MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS
Sixty-seventh Session
March 2, 1993
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:35 p.m., on Tuesday, March 2, 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 Mike McGinness, Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator R. Hal Smith
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ernest Adler
Senator Bob Coffin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Gary Crews, Chief Deputy, Legislative Auditor
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
C. Edwin Fend, American Association of Retired Persons
John Butterworth, Nevada Technologies Inc.
George Brown, Concerned Citizen
Andy Laubert, P.T. Forum
Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative,
Clark County School District
Kirby L. Burgess, Assistant Director, Administrative Services,
Clark County
Larry M. Osborne, Executive Vice President,
Carson City Chamber of Commerce
Mike Goodwin, Community Service Organization
Joe Dahl, Elko and Esmeralda Counties
Andrea Engleman, Nevada Press Association
Dr. James Richardson, Professor, University of Nevada, Reno
Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 4.
Senate Joint Resolution 4: Proposes to amend Nevada consti-tution to authorize Legislature to convene temporarily at places other than seat of government. (BDR 17-643)
Chairman McGinness introduced Senator Coffin, one of the sponsors of the bill. His paraphrased testimony follows:
Senator Coffin thanked the senators for inviting him to testify and for having a speedy hearing on the bill. He indicated the bill would allow, if passed by the 1993 and 1995 legislatures, and by the people in 1996, the legislature temporarily to hold sessions at other places as designated by the leadership of the legislature.
When the constitution was written, the founding fathers probably did not dream the state would change from where the entire population was within 30 miles of the capital. Now, he said, issues do arise outside this area. He indicated there is a great misunderstanding in the public's mind about how the legislature operates and even what it looks like; what happens to legislators who leave Elko, Ely, Lincoln County, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City and live up here for 5 or 6 months to deliberate.
At times the legislature has been brought to other parts of the state through interim hearings and most recently through hearings held in southern Nevada. Senator Coffin said, "That by what I have expressed there must be a need for this and I think you can see where we have had special sessions which certainly did not need to be held in Carson City." He indicated special sessions are just one example for this kind of tool. He said, "The bill does not purport to permanently move the legislature, does not purport to move the capitol." He said we have invested too much money in this beautiful town and he doesn't think we would want to turn our backs on that. He emphasized the legislature should be as mobile as the Supreme Court of Nevada, which in the 1970s successfully pursued the same course. The legislature passed, in two successive legislatures, and people approved, the ability of the court to meet in other parts of the state. Two of the three branches are able to mobilize anywhere in the state, and the third one, the legislature, only in Carson City. He said he thought that should be changed, that it was wrong. He stated, "On the other hand I think that we should retain our capitol here." He indicated he didn't think there was any pressure to move our capitol.
Senator Coffin noted there was support for this bill from other parts of the state which he hoped would be expressed in testimony today from people in the meeting room or later in committee members' offices. He stated he was ready to discuss the bill any time and offered to answer questions.
Senator Callister indicated he thought Senator Coffin's introductory remarks were accurate. There has been significant concern expressed about what the bill does or does not do, but implicitly might authorize. He said he imagined that Nevada is not unique in having evolved in terms of population base issues and the dynamics of the state over 100 plus years. He asked if Senator Coffin had done any research on how other states have addressed this circumstance and if they had addressed the problem of having the legislature sit far away from one of the major population bases. Did they utilize this remedy or had there been some remedy short of authorizing a full session outside of the capitol itself?
Senator Coffin explained the legislative staff, as requested, initiated a study to frame what the issues really were and what it really meant. In addition to this preliminary work about the practical aspects of a legislature meeting someplace else, they did look into the practices of other states. They found many other states have provisions for moving the legislature in cases of danger, disease, or emergencies, with only the requirement that the governor proclaim or direct such a move. The Indiana constitution states the legislature should meet in a particular time and place as ours does, but it provides for meeting at a different place or day as appointed by law, which means the legislature can determine to meet elsewhere. West Virginia requires the legislature to meet in Charleston unless otherwise provided by law. It does not happen very often because most state capitols are in smaller states. Nevada is the seventh largest state. In most states the capitol is either very close to the population center or within 100 to 200 miles which is generally the radius of the state. In Nevada we have a 500 mile radius from our capitol to other parts of the state and approximately 80 per cent of the population lives outside of 35 miles from the capitol.
Senator Coffin indicated states have moved their capitols ... "but I'm not implying that we should do that. I don't think that's necessary after 130 years of proud tradition."
