MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 25, 1993
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:20 p.m., on Friday, June 25, 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 Ernest (Ernie) E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel
Ricka Benum, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara Buckley, Attorney, Nevada Legal Services
Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas
Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks
Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
J. Bruce Brooks, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Tom McPherson, Deputy City Manager, City of Las Vegas, and Deputy
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency
Guy S. Hobbs, Lobbyist, Clark County
Howard E. Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association
Robert S. Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Tom J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities
John O. Swendseid, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
James F. Nadeau, Lieutenant, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens
John Wesley Riggs, Sr., Lobbyist
James Dan, Libertarian Party of Nevada
Thelma M. Clark, Lobbyist, Citizens Recall Effort
Mitch Brust, Chief of Technical Services, Department of Personnel
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Mike Dyer, Legal Counsel, Nevada State Education Association
Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of
the Secretary of State
Chairman O'Connell convened the meeting and requested a motion to suspend Senate Standing Rule 92.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO SUSPEND SENATE STANDING
RULE 92 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SESSION.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS LOWDEN AND HICKEY WERE
ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The chairman opened the hearing to testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 708.
ASSEMBLY BILL 708: Makes various changes concerning low-income housing. (BDR 22-1096)
Barbara Buckley, Attorney, Nevada Legal Services, urged support of A.B. 708. Ms. Buckley testified she also serves as the chairman of the Southern Nevada Homeless Coalition. Ms. Buckley informed the committee the average contract rent has increased by 76.4 percent since the beginning of the housing crises experienced across the country.
Emphasizing the need for affordable housing, Ms. Buckley stated there are only 10,000 subsidized housing units in Las Vegas. She said there has been a 245 percent increase in low income households in Clark County and that all of these may require some form of housing assistance. Ms. Buckley suggested if redevelopment funds were made available to use for affordable housing, a dent could be made in the demand for affordable housing.
According to Ms. Buckley, using redevelopment funds would add leverage in obtaining existing available housing funds. For example, funds could be used to acquire federal funds that are currently unclaimed or being used in other states because there is no match money available in Nevada.
She testified there is unanimous support for passage of the bill from the city representatives and local governments in the south as well as the Southern Nevada Homeless Coalition and the affordable housing committee. Ms. Buckley's testimony in its entirety is referenced as Exhibit C.
Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas, stated the city is committed to affordable housing. She urged lifting the existing statutory prohibition of using redevelopment funds for residential purposes. Mayor Jones listed steps taken by the city council to implement affordable housing, which included making it the first priority in city's strategic plan and the formation and operation of a regional housing board.
Mayor Jones stated the city council unanimously passed a resolution in February 1993 in support of changes to the redevelopment statute. The council earmarked 15 percent of the city's redevelopment fund to affordable housing in anticipation of the statutory provision. Mayor Jones informed the committee the first housing project that will receive the attention of the city is the proposed mobilized assistance to shelter the homeless (MASH) project. This project is designed to address the increasing problem of homelessness in Clark County by centralizing the existing social services. She commented that by providing a productive environment of caseworkers, counseling, day care, educational and library services people now living on the street can be brought back to the mainstream of society. Concluding, Mayor Jones indicated $2.5 million has been earmarked from the redevelopment funds, should they become available, to begin the construction of the MASH project.
Chairman O'Connell asked what the procedure involved to obtain matching federal funds.
Mayor Jones explained that by enabling southern Nevada to set aside a portion of the redevelopment funds that amount becomes available to the city for commitment to the homeless project. She explained the next step in the process is to seek out available matching funds.
Ms. Buckley explained that Clark County has six nonprofit organizations that have been going through an affordable housing institute. She said they have been teamed with a banker, a representative of local government and the private sector to design an affordable housing project. Ms. Buckley stated the need, then, is for a subsidy which the redevelopment funds would provide. Some financial institutions have agreed to provide below market interest rate financing for affordable housing projects. She outlined one possible breakdown for assistance would be 1/3 of the funds to come from the federal government, such as the low income tax credit program or other assistance program, and 1/3 of the funds to come from the redevelopment funds.
Senator Raggio questioned whether section 4 would make the measure apply only to the southern Nevada area. Mayor Jones indicated that was correct, then deferred questions on refinancing to the representative from the City of Las Vegas, Marvin Leavitt.
