MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 18, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:00 p.m., on Friday, June 18, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Principal Research Analyst
Dennis Nielander, Senior Research Analyst
Tanya Morrison, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County
George Sukimoto, Chief of Game Management, Department of Wildlife
Stephanie Lyte, Lobbyist, Nevada Wool Grower's Association
Joe Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC)
George Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Manager's Office
Suzanne Beaudreau, Recorder, Douglas County
Nancy Carr, Recorder, Lyon County
Joe Melcher, Recorder, Washoe County
Melanie Meehan Crossley, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's Office
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Michell Bero, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Broadcaster's Association
Doug Busselman, Executive Director, Nevada Farm Bureau
Chairman O'Connell opened the meeting on Senate Bill (S.B.) 542.
SENATE BILL 542: Provides for statutory transfer of certain powers to division of child and family services from other divisions of department of human resources.
John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, spoke to the committee on S.B. 542. He stated during the last legislative session they passed Senate Bill (S.B.) 611 of the Sixty-sixth Session which created the Division of Child and Family Services and authorized the director of the Department of Human Resources to phase in certain responsibilities into that division over the course of a biennium.
SENATE BILL 611
OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Makes various changes regarding provisions of services for children and families.
He explained this bill codifies the process. He told the committee this makes the necessary name changes in the statute and incorporates changes into the statutes already passed and signed this session and provides for changes that may yet come during the course of this session. He explained the bill to the committee. He stated sections 1 through 5 of the bill simply establish the division within the Department of Human Resources as an agency of state government. He pointed out sections 6 through 8 make certain name changes in Chapter 62 of the Juvenile Court Act and adds a new section previously passed this session. He stated section 9 makes a name change to Child Custody Statutes and sections 10 through 37 assign responsibility of adoptions to the division. He emphasized sections 38 through 40 make certain name changes in the termination of the parental rights statute and section 41 defines the division's role of assisting the court in the determination of the emancipation of a minor. He pointed out section 42 effects the name change for the Youth Parole Bureau and sections 43 and 44 allow the division to enroll children in their custody into school. He stated section 45 establishes the division's role in assisting the Department of Education in placing handicapped children who cannot be educated in their local school district. He testified sections 46 through 50 removes from chapter 422 the Welfare Administration's responsibility for child welfare so the Welfare Division no longer has that responsibility. He stated sections 51 through 65 assign foster care licensing to the division and sections 66 through 90 assigns the public services for children in Chapter 432 to the division and adds the Child Welfare Authority be removed from 422 to this chapter to make it all the responsibility of their division.
Chairman O'Connell asked for a brief background on what the purpose of S.B. 611 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
Mr. Sarb stated S.B. 611 of the Sixty-sixth Session was creating the Division of Child and Family Services. He explained the intent is to bring together like services for children and families into one division so there would not be the problem of going across division lines and different agencies for families and children to get services. He stated they ran into the problem of many families needing services from more than one agency and they were running into bureaucratic barriers in getting those services. He told the committee the proposal was to create the division. He explained they recognized three divisions were going to he affected by that change so the legislature authorized the director of the department to bring the requisite pieces from the Welfare Division and the Mental Health Division into the Division of Child and Family Services as time permitted.
Chairman O'Connell stated she understood Mr. Sarb to be saying they could not accomplish all they wanted in S.B. 611 of the Sixty-sixth Session because they did not have the division yet. She told the committee now that they have created the division they must officially put all of these services under that jurisdiction.
Mr. Sarb stated of the 202 sections of this bill, probably 180 plus are changing names from welfare to Child and Family Services.
Senator Nevin asked if this bill has anything to do with the Governor's reorganization.
Mr. Sarb stated it has not. He explained this was started 2 years ago.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 542 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 544.
SENATE BILL 544: Restricts activity in wilderness study area.
