Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Lambert and Mrs. Segerblom discussed the Donrey v. Bradshaw case and whether the case had been open or closed for public record.
Mr. Bennett said with Mrs. Segerblom's amendment plus the bill as amended by Section 3, the case would be considered confidential whether or not the investigation had been closed.
Mrs. Segerblom wondered if anyone would be willing to give testimony in an investigation knowing it might be open for public record.
Mr. Bennett stated this was another area which had considerable debate; the Attorney General's office made a strong case for its position, which was in favor of Mrs. Segerblom's amendment; and Mr. Porter was strongly in favor of leaving the bill as written. Mr. Bennett stressed he had much the same feeling as Mr. Ernaut.
Mrs. Augustine wondered if Mrs. Segerblom would accept the amendment if it was related only to criminal investigations. She felt the key was to protect witnesses from retaliation and intimidation, especially in criminal proceedings. She also thought there could be some "middle of the road" compromise rather than including all government investigations.
Mr. McGaughey stated he was opposed to the amendment under item (g) and he felt the wording should be changed from "governmental" to "criminal" investigations. Mr. McGaughey felt there would come a time when people were entitled to that sort of information.
Chairman Garner said he would take a vote on the amendment as it was written, and if it did not pass would take a vote to amend the amendment by changing "governmental" to "criminal."
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 364 AS STATED IN EXHIBIT G.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED.
********************
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MRS. SEGERBLOM FOR A.B. 364 BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORD "CRIMINAL" IN PLACE OF "GOVERNMENTAL".
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Discussion ensued regarding the changes being made.
Mr. Bennett stated he supported the language as written and felt changing "governmental" to "criminal" would narrow the section. He assumed there was a broader definition of governmental as opposed to criminal.
THE MOTION FAILED. Assemblymen Bache, Bennett, de Braga, Ernaut, Lambert, Segerblom, Williams and Garner opposed.
Mr. Bennett indicated he had one more amendment to bring forth in regard to AB 364 which would add an additional subsection to the end of Section 4 and would read, "A public record must not be disclosed if the information is or has been received by the public service commission of Nevada, its staff or the office of advocate for customers of public utilities under a specific condition limiting its public disclosure and the commission determines that continued nondisclosure is justified." He stated this amendment had been proposed by the utilities and it was his understanding the public service commission and the consumer advocate were in agreement. He said it would relieve a number of concerns regarding the utilities and the public service commission.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AB 364 AS STATED.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblyman Williams opposed.
Mrs. Segerblom indicated she had another amendment she wanted to propose.
Mr. Bennett asked if her amendment dealt with page 2, line 38 regarding the amount of annual and sick leave. Mrs. Segerblom agreed.
Mr. Bennett stated that had been discussed as well as various other information which would be included in subsection 2, defining employment information. He said many concerns had been voiced that this would somehow provide access to reasons for taking sick leave and otherwise open medical information. Mr. Bennett remarked it was his feeling the information regarding annual and sick leave accumulated and number of hours or days taken would be easily handled through payroll records and would in no way divulge reasons for taking leave or medical information. He was not supportive of the amendment.
Mrs. Segerblom stressed she felt a public employee had a right to the sick leave accrued, and if an employee used an excessive amount at any given time, it should be up to the supervisor to handle. She did not feel anyone else should have the right to the knowledge of how much time was taken.
Discussion ensued.
ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MADE A MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 364 TO DELETE LINE 38 ON PAGE 2, SECTION 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Chairman Garner stated all amendments to AB 364 had been considered and he would accept a motion to amend and do pass AB 364.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 364.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Lambert, Ernaut and Williams opposed.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. Bennett handle AB 364 on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 365 - Substitutes civil enforcement of access to public records for criminal penalty.
Mr. Bennett reviewed minor amendments to AB 365 (Exhibit H).
Discussion ensued.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 365.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 366 - Establishes procedures for public inspection of public records.
Mr. Bennett reviewed minor amendments to AB 366 (Exhibit I) including the language, "other electronic means."