Mr. Leavitt explained since the redevelopment bonds have been issued, the refinancing language was added to protect the integrity of the bonds. He explained the inclusion of the refinance language serves to specify that any refinancing would be subordinate to the bonds, thereby protecting them.
It was noted by Mr. Leavitt, one of the principal reasons the City of Las Vegas entered the area of redevelopment was to provide "start-up funds" for a variety of projects, which would draw funds into the projects the city was interested in financing. He indicated this theory has worked well for the City of Las Vegas. Mr. Leavitt cited the Fremont Street Experience as an example of one project started with a small portion of redevelopment funds, which attracted a multiple of other funds, resulting in the success of the project.
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, also spoke in favor of the bill. Ms. Foster indicated she had worked with housing advocates to draw up legislation that the entire state would be comfortable with. She added the City of Sparks is in the third stage of its redevelopment project, and hopefully the city will be able to move into the area of affordable housing in the future. She said this measure would enable them to do so and urged the committee to pass A.B. 708.
Anita Laruy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, and J. Bruce Brooks, Lobbyist, City of Reno, also voiced support for A.B. 708.
Senator Raggio clarified the measure mandates the redevelopment funds to be set aside in Clark County but does not make it mandatory in other counties. Mr. Leavitt indicated agreement that was the county's intent.
Chairman O'Connell asked what would happen if the money earmarked was not used. Mr. Leavitt stated if the money was not used it would be rolled over for future use. The money could be used to fund bonds so a project could be financed, but it could not be used to pay for existing bonds. Since money going into the redevelopment agency is paid on an incremental basis, people are not actually paying additional tax. The money is just specifically earmarked for redevelopment purposes.
Tom McPherson, Deputy City Manager, City of Las Vegas, and Deputy Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, pointed out the redevelopment area expands into west Las Vegas. According to Mr. McPherson, much of the solution to problems of the homeless lies with affordable housing. He sees the redevelopment issue as a way to help address those concerns.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 708 and opened the meeting to testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 557.
SENATE BILL 557: Requires certain political subdivisions to develop debt management policies.
(BDR 30-1697)
Mr. Leavitt stated S.B. 557 is an attempt by representatives of local governments to develop a plan to help resolve problems occurring with debt management at local level. Mr. Leavitt explained many areas of Nevada are approaching the maximum allowable tax rate of $3.64. In order to gain control of the debt issues, the local entities must initiate plans to make the best use possible of the tax resources.
Guy Hobbs, Lobbyist, Clark County, submitted a copy of the Clark County debt management policy (Exhibit D) as a reference. It was indicated by Mr. Hobbs over a year was spent in preparing the policy that was adopted by the county a number of months ago.
In response to comments on the positive effect the debt management policy has had on the county's bond rating, Mr. Hobbs indicated that was the primary reason for the decision to formulate the policy. He explained analysts at the bond rating agencies are very abreast of current events and local issues in a community and take everything into consideration when issuing a bond rating. He said the bonding agencies weigh everything from current finances to intangible elements before issuing the bond rating.
Mr. Hobbs stated it has been learned that a clearly defined policy relating to the issuance of debt serves to strengthen a credit rating. Since the adoption of the debt management policy, it has clarified with investment bankers the way Clark County will do business, and made doing business with investment bankers much easier. He continued, a number of things that used be negotiated, or relegated to an investment banker at the time of debt issuance, are now under the full control of the county. Another important factor is addressing the debt capacity on an on-going basis, which is an important factor to rating agencies.
Mr. Hobbs testified many of the aspects of the Clark County policy were drafted into S.B. 557. He outlined each section of the bill for the committee and explained the purpose for their inclusion.
In summarizing portions of the language in S.B. 557, Mr. Hobbs said section 1 serves to add clarity to the definition of general obligation debt. The measure also outlines what is required of issuing entities, and adds the requirement that each issuing entity have a formal debt management policy adopted by the governing body. The policy is to include the entity's ability to afford debt, the capacity of the entity to continue to incur debt, as well as debt burden comparisons. Mr. Hobbs said an important feature of the debt management policy is to state how an entity intends to market its debt.