Senator Callister stated he has an amendment (Exhibit C), which will eliminate every line which refers to a wilderness or national wilderness preservation system or area and replaces it with "National Conservation Area" of which there is only one in Nevada which is the Red Rock National Conservation Area. He explained it takes a federal act to create a national conservation area. He gave the committee members copies of a letter from Peter G. Morros, Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Exhibit D), in which Mr. Moros included maps and told the committee members the mineral claims that predated the adoption of the national conservation area would survive the adoption. He pointed out just a day or two before the adoption date some individuals identified a number of claims totalling approximately 960 acres. Senator Callister gave the committee a map which identifies where the acreage is in Las Vegas Valley (Exhibit E). Senator Callister also gave the committee a map of the more urbanized portion of Nevada (Exhibit F). He then gave the committee an even more specialized map (Exhibit G), which shows the north and south boundaries, as well as the east and west boundaries which shows it is quite an extensive piece of property. He told the committee he would prefer to see that area undeveloped and he feels it is unfortunate to see the mining law abused, as he suspects is the intent, in this instance. Senator Callister explained to the committee this bill would add a level of protection against either mineral or residential development in that area. He told the committee the bill would say in section 3, "the governing body of the city or county whose territory includes all or any part of new language in the Red Rock Conservation Area shall in regulating the use of land prohibit the use of any part of the Red Rock National Conservation Area for any purpose other than recreation and shall prohibit excavation, the extraction of any substance and the erection of any structure." He stated that is the simple language of the bill and it is language that would simply direct as a matter of state policy we do not want to see that buffer zone that was so expensively and artfully crafted to protect and buffer a state park and a national recreation area suffer from any level of residential development. He emphasized that is all the bill would do is tell the county the state has indicated in that instance they do not want to see that development occur.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Clark County, told the committee he has tried to determine Clark County's position on S.B. 544 and unfortunately cannot determine an official point-of-view, but did talk to some staff people who feel that it appears to be good legislation and one that with which Clark County could agree. He told the committee he tried to find questions regarding how much financial money the county has put into these buffer areas and unfortunately has not been able to determine it, but if the committee would like that type of information at a later date or time, he would try to provide it.
George Sukimoto, Chief of Game Management, Department of Wildlife, spoke on S.B. 544. He explained the National Conservation Area currently being restricted to Red Rocks, however, the Spring Mountain Area is being proposed as a National Recreation Area and he stated his concern is relative to any structure on site. He stated one of the tools his department uses to enhance wildlife habitat is to construct what they call "guzzlers" which are wildlife watering devices.
Senator Callister stated he is aware of the volitility of the "guzzler" issue in these sacred halls. He asked Mr. Sukimoto if he would be comfortable with some language along the lines of, "and the
erection of a structure within the national recreation area with the exception, or other than a structure developed at the request of the Nevada Division of Wildlife."
Mr. Sukimoto stated that would be acceptable to his division.
Doug Busselman, Executive Director, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified on S.B. 544. He stated his division has a problem with the generic identification of a national conservation area. He explained some of the trends his division is seeing coming out of Washington, D.C. from a federal policy perspective leaves them worrying with regard to establishing this wording in state law. He further explained as future conservation areas come upon them, they will be put under this bill although the intention now is not to do that. He told the committee he has shared with Senator Callister their concerns on this bill and hope they can make a language change. He suggests they specifically mention in the bill the intended area right now so there is not a problem in the future when additional conservation areas are created with more restrictions than they are seeing now. He urged the committee to add the specific designation of Red Rock National Conservation Area into the language of the bill with the amendment and then they will be in agreement with this bill.
Senator Callister stated he spoke earlier with Mr. Busselman and he agrees the amendment should be specific as to the Red Rock National Conservation Area. He told the committee he feels this is appropriate.
Stephanie Lyte, Lobbyist, Nevada Wool Grower's Association, testified on S.B. 544. She told the committee her concernes are the same as Mr. Busselman's regarding the specific designation. She explained they would not have any objection to the bill if they had it designated as the Red Rock Conservation Area.
Joe Johnson, Sierra Club, told the committee his organization supports S.B. 544 with the amendments proposed.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 544 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 365, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 366 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 368.
ASSEMBLY BILL 365: Substitutes civil enforcement of access to public records for criminal penalty.
ASSEMBLY BILL 366: Establishes procedures for public inspection of public records.
ASSEMBLY BILL 368: Requires charges for copies of public records not to exceed cost.
Dennis Nielander, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, spoke to the committee on these bills. He told the committee these bills were the result of the study of laws governing public books and records. He started by explaining A.B. 365. He told the committee this bill addresses enforcement. He stated the existing public records law has not been amended significantly since 1911 and in the current provisions for enforcement it contains a criminal penalty which is a misdeamenor for an individual to release a public record in violation of the statute. He stated what this bill does is it removes the criminal penalty and replaces it with an expedited process procedure whereby if a person has been denied access to a public record, they have the opportunity to file in district court and the court is required to give that matter priority on the calendar. He explained if the requestor prevails they are entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. Mr. Nielander stated in section 3 it grants immunity for good faith disclosure or nondisclosure and as long as it is done in good faith the public employee is then immune from civil liability.
