MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 9, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 9, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:
Senator Lori Lipman Brown, District 7
Assemblyman Bill Petrak, District 18
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
Bob Erikson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County
Barbara Reed, County Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County
Sam Hilliard, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Force
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State
Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County
Barbara Byington, Assessor, Douglas County
Vince Swinney, Sheriff, Representing himself
Jerry Maple, Sheriff, Douglas County
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 496.
SENATE BILL 496: Requires registrar of voters to allow registration to vote of eligible person who will meet requirement of age or residence on or before next succeeding election.
Lori Lipman Brown, Senator, District 7, spoke to the committee on S.B. 496. She stated this bill was the result of a request by Sharon Heflin, a teacher at Chaparral High School. She explained this bill will allow 17-year olds who will be 18 by the time of general election to take part in and vote in primaries and or caucuses dealing with that election. She pointed out 21 states currently have this law. She stated she is not sure who would be supporting this bill, but when she mentioned it at a town-hall meeting earlier this month everyone was thrilled at the idea of involving more of the younger citizens in the political process. She told the committee she had this checked to make sure it would not conflict with the Nevada Constitution and the bill drafters who did the checking found this bill would not conflict with the Nevada Constitution or the United States Constitution.
Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified on S.B. 496. She stated she knew teenagers who were very excited about the last general election because of it being presidential. She told the committee she feels this bill would have kept these youths more involved if they could have voted in the primary. She emphasized she feels this is a good policy and since 21 other states have this she feels it would be a good policy for Nevada.
Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, spoke on S.B. 496. She stated she is against this bill because it would be an administrative nightmare. She feels it would not be beneficial to have a 17-year-old participate in the precinct meetings and then their names would be kept in another type of file so they would not be eligible to vote in the primary. She also stated it is against the Nevada Constitution, article 2, section 1, which does not allow anyone under 18 to register to vote. Mrs. Henderson feels it would be fine to let these 17-year olds participate in precinct meetings, but they should not be eligible to vote at these meetings.
Chairman O'Connell stated Senator Brown had checked on the constitutionality of this bill and the information she was given was it was not conflicting with the constitution.
Senator Raggio stated he feels Mrs. Henderson might be confusing the right to vote because that is precluded, but he stated as he understands the bill the 17-year olds would not be allowed to register unless they are 18 when they vote.
Senator Brown told Senator Raggio this bill would allow someone who is 17 at the time of a primary to take part in that primary if they will turn 18 by the time of the general election. She reiterated the bill drafters stated this bill would not conflict with the Nevada Constitution because of the term election and the definition of election did not include the primary or caucus.
Senator Raggio stated he did not think he could support the bill if what Senator Brown was saying was what was contained in the bill.
Mrs. Henderson stated the way she read the constitution it stated 18 years and up could vote.
Senator Lowden stated she would like some clarification on this and she asked Senator Brown if she would be amenable to amending this bill to say the individual could not vote in the primary if they are not 18.
Senator Brown stated she feels there is some kind of confusion because this bill is meant to get 17-year olds registered, who will be 18 by the time of a general election, but that is already the law. She explained what the high school students are asking for is the right to take part in the primary before they turn 18. She told the committee she did not see anything in this bill which would require the registrars to have separate record keeping or taking someone off the roles between caucuses. She explained this bill simply changes who the registrar could register and then they go in just like any other voter.
Senator Hickey asked what article 1, section 1 is referring to in this bill.
Mrs. Henderson stated her interpretation is that this addresses the age limit of a voter, but as the law stands in Nevada at present, if an individual is 17 years old and he will be 18 on or before either the primary or the general election, then they could vote.
Chairman O'Connell told Senator Brown and the committee members she would try to get an answer on whether this conflicts with the constitution or not.
Barbara Reed, County Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County, spoke on S.B. 496. She stated she has some concerns with this bill. She explained she understands the concept, but as she reads the bill, the precinct meetings are held in February and this would allow 17-year olds to register to vote in January so they could then participate in the precinct meetings. She stated frequently there is a special election between the precinct meetings and the primary. She feels if these 17-year olds are registered to vote and there is a special election then administratively all the clerks would then have to go through and remove all of those individuals who are 17-years of age. She explained they would then have to put them back in after the special election or recall election so they could vote in the primary. She feels there are some real concerns administratively as far as tracking these individuals.
Senator Raggio asked if this bill goes further than registration. He stated he wants to know if an individual becomes a qualified elector under this situation would they then be eligible to be a candidate in a primary election even though they are not 18-years of age.