S.B. 557 also contains a provision that would restrict the general obligation bond commission from approving debts which would cause the tax rate in any overlapping district in a county to exceed the statutory limit. Mr. Hobbs commented he sees this as the appropriate place to vest that level of control. The bill also gives the bond commission more information than ever before.
Section 5 requires additional details regarding proposed bond issuance to be included on sample ballots. Mr. Hobbs pointed out that the principal and interest associated with the bond issue, is to be stated separately. Concluding, he said section 6 caps the duration of voter approved overrides to a 30-year period.
Howard E. Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayer's Association, testified in favor of S.B. 557. He specifically supported the sections requiring additional information being included on the sample ballot. Mr. Barrett stated presently there is not sufficient information on the ballot for the voter to make an informed decision regarding a bond issue.
Mr. Barrett stated current financial problems of Lander and White Pine counties show the need for the bond commission to have the plans of local governmental entities available to them.
Senator Raggio asked if each county has the expertise to comply with the requirements set out in S.B. 557.
Mr. Barrett stated it would be his assumption they would not. However, he saw the bill as containing common-sense language and that someone already doing the budget could absorb this kind of material.
Senator Raggio commented the measure is desirable as well as a necessary requirement. However, he expressed concern that the counties with limited resources and expertise may have difficulty in complying with all the provisions set out in the bill.
Mr. Leavitt pointed out that the local entity will be submitting the debt management policy data to the county advisory committee. The advisory committee is comprised of representatives from cities, counties, schools districts, etc., and will be available to assist the entities with the process. Mr. Leavitt indicated, as chairman of an advisory committee, annual workshops are being planned to offer information. He also pointed out that each entity in the state that issues bonds either has bond counselors or financial advisors.
Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), offered support of S.B. 557 and commended the committee's concerns regarding the ability of the counties to comply with the provisions. Mr. Hadfield urged the committee to support the measure. He voiced confidence that the counties could devise and implement debt management policies with the assistance of NACO and the local government advisory committee.
Tom J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities, also spoke in support of S.B. 557.
Mr. Leavitt explained a number of technical amendments have been developed to address emergency situations. Mr. Leavitt explained the term "emergency" is to be defined in statute. He indicated these to be situations that could not be foreseen and set out in a 3-year plan.
Senator Rhoads, referring to a situation in Lander County, where a hospital levy has been enacted, requested the amendment to include the repeal of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 244.263.
Mr. Leavitt noted there are areas in the statutes where it may appear possible to exceed the $3.64 tax limit. He requested language be included in S.B. 557 stating the location of the tax limit citation and additional language that would include "notwithstanding any other provision, the total maximum tax rate allowed is $3.64." Mr. Leavitt said:
This would clarify that there is no methodology by which someone could exceed the $3.64...that has been the intent of the legislature since it was enacted in 1979...this would clarify it once and for all...
John O. Swendseid, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, explained the technical amendments referred to by Mr. Leavitt. They included corrections such as reference and typographical errors.
Mr. Leavitt stated the main purpose why S.B. 557 was drafted was to guarantee control and ensure that property taxes could not go beyond the maximum limit. Continuing, he explained that often the situation occurs when a local government appeals to voters, not to issue debt, but to obtain an override for a particular purpose. Typically, once the override is applied the tax exceeds the limit. Mr. Leavitt stated the area of voter overrides needs to be addressed in the statutes, and urged the committee to make policy decision by amending S.B. 557 to include such language. He suggested that it would be appropriate to expand the duties of the general obligation bond commission to oversee that these types of occurrences do not happen. He also noted that overrides essentially have the same effect as a debt.
Mr. Swendseid commented legislation is needed to develop controls over the voter overrides to prevent situations whereby the maximum limit is exceeded. He noted this results in other entities being excluded from certain operating monies to which they are entitled.
The committee expressed general agreement that language be included in the amendment to S.B. 557 stating an entity or local government must obtain the approval of the bond commission before incurring a debt or attempting a tax override.
Chairman O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 557 and opened the meeting to testimony on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 62.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 62: Urges local law enforcement agencies to develop guidelines to ensure that citizens are afforded their right to bear arms.
(BDR R-2089)
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, testified in support of A.C.R. 62. Ms. Lusk explained there has been much misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the existing concealed weapons law.