Chairman O'Connell asked in which one of these bills they should incorporate the definition of a public record.
Mr. Nielander stated the definition is in another bill which has not left the assembly, but they could amend that into A.B. 366 because this bill amends Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 239 which is where the definition has to go and A.B. 366 establishes a procedure for access and currently the law is void of any procedure for getting access. He stated in addition it is void of having a definition.
Mr. Nielander stated A.B. 366 is the bill which establishes procedures for either granting or denying access to records. He explained the law is currently void of any procedural mechanisms to either allow a person to make a record public or to keep it closed. He pointed out this is based in part on the Federal Freedom of Information Act, at least the fundamental concepts are based on that law and also a study which was done 10 years ago on this issue. He explained at that time the subcommittee recommended a procedure similar to this and that bill did not surface from the legislature in 1982. He told the committee this bill says an individual may request a public record in person, by telephone or by FAX machine. He further explained this bill sets forth the duties of the person who is the custodian of the record and what they must do once they have received a request. He stated subsection 2 of section 3 makes it clear that a custodian of a public record cannot release the confidential information with the public information. He explained subsection 3 of that section states they do not have to compile a summary unless it is readily available. Mr. Nielander stated subsection 4 is something that is put in because of first amendment concerns and the fact that the argument is the government should not have a right to know why an individual is requesting that information unless it is to clarify what the information is they are after. He stated section 5 begins to specify what the custodians must do once they receive a request. He told the committee the procedural mechanism is addressed in lines 17 through 25 and they are the four things that the custodian has to do within a reasonable amount of time, but no later than 3 days after receiving the written appeal. He mentioned they could inform the individuals that unusual circumstances have delayed the request, in which case they have 15 days to comply and inform the requester they do not have the record or deny the appeal. He stated the next section defines what is unusual circumstances which will trigger that 15-day window. He pointed out subsection 3 of section 7 which is another immunity clause for the employee who permits inspection unless they have actual knowledge that the record is not a public record.
Senator Hickey interrupted the testimony by Mr. Nielander to ask the chairman for a bill draft request. He told the committee he wanted to draft a bill which would limit terms in office including federal offices down through county offices.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST REGARDING TERM LIMITATIONS.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO AND SENATOR NEVIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Mr. Nielander explained A.B. 368 to the committee. He stated this bill addresses cost. He pointed out subsection 1 of section 1 provides that the fees shall not exceed the cost to the agency and that takes into account the cost of supplies and material, but not time spent by personnel. He explained this is adopted from an Idaho law which essentially reads the same as A.B. 368. He pointed out there is a formula they use to come to the right amount to charge for photocopying and he added the bottom line is they arrive at a total cost per copy. He told the committee each agency in Idaho is required to use this formula to arrive at a per copy cost.
Chairman O'Connell asked if this formula would apply to every agency and an individual could ask for a cost from any division or agency and the cost would not exceed the actual cost.
Mr. Nielander stated that is correct and the provision provides that unless free copies are required by statute. He explained if there is not some other statute that establishes a cost then it must not exceed the actual cost. He continued to explain A.B. 368 to the committee. He stated subsection 2 of the bill provides that an agency may search its records for individual requests and he explained this goes more to computer type searches and in those cases the custom type of request, the agency may charge for personnel cost involved in doing these custom requests, but they are not required to charge. He stated subsection 3 would allow the agency to recover cost of reformatting certain material, but would not require the agency to give the information in a format other than that which it is kept in normally. He told the committee the rest of this bill goes through the various sections of NRS that currently have a statutory fee structure for photo copies and it deletes them so the provision in subsection 1 would then apply to every agency that is photocopying records and charging. He explained each office charges different amounts and this provision would delete all of that with the exception of the Secretay of State's Office which the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs amended out the part that would have required the Secretary of State's Office to charge only actual costs. Mr. Nielander stated the Secretary of State's Office explained the copying charges are large part of their budget and it would have gutted part of their budget so the assembly amended that back in to allow them to continue to charge the fees they were charging prior to this bill.