Mrs. Reed stated that could be an issue and she stated this could very easily happen. She explained those are her only concerns.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 496 and opened the
hearing on the report of the investigation of election fraud.
Sam Hilliard, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Force (METRO), spoke to the committee regarding his investigation of election fraud in Las Vegas. He told the committee beginning in November of 1992 after the general election he headed up the election fraud task force which conducted an extensive investigation into hundreds of allegations which filtered into the police department. He explained these allegations came from the election department and from citizens of the community concerning election fraud and other items concerning the primary and general election. He told the committee prior to forming the election task force he had been involved in an investigation of picking up absentee ballots by unauthorized individuals and also an investigation of forged absentee ballot requests. He emphasized in the investigation of the forged absentee ballot requests they were unable to identify specific suspects. He told the committee they were able to identify an unauthorized individual who picked up absentee ballots and he was subsequently charged with a gross misdemeanor which was later dismissed by the district attorney's office. Detective Hilliard stated after the formation of the Election Fraud Task Force in 1992 they conducted an investigation which culminated in the charging of 14 individuals.
Senator Hickey stated he was extremely interested in the absentee ballot fraud or perceived fraud and the extent of the fraud. He asked how many forged ballots they found to be involved in the last election.
Detective Hilliard stated they did not find actual forgeries of the absentee ballots. He told the committee at that time the forms were not only produced by the election department, but by private citizens who were running for election. He explained the form was filled out by the registered voter and they then send it into the election department or hand deliver it to the election department which takes the form and pulls the original voter registration affidavit and compares signatures. He stated if the signatures were similar or close enough they will send that individual an absentee ballot and they fill it out and send it back to the election department and again the signature is checked.
Senator Hickey asked if this system has made it easier to keep forgeries down to a minimum.
Detective Hilliard stated that is true. He explained because of the checks and balances which were in place by the election department in Clark County, they were able to discover about 40 to 50 forgeries which were submitted. He stated when these forgeries came in the election department did not send the individual an absentee ballot, but they did turn the forgeries over to the police department.
Senator Hickey asked what the fraud unit found out about the 40 or 50 fraudulent registrations.
Detective Hilliard stated forgery is very hard to prove because they need handwriting samples and without any suspects to check it is nearly impossible to identify who wrote the document.
Senator Hickey stated the 40 or 50 documents were challenged as forgeries, but there was no action taken.
Detective Hilliard stated that was true and he added they were unable to locate any suspects concerning that portion of the investigation.
Senator Hickey asked how they handle the absentee ballot being hand delivered to the voter registrar.
Detective Hilliard stated there are no individuals who are authorized to pick up an absentee ballot, not even an election department official. He explained if an individual comes to a voting station with an absentee ballot they cannot turn it in there, they can only turn it in at the election department or they must mail it. He told the committee there was a group of individuals who had an absentee ballot request list and they went to the houses of these individuals, identified themselves as deputy registrars and asked if these people had sent their ballots in yet. He explained these individuals would say they were going to send the ballots in the next day so the fraudulent deputy registrar shows up the next day to pick up the absentee ballots. He told the committee they got this on video tape with one of the suspects.
Senator Hickey asked what happened during the process of the absentee ballots being forged.
Detective Hilliard stated the actual absentee ballot request form was not an official document produced by the Clark County Election Department. He explained they were being produced by private individuals and there were so many of them that one of the problems the police department had was they were unable to track where the documents may have come from because they were unaccountable documents.
Senator Hickey asked how many people were indicted for forgery of absentee ballots.
Detective Hilliard stated they indicted one, but they sent out letters and contacted hundreds of individuals and they could not get anybody to cooperate. He explained these individuals did not want to come to them and say they had given their ballots to an unauthorized person.
Senator Lowden stated she received many phone calls and the most recent comes from an individual who believes if the absentee ballot boxes were opened and the addresses were traced the fraud unit would find there was no such person and no such address. She explained the absentee ballot boxes at this time are sealed for a number of months after an election. She asked Detective Hilliard if Metro intends to pursue that issue.
Detective Hilliard stated it is impossible to pursue. He explained what they found during their investigation was a lot of the cards they sent out were sent back to the police department stamped with return to sender, person not here or person no longer lives here. He stated if they started looking at each one those independently he guessed 99 percent of them are people who have moved and not had their addresses changed. He stated he feels they are all legitimate individuals and not individuals trying to throw an election or trying to divert votes in a certain area.