Ms. Lusk briefly explained a telephone survey she conducted in which each county sheriff's office was asked to respond. She submitted a summary of the survey results (Exhibit E) to illustrate several different interpretations of the law.
John Wesley Riggs, Sr., Lobbyist, offered support for A.C.R. 62. Mr. Riggs testified law enforcement personnel hired from out of state are often not familiar with the law in Nevada. According to Mr. Riggs, this resolution will encourage law enforcement administrators to require that officers are familiar and schooled on the statutes of this state. This would ensure Nevada's citizens that law enforcement officers will be knowledgeable of citizen's rights.
The chairman closed the hearing on A.C.R. 62 and called for a brief recess before beginning the work session portion of the meeting.
Chairman O'Connell reconvened the meeting at 3:40 p.m. The first order of business of the work session was Assembly Bill 66.
ASSEMBLY BILL 66:Makes various changes relating to alternative methods of resolving disputes. (BDR 20-217)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 66.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio clarified that Senator Nevin's motion referred to the second reprint of the bill.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS LOWDEN, RHOADS AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 708: Makes various changes concerning low-income housing. (BDR 22-1096)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 708.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio noted the population language contained in section 4 of A.B. 708 referring to the mandatory 15 percent revenue is specifically written to include only the City of Las Vegas. However, he added the language is permissible and leaves the option open for other cities.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RHOADS AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 457: Creates Nevada commission on long-term planning. (BDR 18-1006)
Senator Ernest (Ernie) E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District, explained that the amendments added to S.B. 457 would reduce the number of members on the long-term planning commission.
Senator Adler read a condensed version of the additional proposed language that was submitted by the Nevada Press Association:
The primary goal of the commission is to develop long-term goals for the twenty-first century that will enhance the economic well-being of the state and improve the quality of service by the state and local governments in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
He explained the effective date, if passed, was set for January 1, 1995, to eliminate the need for a fiscal note on the bill now.
It was pointed out by Senator Adler the measure sets out an ongoing process of long-term budget planning. He viewed it as a continual process of governmental reorganization. This would serve to eliminate the need for a massive overhaul to streamline the system, such as the Governor proposed this session.
Senator Raggio questioned the logic of starting a commission just before the next session. Senator Adler responded the date would enable the governor's appointees to the commission to be confirmed during the 1995 Legislative Session.
Senator Raggio pointed out if the commission is set up any time during the next interim, a budget would need to be approved now. He stated this would require the creation of a position for the commission director, as well as support staff. Senator Raggio said the idea certainly had merit, but there would be no way to re-open the budgets this session. He suggested Senator Adler introduce this legislation early in the next session.
Senator Rhoads also supported the concept. He suggested the possibility of requesting an interim study on long-term planning.
Following a general discussion, Senator Adler requested the bill be considered for an interim study.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO RE-REFER S.B. 457 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS WITH INSTRUCTIONS FROM THIS COMMITTEE THAT THE BILL BE CONSIDERED AS A POTENTIAL INTERIM STUDY.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell indicated the next order of business would be S.B. 281. She requested Senator Hickey to make a motion.
SENATE BILL 281: Authorizes administrator of division of state parks of state department of conservation and natural resources to collect fees from senior citizens for special services. (BDR 35-270)
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 281.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CALLISTER WAS ABSENT FOR
THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The chairman requested Senator Rhoads to report on S.B. 324.
SENATE BILL 324: Requires performance of certain activities by private enterprise unless public performance is compelled. (BDR 19-1022)
Senator Rhoads explained an amendment is being proposed to initiate a pilot program testing the concept of the measure. He explained the original language of S.B. 324 would have enabled a private entity to challenge a state agency for the award of projects or duties after a successful hearing. The private enterprise would be required to document how they could provide a better, more economical job or service.
The conditions of the pilot program were outlined by Senator Rhoads. He said a petition would be filed with the State Board of Examiners showing a savings of at least $10,000 could be achieved. Continuing, he explained the amendment also states that only the Division of General Services could be challenged.
Senator Rhoads also noted if passed, S.B. 324 would become effective January 1, 1994. It also requires that the Commission on Economic Development report the progress of the program to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs by February 15th of the next legislative session.