Mr. Ernaut referenced Section 5 and asked if there had been discussion about the word "custody" in line 3, as there was a problem with archives actually having custody of records. Mr. Bennett indicated he recalled the discussion but did not think any action was taken in subcommittee to amend.
Further discussion ensued.
Mrs. Augustine indicated she had a notation regarding Section 3, line 3 to allow facilities for making paper copies, abstracts or memoranda as there was a concern that microfiche copies could not be duplicated.
Mr. Bennett stated the subcommittee held extensive discussion on Section 3, both relating to paper copies and defining "readily available" and the subcommittee chose to leave the language as written.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 366.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Augustine proposed to amend the motion to add facilities for making paper copies, abstracts or memorandum of the book or record.
ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO A.B. 366 TO ADD THE WORD "PAPER" IN SECTION 3, LINE 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED.
********************
THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 366 CARRIED. Assemblyman Neighbors was not present for the vote.
ASSEMBLY BILL 367 - Defines "public record" to accommodate various forms in which records are maintained.
Mr. Bennett indicated AB 367 was not considered as it had been drafted by the interim committee as a possible fall-back if there were problems with AB 364. He said it primarily dealt with the definition of "public record" and "governmental entity" and he did not think action needed to be taken at this time.
ASSEMBLY BILL 368 - Requires charges for copies of public records not to exceed cost.
Mr. Bennett reviewed AB 368 indicating there were two points of view on the bill; one side felt the fees charged for copies of public records were a barrier to the public in obtaining records, and the other side was the governmental entities which charged fees depended upon the fees for budget and office expenses. He stated there was considerable concern from the subcommittee but they were unable to come up with a reasonable compromise or middle ground. Mr. Bennett pointed out AB 368 had been amended to delete Sections 5-7 and insert new Section 6 (Exhibit J). Mr. Bennett indicated the Nevada Press Association had written a memo explaining the amendment (Exhibit J).
Mr. Ernaut felt the main reason a compromise was not reached was due to time constraints. He indicated he would like to propose an amendment so the same exemption which applied to the Secretary of State would also apply to local governments, in effect any documents pertaining to elections should be charged in the same manner as charged by the Secretary of State's office.
Extensive discussion among committee members ensued regarding costs of copies, public access to ordinances and all election related documents, and Mr. Ernaut's proposed amendment.
Chairman Garner indicated he would delay action on AB 368 at this time and urged Mr. Ernaut work on language for his proposed amendment.
A letter from Thomas J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities and Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties regarding Assembly Bills 364 through 368 was submitted for the record (Exhibit K).
Chairman Garner called a temporary adjournment at 9:45 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 a.m.
Mr. Bennett indicated he wished to commend and thank the subcommittee which had worked on the public records bills with him.
Chairman Garner wished to recognize the work of members of the subcommittee on the public records bills, particularly Mr. Bennett, who was the chair. He stated he appreciated the work Mr. Bennett had done and felt there was an honest and forthright effort to pass the bills and put them in the best possible form. Chairman Garner commended Mr. Bennett and the subcommittee for all their work. He stressed he realized everyone's concerns on the bills had not been satisfied, but felt a very good job had been done.
Chairman Garner opened the hearing again on AB 368 as it was his understanding Mr. Ernaut's concerns had been answered.
Mr. Ernaut said upon further reflection he realized the bill specifically spelled out and addressed his concern and would move to amend and do pass.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 368.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Hettrick questioned Section 12, stating Mr. Bennett had indicated January 1, 1994 and the amendment read October 1, 1993. He wondered if that would pose a problem as some of the county governments had just passed budgets which might be affected.
Mr. Bennett replied Section 12 indicated Section 7 was effective October 1, 1993 and he assumed the rest of the bill would be effective upon passage and approval.
Chairman Garner stated it would be included in the amendment to be effective January 1, 1994.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. Ernaut handle AB 368 on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 414 - Makes various changes relating to public works projects.
Mrs. Dana Bennett reviewed AB 414, stating there were some concerns expressed by the labor commissioner and there was a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit L).