Senator Lowden stated unfortunately the perception is out there and she stated she received enough phone calls regarding the absentee ballots. She explained these individuals believe if the boxes were open and they took a handful of the ballots and they traced them, there would be many fraudulent ballots. She told Detective Hilliard she knows there would be nobody to indict at that point, but it might help alleviate the anger of the individuals who still believe there is a cover up of the last election.
Detective Hilliard stated he understands what she is saying, but he stated his educated guess would be that all the individuals on the ballots in that box do exist, but they are not at those addresses any longer or that address is a mail drop for them.
Senator Lowden stated she hopes Detective Hilliard is right, but asked him if there is any way Metro would pursue this suggestion.
Detective Hilliard stated this is the first time this issue has been addressed to him. He explained the authority to open the ballot boxes and investigate the ballots would have to come through his superiors and the department.
Senator Hickey asked if the absentee ballot boxes were opened.
Detective Hilliard stated they were not opened by the police department.
Senator Hickey asked if they were opened by anybody.
Detective Hilliard stated he could not answer that as he does not work for the election department.
Senator Hickey stated this was a federal election and he stated this is not politics they are dealing with, but with crimes. He added if the allegations are true then fine, so be it, but he questions if they are true or not. He asked who gets at the boxes.
Mary Ann Miller, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, told the committee she works with the election department. She explained the election department did not find any significant problems with absentee balloting and part of that is some of the safeguards instituted in the system. She told the committee when an absentee ballot is sent out it is not sent in a manner that it would be forwarded to any other address. She explained if the registration of an individual is not to a valid address that the post office will deliver to or that person is no longer there and has a forwarding address, the ballot will return to the election department. Ms. Miller stated if the individual is no longer at that address or it is a fraudulent address, which sometimes comes up, that ballot is canceled and the registration of that particular individual is canceled.
Detective Hilliard stated what Ms. Miller stated was what he has been trying to tell the committee. He explained the majority or all of those addresses on the absentee ballots will be legitimate addresses.
Senator Lowden stated, Ms. Miller, as long as these boxes with the absentee ballots are sealed and there are individuals who believe there was fraud involved, there will be misconceptions. She asked if it would be possible for them to open the boxes and investigate the ballots to make all the individuals involved feel better about the process and alleviate any questions of election fraud.
Ms. Miller told the committee as a part of the normal balloting process for absentee ballots, the return envelopes are investigated. She explained the actual ballots are sealed, but the return envelopes with the signature and address of the voter are not sealed and become a part of the official records of the election department and are open to inspection by anyone. She emphasized each one of the return envelopes is inspected by members of the election department when they are received.
Senator Lowden asked if the original signature was from an absentee or registration mailed in it could be anybody's signature and that is the point they have been trying to make from the beginning. She explained it could be anybody's signature or it could be a bogus address. She stated individuals have gone in and said they have seen those addresses and names and they investigated the addresses on their own and found them to be wrong.
Ms. Miller stated she disagrees with that possibility because if no address exists the ballot would not be delivered to that address. She stated the one possibility that was identified was that a real address or a real mail drop is used and a fraudulent name. She told the committee that is a possible situation that can occur when an individual does not have to vote for the first time in person.
Senator Hickey stated he did not hear any elected officials coming forward talking about how the elections were fixed. He emphasized these allegations are about frauding a federal election and he feels there are restrictions and checks and balances in protecting the ballot boxes and those individuals deserve the right to be heard if there is a true allegation. He explained there were questions as to whether two of the legislators should be seated after this past election and he explained a lot of the evidence was presented at a hearing. He asked Detective Hilliard if he had looked at any of those records on those specific allegations.
Detective Hilliard stated he had not had any formal allegations concerning the stuffing of ballot boxes, the changing of ballots or anything else.
Senator Hickey stated there has been a lot in the media about bogus elections and he asked Detective Hilliard if he asked about this.
Detective Hilliard stated yes they had worked hand-in-hand with the election department and they spoke to anybody who was interested in bringing forward information to the fraud unit.
Senator Hickey asked for a telephone number to give individuals who call with complaints on this election issue or solid evidence on election fraud.
Detective Hilliard told the committee if they are referring to information from Tamara Clark, he did review some of the information from her and he is still investigating the information given to him by her. He explained the majority of information which Ms. Clark came forward with was procedural problems, administrative problems within the election department within county statutes, within election statutes and things that can be addressed by the legislature. He stated very little of what they brought in was of a criminal nature and it was discussed in great detail.
Senator Hickey stated he feels it would be left up to the legislature to politically address those issues.