There was general agreement from the committee to wait for the amendment before taking action on S.B. 324.
Chairman O'Connell said the bill to be discussed was 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. (BDR 18-612)
Chairman O'Connell reminded the committee members that the bill was requested as a result of the interim study. She said S.B. 542 serves to codify regulations that have already have been put into place by these agencies.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 542.
SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND RHOADS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Nevin was requested by Chairman O'Connell to explain the amendment to S.B. 403.
SENATE BILL 403: Requires local government employer under certain circumstances to appropriate amount sufficient to cover cost for employees' health insurance. (BDR 23-766)
According to Senator Nevin, the amendment makes major changes to S.B. 403. The bill, as amended, would apply exclusively to the Clark County School District, and, he added, all language referencing appropriating funds was removed. Senator Nevin read the amended language:
If pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, between the school district and a county whose population is 400,000 or more, and an employees' representative of the board of trustees of the school district, has delegated to the employees representative the design of a plan of the employees' insurance benefits, but has not agreed to a level of funding, the board of trustees shall appropriate a sufficient amount to provide a benefit as determined by the plans actuary.
It was noted by Senator Nevin this language does not mandate that funds are appropriated but, instead, leaves the subject open for negotiation.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 403.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS O'CONNELL, LOWDEN AND RHOADS
VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The next order of business the chairman brought up for discussion was Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 49.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 49: Urges all parties involved in proposed mining operation at Robinson Mining District to cooperate concerning completion of Environmental Impact Statement. (BDR R-2148)
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS S.C.R. 49.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Callister requested discussion of the proposed amendments to S.B. 544.
SENATE BILL 544: Restricts activity in wilderness study area.
(BDR 22-1561)
Senator Callister informed the committee the language was changed wherever it occurs, from "wilderness" or "wilderness study area" to "national conservation area." Also, on page 1, line 13 of S.B. 544 the language requested by the Nevada Department of Wildlife requesting guzzlers for chukar was added.
Senator Rhoads commented he was under the impression the bill would be limited to the Red Rock National Conservation Area.
During the discussion that followed, it was agreed to stipulate the area by inserting the term "Red Rock National Conservation Area" in section 2.
SENATOR CALLISTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 544 AS STATED AND BY INSERTING THE WORDS "RED ROCK NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA" IN SECTION 2.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
At the request of the chairman, Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, outlined the proposed amendment to S.B. 552.
SENATE BILL 552: Makes various changes regarding elections.
(BDR 24-1299)
Ms. Jenkins provided each member with copy of the amended language and noted each change was requested by the committee a result of either discussion or testimony from previous hearings on S.B. 552. She noted that the changes were compiled with the assistance of Dale A.R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State. Ms. Jenkins outlined each proposal and its intended effect. She submitted a copy of the proposed language, referenced as Exhibit F herein.
Senator Hickey expressed concern that the problems of the petition process were not addressed in the amended language. He recalled suggestions during previous testimony for the Office of the Secretary of State to provide petition rules and regulations in pamphlet form to be made available to the public.
Continuing, Senator Hickey stated the rules should be clearly spelled out and stated in a way that ensures public understanding, leaving no room for interpretation.
Responding to Senator Hickey, Ms. Jenkins relayed the explanation offered by the Office of the Secretary of State addressing the use of pre-printed petition forms. Each page of a petition must have the subject question being asked printed at the top; therefore, it would not be practical to require use of a standardized pre-printed form. Ms. Jenkins said the secretary of state's office does require, for certain petitions, a sample form be submitted prior to being circulated.
Senator Hickey argued he saw no reason the Office of the Secretary of State could not print and issue numbered petitions from a submitted sample. He commented that if problems of the petition process are going to be solved, the objective should be the placement of strict controls. Further, he stated the entire petition process needs detailed administration to eliminate petitions from being dispelled by the courts. According to Senator Hickey, the secretary of state should be made responsible and accountable for the petition process along with requirements to maintain specific history records.
James Dan, Libertarian Party of Nevada, suggested a prototype form be provided by the secretary of state. Mr. Dan indicated the Office of the Secretary of State should not be burdened with the cost of reproducing or distributing the petitions.
