MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 11, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, February 11, 1993, in Room 207 of the Cashman Field Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, District 39
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Diana Gamble, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Daniel Braisted, Las Vegas, Nevada
Gary Walker, Las Vegas, Nevada
Greg Millspaugh, Las Vegas, Nevada
Anna Dawson, Las Vegas, Nevada
Mona Snape, Las Vegas, Nevada
John Ponticello, Second Vice Chairman, State Democratic Party
Bonnie Rinaldi, Administrator, Clark County Zoning Administration
Stephen Baxter, Planning Department, City of North Las Vegas
Richard Patero, Concerned Citizen
Bill Starkey, President, Sheep Mountain Home Owners Association
Helen Mortenson, Secretary, Spring Valley Town Advisory Board, Clark County
Vicki Demas, State President, Mobile Home Owners League of the Silver State
Carroll Varner, President, Northwest Citizen's Association
Cathy Sadovich, Board of Directors, Northwest Citizen's Association
Anita Lupuy, City of North Las Vegas
David Parks, Chairman, Paradise Town Advisory Board
Kurt Fritsch, Assistant to City Manager, City of Henderson
Robert Wilson, Principal Planner, City of Henderson
Barbara Maher, Concerned Citizen
Norman Standerfer, Director of Planning, City of Las Vegas
John Sherman, Washoe County
Bob Stephen, Mobile Home Tenant
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on election reform.
Lynn Hettrick, Assemblyman, District 39, spoke to the committee on election reform. He explained he was introducing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 24-1139 (Exhibit C), to the assembly, but he accepted an invitation from Senator O'Connell to explain it to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
Bill Draft Request 24-1139: Revises provisions relating to publication and dissemination of campaign material.
He stated the reason for BDR 24-1139 is the current law allows bulk mailings with a disclaimer of the type which states that mailings produced and paid for without the knowledge or participation of any candidate. Mr. Hettrick pointed out this circumvents the intent of the election law in effect now which states any contribution of $500 or more must be disclosed as to the source of the money. The contribution would then appear on the candidate's financial disclosure for contributions and expenses. Mr. Hettrick stated there is a loophole which exists now whereby mailings can be made without having to disclose who it was that sent it and it does not show up on the candidate's financial disclosure statement.
Senator Rhoads asked what the penalty would be for this offense. Mr. Hettrick stated the penalty was a misdemeanor and with this BDR the penalty would be increased to a gross misdemeanor with the right to have civil penalties. After some discussion with the committee, Mr. Hettrick finished his testimony.
Daniel Braisted, Las Vegas, Nevada, spoke on election reform. He told the committee he feels BDR 24-1139 interferes with free speech. Mr. Braisted told the committee the way to deal with this would be to have something on the mailer where the publisher could say, "I saw this, I approve it" or "I disapprove it" or "I abstain." He asked if he were to copy something on his copy machine at work to distribute, would they arrest him for that.
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Council Bureau, addressed the committee with a summary of the testimony previously heard on election reform (Exhibit D).
Senator O'Connell emphasized the public needs a place to go if they have a problem with petitions or recall. Senator Hickey suggested an ombudsman of sorts. Senator O'Connell stated this would answer a lot of the questions testifiers have regarding petitions. She suggested the committee look into this and see what the options are.
After some discussion, Ms. Jenkins continued with her presentation of Exhibit D.
Mr. Braisted told the committee all of the materials affected by this proposal should be clearly marked regarding felony charges for misuse.
Mr. Braisted stated his concern regarding open primaries. Senator O'Connell told the committee they would be considering in committee whether or not there will be an open primary.
Ms. Jenkins continued to explain Exhibit D to the committee. She was explaining the computerized system for elections.
Gary Walker, Concerned Citizen, was asked by Senator O'Connell to explain to the committee the computer system already in use by the election board. He told the committee the tabulation machines are controlled by an IBM compatible computer and they are controlled over the telephone lines to the tabulation equipment.
Greg Millspaugh, Las Vegas, Nevada, told the committee he would like to see the precise language of the bill proposal coming from the secretary of state. He then stated he could prepare, for the committee, written language for the committee to understand the computer system.
Senator Hickey stated he felt it did not matter who wrote the program, but how the system is checked.