Detective Hilliard agreed that would be the way to address these. He went on with his report and told the committee on the task force they investigated allegations concerning a large group of deputy field registrars who were allegedly fraudulently registering voters in Clark County. He explained when they conducted the investigation they uncovered approximately 13 suspects who were involved in this fraudulently registering of voters. He reminded the committee he had said there were 14 suspects, one of which is not a deputy field registrar and they were involved in a felony registering to vote, but not involved in the actual election process. He told the committee the deputy field registrars they investigated were involved in the democratic $2 bounty program and this by their own admission was the motive for their criminal activity. He maintained there were thousands of dollars paid to these individuals by the democratic party. He explained what they were doing was phone book registrations where they took mail in registration forms and began registering people to vote out of the phone book. He told the committee they would fill in their information and then create a social security number and date of birth and then forge the signature. He stated they would then take the registration forms over to the democratic party and collect $2 for each democrat they registered and then some of them would get turned into the election department and some of the registration forms were thrown away. Detective Hilliard stated the other criminal acts they found were termed as party switches. He explained the deputy registrars would go the grocery stores, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) and other locations and sign individuals up and then the registrar would mark the party they wanted even though the person was a member of another party and then they would get the $2 bounty. He told the committee they charged each of these individuals with the felony crime of filing a false document, because it is an official document and they had falsified that document.
Senator Hickey stated the bounty is used across the country, but he asked how the registrar of voters can protect against that kind of action.
Ms. Miller stated she was not sure they adequately protected against this fraud in the 1992 election and registration process. She explained they have changed their procedures somewhat focusing mostly on the field deputy registrar process to eliminate some of those problems. She stated they extended their application form for the individuals to fill out to obtain more information on the individuals who wish to be field deputy registrars. She iterated they must pass a background screening with the local police department for any record of criminal history and then they have a 1-1/2 hour training program and they must successfully complete a written examination which reflects their knowledge of the registration laws. She told the committee if they pass all of these screening devices they are required to come in and obtain a photo identification from the election department which they are to wear every time they go out and register voters. She pointed out this requires a commitment on the part of the individuals who wish to be field deputy registrars and some familiarization on their part that the election department will be looking into their past. She told the committee once they successfully pass the screening device, each of the registrations will be screened again to make sure that they are doing it accurately and correctly according to the voter's wishes which will entail some contact with the voters. Ms. Miller stated after they pass that screening device each deputy field registrar will be subject to random checking so election officials will be checking with individual voters who are registered to make sure the registration that the election department received accurately reflects their wishes and their addresses. She stated these procedures were put into place before charges were filed with the court on the fraud for the 1992 election, but after the investigation conducted by Detective Hilliard with assistance of the election department.
Senator Raggio asked Detective Hilliard if the 13 individuals who were indicted had obtained fraudulent registrations.
Detective Hilliard stated that is correct.
Senator Raggio asked if Detective Hilliard stated by their own admission, their motivation was to collect these fraudulent registrations, in one form or another, in order to collect the $2 per registration bounty.
Detective Hilliard stated again that is correct.
Senator Raggio stated that means there is no question as a result of the investigation of the fraud unit that the offering of a bounty provides the incentive or motivation for collecting fraudulent registrations.
Detective Hilliard stated he would not address the merits of the bounty program, but he told Senator Raggio he is right that in this particular case the money was their motivation. He stated the democratic party, during these fraudulent registrations, became suspicious among themselves that there may be some problems. He explained they had one individual registrar that came in with repeated affidavit forms, in other words she would bring the same person back twice, but she would mix it around in the stack. He told the committee this individual ended up making about $4,000 from the democratic party over a period of time. Detective Hilliard stated through the election department they found some of the actual affidavits did not make it back to the election department which made the democratic party suspicious so they started retaining all of the forms and turning them in themselves. He explained they were trying to fix the system at that time.
Senator Hickey asked how many fraudulent forms came in through the election department.
Detective Hilliard stated he could not honestly answer that. He reiterated they charged 14 people and out of that 14 they charged about 40 felony counts of fraudulent documents.
Senator Hickey asked if any of the individuals who were registered from the phone book went in to vote fraudulently at the polls.
Ms. Miller stated they did check all of the questionable individuals and they did not find a single instance of any potentially fraudulent registration that the person actually went in to vote.