Senator Hickey voiced profound disagreement with Mr. Dan's comments by saying:
Any time we are dealing with the credibility of government, it is the duty of the secretary of state to be fully involved...in the forms...to ensure they are properly done...we want to represent those people who are filing those forms at any cost...or at any burden...the people filing those forms are saying government does not work...it is for us to provide the actual facts or the forms or whatever it takes to say, yes it does work and we are here to make sure it does...
I do not accept the argument that we do not want to burden secretary of state...I say yes we do...in order to make it a legitimate operation...perceived operation ...people have come up here [before us] saying something is wrong, we have to meet that problem, and I am saying this will...
It was again suggested by Mr. Dan that the secretary of state should provide an approved prototype for reproduction.
Senator Hickey interjected that a prototype would not be an acceptable solution. He stated the secretary of state's office has been requested to number the petition forms to provide control. He stated further:
...we want those forms numbered, so we know they are controlled...we want to know who the circulator is...we want to be involved in this...it is not going to be a loose petition [process]...it is going to have credibility...
Ms. Lusk offered comments on S.B. 552 that also focused on the petition process.
Thelma M. Clark, Lobbyist, Citizens Recall Effort, offered support for all the proposed amendments. Ms. Clark suggested further amending the bill on page 13, subsection 1, after the word election, by adding "or petition provided for in this title, whether acting himself or through another person in his behalf." She indicated this language had the approval of the secretary of state's office.
After much general discussion, Chairman O'Connell indicated she would accept a motion unless the members of the committee would prefer to wait for further amendments to S.B. 552.
Chairman O'Connell stated the amendment to be requested would contain the language referenced in Exhibit E, the suggested additions offered by Ms. Clark and a proposal previously submitted to the committee. She read the language to be included:
When circulating a petition on a statewide basis, it can be done in any county, and when circulating a petition on a regional basis, or when it has to do with a specific district, then persons signing the petition must be from that district.
Senator Nevin pointed out that the county registrars may not be able to absorb the costs for services that passage of S.B. 552 will mandate.
Senator Hickey requested section 6 of S.B. 552 be amended to read "the secretary of state shall prepare a form for filing and circulating the petitions. The form must be made available to the public and must be provided to any person who requests such information at actual cost."
Ms. Jenkins pointed out that section 6 of the bill may be the appropriate section to require the secretary of state to provide a sample format for petitions, if it was the committee's intent to include that language in the amendment.
Senator Nevin questioned if the filing fees were to be increased for state officers.
In response, Ms. Jenkins stated no, that the fees were not increased. She explained the change was that the state officers were spelled out in the statute. The existing language stated "other state officers." This language serves only to list them by office.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 552 AS STATED.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The next order of business brought up for discussion by the chairman was A.B. 339.
ASSEMBLY BILL 339: Revises provisions relating to specialized or local ethics committees. (BDR 23-834)
Chairman O'Connell reminded the committee that testimony from proponents of A.B. 339 demonstrated the importance of the bill being passed in its exact form. They did not want the bill amended to address the concerns expressed by the committee, that the bill would be create a conflict with the existing Commission on Ethics.
Senator Raggio read from portions of the bill and wanted clarification on the concerns of the committee.
Senator Hickey indicated the ethic standards are already in place by statute and he did not see a need for the bill.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 339.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 355: Amends provisions governing testing of state employees for use of alcohol or controlled substances. (BDR 23-663)
Chairman O'Connell explained testimony on A.B. 355 would restrict blood test on state employees when testing for use of substances.
Senator Nevin commented he felt the bill would result in a disfavor to state employees. He pointed out passage of A.B. 355 would limit employees to only one test. He believed this would be a disadvantage when testing for some particular substances.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 355.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio questioned whether or not there was anyone who testified in opposition to the bill. He stated he was under the impression that the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA) and Department of Personnel supported the measure.
Chairman O'Connell indicated her understanding was they did not support the removal of blood tests from the current statute.
Following discussion, it was suggested by Senator Raggio to hold the bill for more information from the Department of Personnel.
Senator Nevin withdrew his motion.
Chairman O'Connell recessed the hearing to accommodate the meeting schedules of three of the committee members.
The meeting was reconvened by the Chairman O'Connell at 6:10 p.m. She indicated discussion of A.B. 355 would continue.