Mr. Millspaugh told Senator Hickey he was right, it does not matter who writes the program as long as the source code on the ballots is observable. He suggests a processing review board which recognizes one or two representatives of each political party who have ballot status to check the source codes on the ballots.
Mr. Walker stressed there has been no proven voter fraud with regard to computers, anywhere in the United States. He noted there had been a lot of challenges, but none had been proven.
Senator Nevin asked if this means there is no problem with the computer now. Mr. Millspaugh explained there was something wrong with the computer the way it is now.
Senator Nevin stated he did not want to go overboard on something because of a suspicion and cause an overreaction.
Mr. Millspaugh stated there is a possibility they would be spending public funds in a matter of reaction, but he stated the amount of funds would be far less than what would have to be done to send out postcards, first class, to all of the perspective people who might be deceased. He explained once the computer system is set up as a tabular program which can then be modified to tables to insert new candidates names in each subcommittee election, which would be a one-time expense and after that the tables just have to be reset.
Senator Nevin asked if all of the counties had the money to convert to this new computer system, since we can not just change Clark County's system.
Mr. Millspaugh stated the program would only have to be written once and he explained there is no reason the basic source code could not be used in every single county.
Senator O'Connell told the committee, from the testimony heard on Tuesday, something definitely needs to be done.
Senator Lowden told the committee she wanted to clarify what she thought Senator Nevin was saying. She explained he is from northern Nevada and there does not seem to be a problem with the elections in his area, therefore, he was wondering why we needed a statewide bill which would cost money to counties which are not having election problems.
Caren Jenkins continued with her explanation of Exhibit D. Ms. Jenkins read to the committee the part of the exhibit regarding minor parties. She called attention to the fact members of the minor parties are not allowed to work at polling places.
Senator Lowden asked if there was anyone in the room who would like to speak on that subject.
Mona Snape, Las Vegas, Nevada, stated she is not a member of the Libertarian Party, however, she is familiar with the group. She presented the committee with some proposals, see Exhibit E. She explained the election department decides who they are going to appoint, well in advance of the election and what has happened is people they usually hire are persons from major political parties so the minor parties are not informed.
Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. Snape was saying there should be designated descriptions as to who will serve on the boards, which should include all parties including independents. Ms. Snape agreed this was the solution to that particular problem.
Caren Jenkins again began to outline Exhibit D to the committee.
Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Jenkins if she could clarify the language in the law when addressing the number of signatures required for a recall petition. She also suggested they clarify the election race from which that number is to be obtained and which number will be acceptable when presented to the court.
Anna Dawson, Las Vegas, Nevada, spoke to the committee regarding Senator O'Connell's questions. Mrs. Dawson explained she had been involved in a recall process previously and she was told to use the numbering system from the 1990 election. Consequently, the numbers were wrong because it should have been a numbering system from the 1992 elections. Mrs. Dawson stated her complaint was there is a need to have written laws regarding recall petitions which are more direct and specific.
Caren Jenkins continued with her explanation of Exhibit D. Ms. Jenkins explained verification of signatures on petitions.
Mrs. Dawson stated when the petitions are taken into the election department they are given a count and a receipt. Mrs. Dawson remarked she asked who keeps the petition and who has access to them. She was told nobody but the election department has access to the petitions. Mrs. Dawson explained she found out the last petition she gave to the election department was seen by Hal Foley and his attorneys. Her concern was they could have altered the petitions.
Ms. Jenkins told the committee Mrs. Dawson's concern is addressed in the BDR the secretary of state is working on for proposal to the committee. She continued with her explanation of Exhibit D.
Senator Rhoads asked if the secretary of state was using all of the suggestions she has gotten and compiling them into one BDR.
Senator O'Connell explained the secretary of state used the suggestions which came up most often and she added items she identified from visiting the different counties with the problems.
Mr. Millspaugh stated he was not sure he liked the idea of keeping the option of None of the Above on the ballots. He explained, the office would still go to the candidate with the next highest votes. Senator Nevin stated he felt the same way about the None of the Above option. He suggested they just do away with that voting option.
Ms. Jenkins continued with Exhibit D.
Mr. Millspaugh suggested the primary be held in June or July as he feels September is too close to the deadline. He stressed moving the primary deadlines for the filing of candidates for the minor parties into the month of March is going too far. He further indicated he feels the deadline for filing of candidates should be no sooner than the third Tuesday in April.