Detective Hilliard stated if an individual has registered to vote and the election department has all of your information and then another individual registers under your name at your address, but has a different social security number and date of birth, the election department will catch that and it would be impossible for them to come in and vote twice under that name. He explained one of the statements given to the task force by a suspect who has now been charged is that they only did phone book registration forgeries on mail in forms. He stated the reason for that is because the mail in forms a deputy registrar does not have to sign that form. He told the committee to the registrars it was not an accountable document and they never thought anybody would be able to trace it back to them. He pointed out the mail in forms were given out at random, many at a time so there was no tracking as to exactly where they went and who they went to so it could be traced to a specific registrar. Detective Hilliard stated the way the task force found out about the fraud was through receipts from the democratic party and they were able to track which registration forms were turned in by which registrar and then they had to do handwriting analysis to determine it was that person.
Senator Hickey asked what the estimate of money lost by the democratic party.
Detective Hilliard stated he does not know the dollar figure for that question and the democratic party is probably the only one who could answer.
Senator Lowden stated her campaign headquarters received at least two phone calls the day of the primary and that represents a lot more people than that. She explained the caller told her phone person that they had gone to the polls to try to vote for Senator Lowden, but her name was missing from the ballot. She told Detective Hilliard the reason for that was they did not have a republican ballot.
Detective Hilliard stated he agreed with Senator Lowden. He told the committee speaking for the election department in one aspect is that what they did at the request of the task force was send letters to everyone who did not vote, but were registered. In the letter it was explained they are registered democrats and if that is not the party they want to be registered with they must contact the fraud task force. He stated they did in fact turn up with more cases that way. Detective Hilliard did tell the committee some of the individuals who were charged with fraud were actually felons registered from other states and in fact, one of the individuals was a felon for forgery and uttering a forged instrument. He suggested a deputy registrar or employee of the election department should have a finger printing and background check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Lowden asked if the process was being done now within the election department.
Ms. Miller stated it is not the procedure right now, but she stated they will be taking this information back to the election department.
Detective Hilliard stated to date they have charged 14 individuals and 13 of them were deputy field registrars and the district attorney's office has received indictments on five individuals through the Clark County Grand Jury. He told the committee the district attorney took five to the grand jury rather than all of them due to many administrative reasons. He stated the other individuals who have been charged will have indictments brought forward by the district attorney through a different system of the court, but will be indicted nonetheless. He told the committee one of the individuals has already pled guilty for filing a false document in lieu of dropping some of the other charges against him and he is due to be sentenced this month.
Senator Lowden wanted clarification for the committee and asked Detective Hilliard if he had said the offering of a bounty was the major incentive for the fraudulant registrations.
Detective Hilliard stated that is true and they only have admissions from three or four of them and some have not cooperated or fled the state. He explained the individuals they interviewed stated the group's motivation was the money.
Ms. Miller stated this spring they instituted an additional measure which will help alleviate more problems. She explained the Clark County Election Department will be issuing voter registration cards to all registered voters and those cards will reflect the current party affiliation. She stated this will help if there are some continued lingering problems with individuals who are incorrectly registered. They will be notified far enough in advance of the next primary so they can change that.
Senator Callister expressed his appreciation to Detective Hilliard for spending a lot of time to go through all of this investigation. He stated he had heard a lot of discussion as to whether the amount of money involved justified the expenditures on the part of the Metro and he stated the expenditures were justified. He told the committee irrespective of how anybody feels about the components of the bill, it is imperative that the investigative work that was done be done.
Detective Hilliard stated he appreciated the accolades, but the money was not the motivation for going after these individuals. He explained it was that they were messing with the processes of election.
Senator Callister asked what the 40 or so charges were that the 13 individuals were charged with.
Detective Hilliard stated the counts were filing a false document, some with forgeries and several were charged with felony registering to vote in addition to filing a false document because they were fraudulent in their actual registration form.
Senator Callister asked if anybody was actually charged with casting more than one vote.
Detective Hilliard stated no, nobody was charged with that. He told the committee they had a few allegations come into the task force that individuals actually voted twice. He explained they investigated each allegation and as he stated before there was only one woman who voted twice and that was a simple error. He told the committee this one woman requested an absentee ballot, filled it out, sent it back in and then heard on the news there was controversy with the absentee ballots and she panicked and on election day ran down and voted in fear her mail in ballot would not count. He explained this was not a conspiracy or anything else to get someone to vote twice.
Senator Lowden told Detective Hilliard again she is very concerned because she is still hearing if they would open the ballot boxes and check the addresses they would find some actual fraud within the ballots. She stated she understands they have checks and balances, but apparently individuals have checked and there are no such addresses and there are no such individuals on some of the ballots. She explained some of the addresses are vacant lots. She stated she just wanted to question one more time if they are going to take a look at that.