Mitch Brust, Chief of Technical Services, Department of Personnel, attempted to clear up the confusion on A.B. 355. Mr. Brust explained that the primary purpose for the bill is to clarify when a state employee can be required to test for substances. Section 2, subsection 2, discusses the consequences if an employee refuses to be tested, but only pursuant to subsection 1. This language has caused problems insofar as it leaves a question whether or not it is to mean pursuant to subsection 1, as well as subsection 2.
Mr. Brust explained the Department of Personnel requested that the blood test be removed as an option when testing for controlled substances because it was indicated that blood tests would not detect marijuana and some other drugs. However, Mr. Brust stated that blood tests would still be an option when testing for alcohol.
Senator Nevin clarified that blood tests would be left in section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (b), by removal of the brackets on "or blood."
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 355 AS STATED.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, HICKEY AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell asked for discussion on A.B. 359.
ASSEMBLY BILL 359: Makes various changes regarding administration of program of deferred compensation for state employees. (BDR 23-5)
Ms. Jenkins explained, to correct a technical error that should have been corrected on the second reprint, the words "or the department of transportation" should be deleted.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 359.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, HICKEY AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The next measure brought for discussion was A.B. 365.
ASSEMBLY BILL 365: Substitutes civil enforcement of access to public records for criminal penalty.
(BDR 19-393)
Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, testified the purpose of A.B. 365 is to remove the criminal penalty for violation of the public records law and provides that court costs and attorney fees can be collected. Ms. Engleman reminded the committee there was no opposition to the measure.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 365.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, HICKEY AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 366: Establishes procedures for public inspection of public records. (BDR 19-397)
Ms. Engleman explained there was no opposition to A.B. 366; however, there was concern with the other two public records bills. She indicated she was proposing the definition of a public record taken from A.B. 364, and an additional new section be amended into A.B. 366. The proposed new section requested by Ms. Engleman is referenced as Exhibit G.
ASSEMBLY BILL 364: Makes various changes regarding access to public books and records. (BDR 19-399)
Chairman O'Connell requested Ms. Engleman to read the proposed definition of a public record. Ms. Engleman read the definition from section 2, paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 3-14 of A.B. 364. It was explained that A.B. 364 was not likely to be passed out of the assembly.
Senator Nevin questioned if that language would open the personnel records of city, county or state employees. He expressed concern since those records were not considered confidential in what was outlined by Ms. Engleman.
Ms. Engleman stated the language serves only to define a public record, and there are 300 statute exemptions that make various records confidential. She said if there is a law exempting specific personnel files, and it deems them confidential, this language would have no affect on those existing statutes.
Senator Nevin voiced concern and requested the addition of language to state that personnel files be exempt. He indicated that the language proposed by Ms. Engleman would allow for personnel records to be opened.
Ms. Engleman pointed out that the public records study definition is to achieve a balance, not to open any records deemed to be confidential or exempt by statute.
Mike Dyer, Legal Counsel, Nevada State Education Association, agreed with Senator Nevin's concerns that the amended language may open personnel files. He testified that very few public employee records are statutorily defined to be confidential. Mr. Dyer said he also participated in the interim study and viewed the definition as too broad, and suggested the definition be amended to simply exempt personnel records.
Ms. Engleman indicated these same areas were addressed and discussed during 4 days of testimony when the public records bills were heard in the assembly. She stated that during the interim study on public records, the press made clear there is no interest personal information, such as family or medical history. She contended that job qualifications should be available to the public.
Mr. Dyer stressed that personnel files should not be made available to any one who would request them. He pointed out that the educational employees have enough regulation and scrutiny of their personal lives.
At the request of the chairman, Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, addressed the questions posed by Senator Nevin. Ms. Needham stated she read the language as broad enough to include any record that a government entity would have. She added if a record was made confidential in another part of the statute, a record would remain so.
During the lengthy general discussion that followed there were additional comments made regarding different areas of information contained in personnel files and which portions, if any of those records should be made public. There also was much debate focusing on justifications for rigid confidentiality of law enforcement and school teachers' personnel records. Senators Raggio and Callister expressed major concerns with the broadness of language proposed to define a public record.
Chairman O'Connell indicated that A.B. 366 would be held for the information requested by Senators Nevin and Raggio.