Andrea Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, Inc., spoke to the committee on the three bills. She gave the committee a written copy of the definition of a public record from another bill which is caught up in the assembly (Exhibit H). She told the committee her subcommittee did a poll of registered voters and their attitude toward open records and specific records. She stated she supports these bills as was their agreement during the subcommittee meetings. She pointed out to the committee during the hearings on the assembly side she was shocked at how much money some of these agencies make by charging $1 per copy and she explained she did not realize what a large impact on the budgets this bill would make. She stated her organization does not have a lot of sympathy for these agencies if they lose this revenue. She told the committee she would like to ask for an amendment to A.B. 368 that would have the government provide agendas and backup information for public meetings and copies of proposed ordinances free of charge.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), spoke in favor of these bills. She told the committee she has a couple of changes to propose. She gave the committee members a copy of a proposed amendment to A.B. 368 (Exhibit I). She explained some of the incidents she had encountered in dealing with copies requested from government agencies. She told the committee recently one of her board members requested a copy of the study on class size from the State Department of Education and she was told there was no such report. Ms. Lusk stated the following week she came up here and went over to the State Department of Education personally and asked for a copy of that same report and was given a copy. She explained this amendment will help correct that problem. She stated there has been difficulty with the Clark County Commission in that they charge for agendas and they charge $1 per page for backup material on agenda items which has a chilling affect on the right of the citizens to know what public bodies are doing which will affect their lives. She pointed out some of these documents cost $40 to $100 for just a single meeting, which is too expensive.
Senator Hickey stated he was concerned that some individuals are not provided access to records or the extreme cost of some of these records. He asked George Cotton from Clark County to address these concerns.
George Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Manager's Office, told the committee the county clerk's office charges $1 per page to copy documents and various items. He stated he is not aware of any office other than the recorder's office that would charge an individual to get a copy of a document. He told the committee the agendas are distributed at the board meetings and they are posted, but if anyone needs a copy of the agenda and they contact the Department of Administrative Services and the manager's office they should be able to get that copy without a charge. He pointed out the county clerk's office charges $1 per copy.
Mr. Cotton stated the key issue of making copies is the time involved. He explained when the clerk in the office has to stop and make a copy, costs are incurred. He explained they feel they must pass that cost on to the consumer.
Senator Hickey asked if Mr. Cotton objects to the actual cost of making copies.
Mr. Cotton stated he did not object to that, particularly if the charge includes the cost of personnel. He stated the problem is what constitutes a public record and what does not. He pointed out he has heard testimony from police departments being concerned about their internal affairs investigations and Mr. Cotton stated he is concerned about sexual harrassment investigations. He stated the problem is the definition of a public record and he feels the public has the right to know and they should not have to pay large amounts of money to access the records that belong to them. Mr. Cotton stated Nevada has a problem because they do not have a real definition of public records.
Chairman O'Connell asked when he gave his testimony to the assembly if he gave his limitations to what he felt was a public document.
Mr. Cotton stated he met with a subcommittee on this issue in the assembly and there was a lot of testimony submitted by not only Clark County, but other entities with concern as to what constitutes the public record.
Suzanne Beaudreau, Recorder, Douglas County, spoke in opposition of these bills. She stated her objection is primarily because of the fee that is being eliminated. She explained the records in the recorder's office are made from microfilm which is more difficult than just making a paper copy from a paper copy. She stated the Idaho and Utah public records laws have exempted the recorder's office from their public records law.
Nancy Carr, Recorder, Lyon County, spoke in opposition of these bills also and the committee members were given copies of her testimony (Exhibit J). She stated all of the records in the recorder's office are public records and they have no confidential records. She explained these records are open to the public all the time. She explained that the records in her office are microfilm also. She feels it would be foolish to go backwards on the fee when the cost is increasing all the time. She told the committee all of these offices have prepared their 1993-1994 budgets based partially on the revenues that will be received from these copy fees and if the fee is removed from statute it will have a major impact on all of these offices. She asked the committee to exempt these offices from these bills because she stated they do not provide the types of records that are being discussed in the bills.
Chairman O'Connell asked Ms. Carr what impact these bills will have on her budget.
Ms. Carr stated just on Lyon County it would be $10,000 per year and in the bigger counties it would be tremendous. She pointed out she has never had a complaint on the charge for copies in the 20 years she has been at this office.
Jim Wright, Chief Deputy Recorder, Washoe County, spoke in opposition on these bills. He told the committee the revenue his county figured they would lose on the reduction of charges for copies would be in the neighborhood of $62,000 per year. He stated there are two people in his office who do nothing but make copies every day and those fees cover part of their salaries.