Ms. Miller stated if those individuals with the complaints will bring the information to the election department they will certainly look at it. She pointed out, to this date, no evidence of that particular evidence has ever been brought to her office. She told the committee she questions whether votes did come from mythical addresses because the post office does not deliver them.
Detective Hilliard told Senator Lowden to tell the individuals with this complaint to come forward and contact him or Ms. Miller and they will be happy to look at this information and investigate.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on election reform and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 531.
ASSEMBLY BILL 531: Limits circumstances under which special elections may be held.
Bill Petrak, Assemblyman, District 18, spoke on A.B. 531. He handed out some information on this bill to the committee (Exhibit E). He introduced Secretary of State Cheryl Lau.
Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, told the committee this bill limits the circumstances in which special elections can be held. She stated they received this bill early enough to make suggestions for clarifications and she told the committee she is very pleased to see the clarifications in the bill. Secretary Lau explained some individuals believe special elections are used to increase taxes. She pointed out this bill simplifies elections and promotes more participation among the voters and she feels it is good reform and supports A.B. 531.
Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, told the committee he is also speaking for Mr. Hatfield and the Nevada Association of Counties. He explained they were able to work with Assemblyman Petrak on this bill and they support the passage of this bill.
Chairman O'Connell asked Mr. Grady how much money this bill will save their cities.
Mr. Grady stated they did not do a fiscal impact and they are more interested in a special election for an emergency situation.
Senator Lowden asked for an example of what would be considered an emergency to justify a special election.
Mr. Grady stated if there was a disaster in a community and they needed a special bond issue for financing the cleanup this bill would allow that to take place.
Mr. Petrak stated on page 5, line 6 of this bill it states a special election may be held only if the board (county commissioners) determines by unanimous vote that an emergency exists. The determination made by the county commissioners is conclusive until it is shown that the board acted with fraud and gross abuse and discretion. He stated the word emergency used in this context means any unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences which requires immediate action by the board of county commissioners to prevent or mitigate a substantial financial loss to the county or to enable the board to provide an essential service to the residents. He told the committee he feels a riot and even a forest fire would come under this bill, but it would be entirely under the control of the governing body of that particular area such as the city or county to make the determination of whether or not it is an emergency. Mr. Petrak went through parts of Exhibit E with the committee.
Bob Erikson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, told the committee this bill simply allows for a special election in an emergency situation. He reminded the committee the legislature can always call for a special election.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 531.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RHOADS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 221.
SENATE BILL 221: Revises manner in which salaries of county sheriffs are calculated.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified on S.B. 221. He explained this bill was submitted by the sheriff's association and they have since decided they would like to amend the bill. The amendment was submitted as Exhibit F. Mr. Pappageorge read the amendment to the committee.
Senator Hickey stated in the amendment it states the bill is patterned after Minnesota's compensation council and he asked if this is exactly how Minnesota planned this device.
Mr. Pappageorge stated the bill is very close, but they have tailored this to Nevada law and Nevada procedures and policies.
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, told the committee he was asked to put this together by another member of the legislature. He explained he researched 18 states which have such a commission and the Minnesota system for selecting a commission seemed like it would work fairly well here in Nevada. He explained Minnesota has 15 members of the council because they have more congressional districts than Nevada does, but otherwise it is set up much the same. He stated Minnesota does not have commission members appointed by the Governor. He stated the criteria in this bill is exactly the same wording out of Minnesota, but the dates are different and they were adjusted for the biennial sessions as opposed to annual sessions. He told the committee otherwise it is very much the same as the Minnesota Compensation Council which has been in effect for a good number of years. He also explained in 1989 there were two compensation commissions established in Nevada by law and one of them was to look at all elected officials which had a sunset clause. He explained the other commission was set up to look at the salaries of legislators only and the Governor appointed members of this commission, but he did not provide appointments to the other commission.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke on S.B. 221. She stated they were opposed to the bill the way it was originally written, but the amendments were provided to them and she feels it is a much more viable alternative to have a salary commission and try to eliminate some of the politics which goes into it. She emphasized though, in all fairness, when they discuss the locally elected officials salaries which was a recommendation made in 1989 on both sides, the commission needs a constitutional amendment. She provided the committee members with copies of that provision in the constitution, Exhibit G, which gives the legislators the power and mandates they set locally elected officials' salaries. She said she firmly believes the elected officials have the right to receive money without literally coming to beg to the legislature because that is what they do about every 4 years. She pointed out the lobbying that went on in 1989 with the bill. She explained municipal elected officials are allowed to go before their constituency and put salary increases that they themselves would like, on a publicly noticed agenda, have public input, have local newspapers address in a forum and then have that done in a public forum at the level that is closest to the people. She stated she respectfully submits to the committee that the county elected officials should be allowed to do the same thing. Ms. Vilardo stated the people may not agree with the salaries they want, but that gives the citizens who ultimately are paying for those salaries the forum to express their opinion. She recommends the commission request a constitutional amendment. She explained two ways to handle it is either totally bracket out the language she highlighted on Exhibit G or add to that section, "but nothing in this section shall be construed to deny, restrict or allow the delegation of the power of the legislature to establish." She stated she feels the legislators would be allowed to delegate back to the county commissioners to set in an agenda the fact that these salaries could be set at a local level. She stated legal counsel should determine which of the suggestions she gave would be the best determination, but either one would be acceptable. Ms. Vilardo stated she had one other comment to the amendment from Mr. Pappageorge in Exhibit F. She explained she does not believe that recommendations for salary increases should be retroactive. She stated any elected officials knows up front what that salary is and if they cannot live with that salary without waiting until they are re-elected to get the increase, if there should be one, they should not run for that office. She stated they do support the amendment, but their comfort level would be increased if the committee would consider a constitutional amendment which would eventually take this out of legislative hands and put it into local hands where the people could express their feelings at open meetings.