John Ponticello, Second Vice Chairman, State Democratic Party, spoke to the committee on election reform. He emphasized to the committee he is not a paid lobbyist. He explained he was here to state the Democratic Party's position on election reform. He stated the tremendous growth in Clark County is the problem and he further iterated the problem is not as bad as it has been made out to be. Mr. Ponticello said he felt the media got things way out of proportion. He declared the Democratic Party supports the Governor's efforts to bring dignity to election reform.
Senator O'Connell questioned Mr. Ponticello regarding the Governor's position on election reform. She stated the Governor did not really say too much about election reform other than he gave Myrna Williams, Assemblyman, credit for doing something about the election reform. She asked Mr. Ponticello to be more specific on how his organization supports the Governor.
Mr. Ponticello told the committee the Governor did not say much, but the main concerns in the parties are the fee system which some individuals refer to as the bounty system, he does not like that term. He explained they are concerned about the fee system and how the democratic party and the republican party in the past have registered voters. Mr. Ponticello explained the Governor did make a statement in the State of the State Address on voter registration. He stated to support the Governor and his efforts to bring dignity means his organization supports the Governor to use dignity in working with the legislators, republican and democrat, not to have a fight over this issue and work it out reasonably. Mr. Ponticello stated his organization feels something has to be done with the fee system. He explained he is not sure how everyone is relying on the republican and democratic leaders in the legislature to solve the problem, whether that be on a salary system or whatever the legislature comes up with.
Senator O'Connell stated the proposals being made right now is to have absolutely no payment for voter registrations whatsoever. She explained that has been the overall comment which has been made that there should be no payment to registrars for voter registrations.
Mr. Ponticello told the committee the counties have proposed doing away with all of the deputy registrars and renaming the position registrar volunteers. Senator O'Connell stated she had not been made aware of those proposals.
Mr. Ponticello stated:
For the record, the Democratic Party likes the title deputy registrar and would like to keep that the same. We don't know how they are going to be compensated. I guess for funds to be allocated for that through the county are, I don't know where that is coming from.
Mr. Ponticello stated his organization would like to make it easy to register voters and he stated he believes the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party goals are the same on that.
Mrs. Snape addressed the committee again referring to Exhibit E. She explained her stand on fines rather than felonies for fraudulently registering to vote. She suggested a four-part form for registering. She explained the back copy would go to the voter when he registers and the third form would stay attached and be sent to the deputy field registrar who would note the affidavit number, name and political party. She stated when they turned in all of the packet, the whole thing can be time-date stamped.
Mrs. Snape stated she feels the counting board should stay intact. She feels they should not go home on election night until the counting is done. She explained color coding should be done every 4 years, otherwise they may be repeating the same color code of the ballots. She thanked the committee for their time.
Senator O'Connell told Mrs. Snape the committee would invite her to give any comments on the new bill draft request which will be printed up and the committee would welcome any comments she would have at that time.
Mr. Millspaugh referred to Exhibit D. He stated he feels it to be very important to have a clear picture identification should be the absolute minimum requirement for voting. He explained every person has the obligation to carry a drivers license or state identification card to cash a check and even a homeless person has the obligation to show proper identification when asked by a police officer.
Mr. Millspaugh again referred to Exhibit D, the last paragraph under registration it states, "Counties with a population less than 100,000, an alphabetical lists of registered voters must be published. In larger counties, the list may be published. Current law specifies that the list be segregated by precinct." He adamantly urged the committee to delete this section from the summary. He explained if there were an alphabetical list of registered voters in a larger county being published would do nothing except transfer funds from the treasury to the newspapers. He insisted nothing else would be accomplished by this. He emphasized the purpose of publishing the lists is so local residents within a community can look at the precinct list and state whether or not a registered individual actually lives in their area. He expounded this is a means by which citizens can identify potential fraud in voter registration. He suggested removing this section altogether and avoid wasting money.
Mr. Millspaugh told the committee he would like to get rid of the whole section on "Absent Ballots" in Exhibit D. He feels none of these suggestions would be useful or beneficial and would create more fraud within the voting system.