Chairman Garner felt the intent of AB 414 was to ensure the labor commissioner was doing investigations of unlicensed contractors and the amendment was proposed by a labor group. He thought it was a good amendment and addressed the concerns raised.
Mrs. Lambert questioned if allowing the labor commissioner to assess fines would put a fiscal note on the bill and should it be rereferred to Ways and Means.
Chairman Garner replied that had not been taken into account and he did not recall any discussion relative to a fiscal note. He stated he would not have a problem rereferring to Ways and Means if a fiscal note was involved.
Mr. Hettrick questioned the words "when informed of violations" on page 1, line 3 of the bill, and felt the brackets should be removed. He also stated he had spoken to the original sponsors of AB 414 and they had asked for removal of the language on page 2, lines 13-15 regarding listing of all subcontractors as it would not allow for new subcontractors to be hired.
Extensive discussion ensued.
Mrs. Dana Bennett told the committee at the original hearing there had been a suggestion the brackets be removed from page 1, line 3 and Mr. McDonald had agreed with that suggestion.
Chairman Garner indicated no action would be taken until the language had been straightened out.
ASSEMBLY BILL 468 - Makes various changes relating to powers and composition of board of trustees of consolidated library district.
Mr. Williams stated the amendment to AB 468 (Exhibit M) remained the same and gave a brief review of the situation. He pointed out the consolidated districts had been created by the legislature and amended AB 468 would add accountability to the county commission and city council.
Mr. Bennett indicated in a previous committee meeting he had voiced his concern regarding the wording of the bill, particularly with the approval of the library district budget, and he still had that concern. He stated as far as accountability went, the elected officials appointed the trustees and could choose not to appoint them if the trustees were not doing their job. Mr. Bennett related he had received numerous phone calls and messages from his constituents, all of whom felt the library district and trustees were doing an excellent job and did not want any changes made in the current statute, and he would support his constituents in that regard.
Mr. Bache voiced concern over the word "approval" as he interpreted it as meaning the city council or county commission could amend, delete or change in any manner the library budget, and he felt it would eliminate the need for a library district. He thought allowing the council or commission to have "veto power" would better serve.
Mr. McGaughey stated he still opposed the prior approval by the board with regard to purchases. He stressed the people in his district also wanted the board left alone.
Further discussion ensued.
Chairman Garner requested a motion to amend and do pass AB 468.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 468.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen McGaughey, Bennett and Hettrick opposed.
ASSEMBLY BILL 619 - Provides that statutes governing metropolitan police departments do not prohibit participating political subdivisions from establishing certain units of specialized law enforcement.
Chairman Garner stated a proposed amendment had been introduced on AB 619 (Exhibit N).
As there was no discussion on the bill Chairman Garner entertained a motion to amend and do pass AB 619.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 619.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner requested Mrs. Augustine handle AB 619 on the floor.
SENATE BILL 282 - Expands exemption from requirement that state public works board furnish engineering and architectural services for certain buildings.
Mr. McGaughey indicated there was a proposed amendment to SB 282 (Exhibit O) which Mr. Weaver from State Parks and Mr. Stephens from Public Works Board had agreed on.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 282.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. McGaughey handle SB 282 on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 543 - Allows state public works board, upon request of board of trustees of school district, to waive requirements of submitting certain plans for approval that relate to school buildings.
Chairman Garner briefly reviewed the proposed amendment (Exhibit P) to AB 543 which had been agreed to by Mr. Stephens.
ASSEMBLYMAN MCGAUGHEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 543.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Bache, Lambert and Neighbors opposed.
SENATE BILL 363 - Revises requirements for approval by board of directors of district for control of floods of certain projects, improvements and proposals relating to control of floods.
Mr. McGaughey indicated he would be receiving a report from the city councils as to whether they felt changing the membership of the smaller communities was acceptable.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 53 - Expresses position of Nevada Legislature concerning discrimination in employment and sexual harassment.
Chairman Garner stated his questions regarding third party sexual harassment had been answered to his satisfaction.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 53.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
May 25, 1993
Page: 1