Senator Raggio said in looking at the appropriate language in the constitution, he would think the proposed compensation language in that extent would violate the provision and he asked Mr. Erickson. He explained the constitution states, "nothing shall be construed to deny or restrict the power of the legislature to establish and regulate the compensation of some fees of county officers." He stated although he might agree with the concept, but he feels to the extent of the language in this proposed compensation commission says, "but no salary may be approved which exceeds the amount recommended by the commission for that officer." He stated he feels that language may be a restriction.
Mr. Erickson, Research Analyst, stated Mr. Pappageorge alluded to that and the entire sentence should be deleted. He explained he talked to legal counsel before this meeting and he felt that one sentence went too far.
Barbara Reed, Chairman, Legislative Committee for County Fiscal Officers, State of Nevada, spoke on S.B. 221. She explained they are in favor of this bill. She told the committee they did have some concerns with the one sentence Senator Raggio talked about, but that has been corrected. She stated for the record:
The county elected officials have not received a salary increase for 4 years. The county pays the salary increases, they are not paid by the state. And traditionally the county commissioner of each county have given each of the county department heads and employees merit increases annually. This will be 6 years, so in 2 [years] don't be surprised if you see recommendations which will be fairly substantial, but that will be because we have not had those increases in a number of years.
Chairman O'Connell stated for the record:
Those of us who are on the tax committee, when we have the counties coming to us and asking us to help them out with their budgets and considering the concern they have for money at the county level...you know it is a little hard for us to back into it and say well these substantial raises were originally in the bill and especially those of us who have employees in the private sector who haven't received raises for the last 3 years either. In some cases they have had their salaries cut, but maintained their benefits, we can relate to the situation , but we can also relate to what is going on with our taxes and our recession and our very critical financial situation right now.
Mrs. Reed stated she understands what the Chairman is saying. She told the committee she has some letters which are supportive from different boards of county commissioners supporting increases for their elected officials because they have been giving increases to their employees. She explained those raises have ranged from 3 percent all the way up to 16 percent in a year. She stated those employees and department heads are definitely being paid substantially more than the elected officials of those counties. She explained their feeling is if they can give their employees those kinds of increases then that is why they are supporting increases for their elected officials.
Chairman O'Connell stated an elected official is in a difficult situation because there are situations where individuals under the elected official are making more money than they are, but in many instances the elected person does not have to have any qualifications. She explained anybody can go in and be elected for that job without the qualifications behind them, but the staff person is the one carrying the burden of the office. She stated in some instances that is not true, but in a great many instances it is true and it does not prevent anybody from running for office. She emphasized that does not always exactly balance out for an increase.
Barbara Byington, Assessor, Douglas County, spoke on S.B. 221. She submitted a letter, Exhibit H, which was written by the president of their association. She disagreed with what Chairman O'Connell said about the qualifications because by law an assessor has to be accredited by the State of Nevada so there are qualifications involved in this office. She pointed out this would be one of the exceptions to what Chairman O'Connell said.