Mr. Millspaugh stated he does not believe we need to reduce the requirement to 1 percent of the general votes cast, because a particular minor political party could not quite hack it on one particular election. He explained we have a standard now at 3 percent and he believes the 3 percent is already a nationally low standard and he feels it is not an unjust or unreasonable standard. He iterated if we go to 1 percent we will be spending more money to maintain minor political parties on ballot status which have not a pretense of being able to elect a candidate and they are just there as an obstruction.
Chairman O'Connell thanked Mr. Millspaugh for his testimony and she recessed the committee until 5:30 p.m..
Chairman O'Connell called the meeting back to order at 5:30 p.m. She opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 154.
S.B. 154: Revises provisions governing notice of hearing for proposed zoning changes.
Senator Callister presented the committee with Exhibit F. He read from this exhibit to the committee. He then introduced a speaker from the Clark County Zoning Administration.
Bonnie Rinaldi, Administrator, Clark County Zoning Administration, presented the committee with Exhibit G and Exhibit H. She read directly from Exhibit G. She explained these are some changes they are requesting.
Ms. Rinaldi explained to the committee the requirements for zoning changes and the requirements which must be met for the signs which will serve as notice to the property owners.
Senator Hickey stated he had some problems with the distance they were requesting with the changes. Senator Callister stated he was certain they could come up with some fairly general language which would accommodate the home owners and all those involved.
Senator Hickey stated he was concerned with the height and width required in the provisions which is 2-1/2 feet by 2-1/2 feet. Ms. Rinaldi stated the signs are not that size. Senator Hickey was told the signs are actually 3 feet wide by 3-1/2 feet long and they are planted on posts which are 2 feet high.
Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas, testified on S.B. 154. She stated she came originally to oppose the bill, however, she stated she has gone through the amendments and she feels her testimony has somewhat changed. She turned the testimony over to a colleague.
Stephen Baxter, Planning Department, City of North Las Vegas, testified on S.B. 154. See Exhibit I. He stated for the most part his department agrees with what the Clark County position has been on this bill. He did express a couple of concerns, however. He explained his department feels the reduction of people being notified for zoning, they feel 100 parcel maximum would be better as opposed to a flat 600 foot radius. He feels this will still impact his department and they have concerns regarding vandalism. Mr. Baxter stated if the sign is stolen or defaced, the notice is void at that time. He expressed their other concern which was additional cost of hiring a sign contractor to do the work and then passing it on to the people who are making the application, particularly in the case of special use permits or grants where it could be an individual with limited funds. He also expressed concern with the special-use permits. He stated he does not feel there should be a sign requirement or the 600 feet at all. He stated his department feels the 300 feet is more than enough notice for those types of permits. He told the committee with the exception of these concerns, his department agrees with rest of the county's requests.
Senator Hickey asked how the variance would work if somebody wanted to put in a nursing home. Mr. Baxter stated it would never be a variance, but could be a special-use permit.
Richard Patero, Concerned Citizen, stated he had dealt with this issue previously. He stated he honored the 300 foot notification distance but there was nobody living there. This resulted in a shopping mall going into a residential area and the residents were not happy about the situation, therefore, he stated he was not sure the 600 foot notification distance is the answer to this problem. He further stated he did not have the answers.
Mr. Patero stated he felt the county has a tremendous plan to help notify homeowners and whoever needs to be notified of these applications. He also mentioned the town board meetings give a lot of ideas and a lot of attempts to deal with the applicant before it ever goes to a hearing.
Senator O'Connell suggested a regular report to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs every year to give a report to the legislative commission so there is a reporting of the local governments to the state to determine if the laws which have been passed are being enforced.
Bill Starkey, President, Sheep Mountain Home Owners Association, told the committee his area is in the northwest area and they back up against North Las Vegas in the east and the city and county weave an undefined boundary around through their area, so their association transcends both city and county. He told the committee they have tremendous notification problems, but fortunately they have been very active with the city in preparation of the general plans so they are aware of what goes on in the city. He also expressed concerns with conditions with variances.
Mr. Starkey told the committee the notification of a 600 foot radius would be somewhat appropriate, however, he stated with the size of some of the lots where he is at, the sign would only partially reach the residents. He stated his organization as a whole would hardly support S.B. 154.