Chairman O'Connell asked him if the function of his office is to provide information to the public.
Mr. Wright stated they are in the business of making copies and of making records.
Chairman O'Connell stated the money is already accommodated by the fact the taxpayers are paying for the office to be there and the employees in the office to take care of the service.
Mr. Wright stated if they lose that $62,000 of revenue they will have to ask for more money from the county. He explained the money will have to come from somewhere and if not from copy fees it will be from the taxpayers.
Joe Melcher, Recorder, Washoe County, testified against these bills. He told the committee they should be paying for the service they get and uniformity and standardization of fees is vital to these organizations. He gave the committee some written testimony and statistics on copy fees (Exhibit K).
Ms. Beaudreau stated the Storey County Recorder, Margaret Lowther, had to leave, but wanted it on the record that she opposes these bills.
Melanie Meehan Crossley, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, spoke in opposition of these bills. She stated she served on the interim study committee and had not planned to speak today, but felt she must make a few comments regarding adopting an amendment into these bills with the definition of public records. She told the committee what they are trying to do here is a piece of legislation that addresses a vast range of records that are both confidential and not confidential. She gave the committee some suggestions on the language for the amendment.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Washoe County, stated for the record that in Washoe County for their agenda items and backup materials, if people go to the county manager's office they are provided a copy free. If they go to the clerk's office the standard procedure is to send them to the county manager's office so they are not caught up with the fees that the clerk charges for court proceedings. She stated they feel it is essential and it is the public's right to have access to this. She told the committee the only thing they would request is if they do put this into statute in terms of agendas, ordinances, backup materials that it be restricted to one free copy and some nominal fee. She explained her office is not staffed to be a copy service for attorneys and the court system within Washoe County. She feels no county in the state can absorb that type of burden. She stated it is very important to take into consideration the fact that recorder fees have not been increased for over 10 years.
Michell Bero, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated the previous testimony pretty well explains their position.
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, spoke in opposition to these bills. She stated one of their concerns is in A.B. 366 it requires them to provide facilities for making copies and she stated many of her cities do not have these facilities. She explained some of them have a copy room which is also the mailroom and it would be expensive for them to create these facilities.
Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Broadcaster's Association, stated they are very strongly in favor of these bills. He told the committee the policy decision clearly put forth by this bill is should the individuals pay a fair approximation of the actual search time related to copying a particular document or should they pay a flat fee.
Ms. Engleman told the committee these bills attempt to address a myriad of problems both bringing Nevada into the 20th Century and trying to prepare Nevada for the 21st Century. She explained some of the problems heard during the interim study were from agencies who had put all of their information on a computer. She further explained if an individual came into this agency requesting some information they were told the information they needed was on the computer and it could not be accessed at that time so the individual wanting the information would have to return the next day. She emphasized individuals need to have access to information and the ability to make copies or even write down notes. She reiterated the proponents of these bills are simply trying to get the cost of copies down to actual costs, not just a simple across-the-board charge since some of the agencies may have a higher charge than others.
Ms. Henderson stated she feels the system in her agency is very simple and straight forward. She explained if they are in a situation where they must identify documents which are simple to pull and copy versus documents which are sitting in a bound volume or sitting in a computer or microfiche she feels they will get into a very difficult and cumbersome bill. She emphasized to the committee they cannot imagine the types of documents county government offices handle. She explained some of the documents are readily accessible and some are not. She told the committee the system they use now is very effective and has worked for several decades. Ms. Henderson pointed out to the committee many of the individuals who request documents do not pay taxes in the state of Nevada. She explained they are individuals who got married in Nevada or individuals in real estate transactions who live out-of-state and therefore do not pay state taxes. She stated these are user fees which have been in place for at least 20 years which help offset some of those costs, so she feels it is wrong to state the taxpayers have also paid for this service, because she feels it is also a service being used by individuals who are not taxpayers.
Senator Hickey asked if part of the storage and copying problem is due to lack of space.
Ms. Henderson stated there is an issue of the lack of space and also an issue of how the documents are stored. She explained some of the documents are stored electronically, some in filing cabinets and other documents are stored in bound volumes.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 365, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 366 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 368 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 536.
SENATE BILL 536: Requires certain licenses to engage in business to be granted in certain circumstances.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 536.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO AND SENATOR CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the hearing at 5:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Tanya Morrison,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 18, 1993
Page 1