Vince Swinney, Sheriff, Representing himself and sheriffs of the state, testified on S.B. 221. He stated at one time the counties and the cities gave their employees a total of 29 percent increases over a 4-year period while the legislature gave the elected officials 19 percent increases. He pointed out in another 4-year period the raises ranged from 5 to 7 percent differential and so they have gradually encroached on the difference between the starting salary in an individual category and what the boss is getting. He told the committee in order to attract the most professional and professionally trained individuals for sheriff they will have to compensate those individuals. Sheriff Swinney stated he is thinking of leaving his office because his salary has not kept pace with either inflation or what the staff has received. He stated all they are asking for is a fair shake.
Jerry Maple, Sheriff, Douglas County, spoke on S.B. 221. He stated he has been a sheriff for 16 years and with the Douglas County Sheriff's Department for 23 years. He stated the only reason he is testifying today is to let the legislators know he looks at his position as a career. He explained he tries to provide a professional law enforcement service within his office. He told the committee he has no other career to go to so he must continue with this profession or demote himself in order to get a pay raise. He stated he is not looking to make a lot of money, but when you get in the neighborhood of an $18,000 discrepancy within the department between the sheriff and the undersheriff and large salary discrepancies between others in the same department, it is disheartening and one wonders if he chose the right career. He told the committee he is not asking to have these salaries raised way up, but it has been 4 years since they got an increase and it is going to be another 2 years and it is tough. He stated the county has given a 4 percent increase for management people starting in July and he stated his board of county commissioners wrote a letter supporting the elected officials' raises. He maintained he does not know who would run for sheriff next election when anyone in a position on the entire sheriff's department, in any supervisory position, would have to take a cut in pay in order to be sheriff. Sheriff Maple stated Douglas County has a lot of money invested in his training and he runs a good sheriff's department, but if someone else comes in they will have to pay more just to train that individual than they would by just giving him a small raise. He stated he is just asking for something small.
Senator Raggio stated he is very supportive of elected county officers because he used to be one. He stated though the constitution as it is now, states legislators cannot fix the compensation of county officers. He explained there are no pay raises for any of the state employees also and it is difficult to send a message out there that the legislature is going to suggest something else at the county level where they have that responsibility.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 221 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 509.
SENATE BILL 509: Repeals provisions authorizing creation of districts to support public parks.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, spoke to the committee on S.B. 509. She explained to the committee this bill was requested by them after testimony regarding the trailer bill on Senate Bill (S.B.) 307.
SENATE BILL 307: Provides for creation and financing of park districts by counties.
Ms. Vilardo stated S.B. 509 is an effort to try to clean up some of the problems they identified with the language in the original bill. She told the committee:
We totally support what Senate Bill 509 does and that is repeal Senate Bill 307 of this session... S.B. 307 of this session.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Vilardo to address the two inequities in S.B. 307 which were not really addressed.
Ms. Vilardo stated one of the most serious defects in S.B. 307 was the fact the government goes to the voters with the boundaries and with the taxes they want within the park tax district they are creating. She stated, however, if and when this is approved, the county commission at any time thereafter, without a vote of the people, can change by simple ordinance the boundaries of the park tax district. She explained after an individual votes on what they believe is to be a new park or refurbished park in their district they can be redistricted 2 years down the road because the bond issue was totally silent as to projects or commitments for use of that money.
Senator Hickey asked if a stipulation in a bond issue at the time of the vote can be removed afterwards.
Ms. Vilardo stated one of the things which will be looked at relative to the bond councils in selling the bonds is the size of the issue of the bonds and if the pledged revenue is there. She explained that is their concern, not what is being built with the bonds. She emphasized if she had $1 million in bonds which she wanted to sell, but it takes the individuals living in that district to generate the revenue from property tax to pay for the principal and interest. She pointed out if she wanted to cut out part of the district and pick up a comparable amount of dollars she could do it with less residential property or residence in the district just because the assessed value of the property has gone up. She explained it would be her obligation to make payment of those bonds and the bonding companies do not care what is being built.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 509.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO AND SENATOR RHOADS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 509 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 322.
SENATE BILL 322: Regulates university foundations.
Senator Nevin stated when they heard this bill Senator Raggio had some concerns with regard to the disclosure of a list of contributors to the university foundation or the amounts of the contributions. He explained the amendment which would make the university comply with the open meeting law and let the public know where the foundation money is, but they do not have to say who are the donors.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 322.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RHOADS AND SENATOR RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Nevin stated he had no call backs from anybody from the university system on notification this bill was being heard in committee. He told the committee they were asked if they wanted to discuss this with the committee prior to taking action on the bill, but there was no response.
Chairman O'Connell confirmed there was a phone call placed to the university and there was no return call from any representative of the university.
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 9, 1993
Page 1