Helen Mortenson, Secretary, Spring Valley Town Advisory Board, Clark County, testified on S.B. 154. She stated in 1988 a developer submitted an application to the Spring Valley Town Board to place over 1,500 apartments and condominiums on 100 acres of land. She stated across the street in a vacant lot lay a large community of homes just outside the notification boundaries. She explained there was nobody present at the town board meeting to oppose the project. She then added when the owners became aware of the application after it was approved a week later by the board of commissioners. They tried to appeal it to no avail. She told the committee this situation could have been avoided by the adoption of S.B. 154. Mrs. Mortenson explained Clark County has adopted an ordinance to post a sign on the property involved notifying all impacted parties of the present zoning, the application number of the proposed zoning, date, place and time of hearing plus a telephone number of the town board for more information. She explained this has been a Godsend. She acknowledged the mailing of notifications sometimes does not reach all parties which are impacted and this posting of sign makes sure no clerical mistakes of omission occur. Mrs. Mortenson stated the biggest problem
is people are not informed of the town board meetings.
Vicki Demas, State President, Mobile Home Owners League of the Silver State, spoke on S.B. 154. She stated she would like to echo Mrs. Mortenson's remarks. She told the committee her organization supports S.B. 154.
Carroll Varner, President, Northwest Citizen's Association, spoke on S.B. 154. He stated most of the individuals who do not show up for these meetings do not hear about them in time. Mr. Varner told the committee his organization strongly supports this bill.
Cathy Sadovich, Board of Directors, Northwest Citizen's Association, spoke on S.B. 154. She told the committee she is in support of this bill.
David Parks, Chairman, Paradise Town Advisory Board, spoke to the committee on S.B. 154. He stated the impact of the signs that have gone up has been favorable. He added a lot of individuals did show up at the town meetings because they did see the signs and took the time to inquire. He asked the committee to pass this bill.
Kurt Fritsch, Assistant to City Manager, City of Henderson, spoke on S.B. 154. He gave the committee written testimony, see Exhibit J. He told the committee the City of Henderson is opposed to S.B. 154.
Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Fritsch if he saw the amendments which were proposed for S.B. 154. Mr. Fritsch said he did see the amendments and he is not in favor of them.
Mr. Fritsch stated the attendance has increased in their city council and planning commission meetings, but he states it is not due to increased notification, but to the rapport the city managers have with various neighborhood groups.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Fritsch how their notification was handled and was it considered adequate.
Robert Wilson, Principal Planner, City of Henderson, answered the question asked by Senator Hickey. He told the committee the argument those individuals made was they had a perception when they purchased their home they would have a certain environment around them. He explained there was a question of the clarity of the real estate disclosure forms. He stated the City of Henderson is actively recommending a standardized form for all use in Henderson for all developers and real estate sales. He explained the developers and the real estate community are participating in evaluating the current forms and picking out which is best and trying to come up with a standard form which will be functional.
Barbara Maher, Concerned Citizen, spoke on S.B. 154. She told the committee she felt the billboard was the best way to advertise for a zone change or notification of development. She supports this bill.
Norman Standerfer, Director of Planning, City of Las Vegas, spoke on S.B. 154. He is here to present the support of the city for this bill. He explained the city enacted a new set of fee structures for their regulatory process and in doing so they adopted a 600 foot mail notification limit for all public hearings including zoning, special permits and variances. He told the committee they did not choose to go to the sign provisions. He explained the City of Las Vegas felt the most effective way to inform the individuals who had standing and a need to know was to mail notices to them. Mr. Standerfer told the committee they need to cover themselves in this bill in case of vandalism.
John Sherman, Washoe County, spoke to the committee on S.B. 154. He told the committee the planning process and zoning process used in Washoe County are distinctly different than those used in Clark County. He explained he had not had the opportunity to review the proposed amendments, but his understanding is the changes would only affect Clark County. Therefore, he asked the committee hear this bill at a later date in Carson City.
Chairman O'Connell stated the intent of the committee is to hear S.B. 154 in Carson City before any action is taken on it.
Bob Stephen, Mobile Home Tenant, spoke on S.B. 154. He told the committee any bill bringing more attention to zoning variances is a positive move even if the bill is imperfect simply because granting variances unless there is a huge outcry against them, is very common.
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, spoke on S.B. 154. She told the committee she would like to have the opportunity to address the committee in Carson City on this bill after she has had a chance to study the amendments.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
February 11, 1993
Page 1