ASSEMBLY BILL 368: Requires charges for copies of public records not to exceed cost. (BDR 19-396)
Ms. Engleman informed the committee another assembly bill which requests raising many of the same costs referred to in A.B. 368 is to be heard. She requested holding this measure so the two could be discussed together and provide a comparison for one another.
The chairman brought A.B. 442 as the next order of business.
ASSEMBLY BILL 442: Requires counties hiring permanent residents of United States to obtain certain documentation and makes various changes to provisions relating to employment of deputies of certain county officers. (BDR 20-453)
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 442.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio requested further information from the proponents of A.B. 442. He wanted to clarify there is a necessity for the bill, since it is covered by federal law.
Senator Nevin withdrew his motion pending the requested additional information.
The next bill brought for discussion by the chairman was A.B. 535.
ASSEMBLY BILL 535: Expands class of publicly owned water systems eligible for grant for capital improvement. (BDR 30-1469)
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 535.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell asked for discussion on A.B. 644. There being none, she requested a motion.
ASSEMBLY BILL 644: Expands authority of certain local governments to establish parking facilities and spaces. (BDR 20-1939)
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 644.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 703: Limits certain types of surveillance of public employees at place of employment.
(BDR 23-2031)
Senator Rhoads indicated his notes reflect that A.B. 703 is identical to a senate bill already passed.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 703.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 706: Authorizes formation of district to defray cost of improving airport. (BDR 20-2090)
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 706.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O'Connell noted A.B. 706 should be held for the proposed amendment. The next measures for discussion were Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 28 and A.J.R. 29.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 28: Urges Congress to review Social Security offset and windfall provisions. (BDR R-1887)
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 29: Urges national designation of month of May as United States Armed Forces History Month. (BDR R-1926)
It was brought to the committee's attention by the chairman that there was no testimony given either for or against these resolutions.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 28.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 28.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell asked for further discussion on A.C.R. 62.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.C.R. 62.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio spoke to the motion made by Senator Nevin. He stressed the importance of the legislature's support of A.C.R. 62. He stated it should, be noted as a matter of record, that questions such as whether or not weapons concealed on a person, are being interpreted in too broad of a fashion. Senator Raggio stated the law on concealed weapons was never intended to included a glove compartment box, etc. He pointed out that if the law is being misinterpreted, the legislature should clearly go on record stating that it is being misinterpreted.
Senator Nevin said it is part of academy and police officer training to learn the laws. He stated he was not aware there was any problem of misinterpretation of the concealed weapons law by enforcement agencies. He requested clarification from law enforcement representatives.
Jim Nadeau, Lieutenant, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, explained three bills were introduced to change the concealed weapons laws. The bill drafts were a result of the misunderstanding and misapplication of the current statutes. According to Lieutenant Nadeau, the misinterpretation has not been just on the part of law enforcement, but also from the public, who base their knowledge on the laws of state they moved here from. For instance, in California a gun in the glove box or under the seat of a vehicle is illegal.
Senator Nevin requested that his motion to indefinitely postpone A.C.R. 62 to be withdrawn.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.C.R. 62.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 539: Makes various changes to election laws to comply with National Voter Registration Act of 1993. (BDR 24-1839)
Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Deputy Secretary for Elections, Office of the Secretary of State, informed the committee it is imperative the state take steps to comply with the federal law by January 1, 1995.
Since it will be two years before the next session, this measure would display the legislature's "good faith" effort, even though there is the possibility portions of the measure may have to been revised in the future.
The amendment submitted by the secretary of state's office addressed the concerns previously expressed by Senator Nevin, which would provide for the establishment of a state registry for felons. The other changes included were to address concerns of the county registrars and the Nevada Press Association's amendments regarding prior restraint. Mr. Erquiaga added that this language is exactly the same wording as the federal language. He indicated this portion of the proposed amendment also clearly sets out the responsibilities of the county clerks. The remainder of the amendments were of a clean-up nature.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 539.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman O'Connell requested the committee members review Amendment No. 1012 to S.B. 256 and she would accept a motion.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO DO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 1012
TO S.B. 256.
SENATOR HICKEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RHOADS AND CALLISTER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business, Chairman O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ricka Benum,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
June 25, 1993
Page 1