Senator Raggio noted the legislature now has the full ability to have a committee, or number of committees, meet anywhere in the state to hold hearings, which is often done. He asked, "Since we have that ability, why is it necessary to amend our constitution to allow the full convening of a legislative session, even on a temporary basis, because it seems to me for all the reasons you have enumerated those same concerns are accommodated under our present system."
Senator Coffin replied the constitution just prohibits us from voting any place else. "That is the most precious thing that we do here. We cannot demonstrate to anyone outside of Carson City just how we really work. I feel like we're a bit impotent and only that we can hear testimony in other regions of the state, but we cannot act. We cannot ... truly show the legislature in action .... I think that it's fairer to people who live in other parts of the state to have the ability to have this legislature moved there."
Senator Raggio inquired that since they can hold hearings, have people testify, go through the whole process of collecting information, and allow participation by telecommunications where the people can actually see the committee vote here, "Why is it so important that the vote actually be taken at that time? As an example, congress holds hearings outside of Washington, subcommittees only or special committees. There aren't votes taken outside of congress. Why is that so important?"
Senator Coffin replied that it might improve our country's condition if congress had to vote outside the beltway.
Senator Raggio said, "The fact is they don't and they can't."
Senator Coffin agreed saying, "And we cannot either unless we make some change in this whole tradition. ... the decisive moment of any legislature is when it happens, when it votes. Whether it be by voice vote in the old traditional way or just by pushing a button as we do today. And to take that to the people is the goal of this bill."
Senator McGinness asked whether Senator Coffin envisioned this as a session where the legislature might pass a law and say that the legislature would meet in Ely, Caliente, or Las Vegas for a certain period of time or had he thought that far along.
Senator Coffin indicated the decision would be made by leadership. Since the legislature can only be called into special session by the Governor, should a pressing need occur, such as mining, the Governor could suggest a special session of the legislature to meet in a county where the mining industry predominates; or, the leadership of the legislature could make the decision where to convene. He said, "It is contemplated the leadership would do that. I do not think that I contemplate a 2-week legislative session somewhere, I'm not sure. ... Could be it is very practical to meet someplace else ... and very logistically easily conquered too."
Chairman McGinness indicated when he scheduled this bill, he asked Mr. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to be prepared to answer some questions. Mr. Crossley came up with a very succinct three page document (Exhibit C). It contains an analysis of the resolution and a very objective noncommittal look at what the legislature would have to consider. Chairman McGinness asked if there were questions for Mr. Crossley.
Senator Coffin said:
I think that this was an excellent first step. ... Each and every one of these things is important. By the way, this is a kind of a summation of how we do things now. It doesn't take into account the fact that before electronics we did it all by voice vote, and up until 1969 we didn't have committee rooms and so much of the legislature took place really in one building in two rooms and I think two rooms can be found easily in any part of the state. ... and also, by the way, we don't need microphones. There are all kinds of reasons and justifications for driving up the cost of the legislature, on the other hand, that's not the intent of this. Its a very good document, a good planning document should you choose to pass this.
Chairman McGinness introduced Senator Adler.
Senator Adler stated:
Originally I wasn't going to testify on this bill but I feel compelled to say a few words. I really don't know how I feel about this, but I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea if we're going to implement this that we have say a fleet of Winnebagos so we can all go en masse around the state and have this type of hearing process and perhaps within the fleet of Winnebagos we could have electronic voting machines. I find that being here in Carson City, we're all kind of sitting ducks for the public. So if we were moving at least down the highways of the state when we cast these controversial votes we probably wouldn't incur all the wrath that we have with being here in one spot, in the mass of news coverage which we receive. So although at first blush I was a little bit despondent with Senator Coffin's notion that perhaps we needed more than one state capitol. Now that I think about it, the idea of us being a mobile society perhaps a 'Legisbago' legislature is, it starts having some appeal. And there are numerous far away places in this state where I think we could hide out if this constitutional amendment were passed. And I think at least from the perspective of legislators not having to take the heat from the public, it might be a good idea. So I don't take a position on this bill. I'm just...
Senator Collister said:
I think Senator Adler should be disqualified and only Senator Adler cause he's from Carson City. Obviously ... did not make decisions while he's here where he lives. I would consider this proposal extraordinarily self-serving.
Mr. Edwin Fend, representing American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), spoke in support of S.J.R. 4. His paraphrased testimony follows:
The time is right for a bill that will enfranchise more Nevadians. This country has accepted the idea that town meetings and more participation in government is what the country is looking for. Voters should be encouraged to be more active in governmental processes and this bill will go a long a way to encourage them to do so. Citizens need to see how government operates and be provided with opportunities to question and to have their concerns put directly to their legislators. Many of their problems may not be solved at these sessions, but at least the voters will feel that they had a day in court. It might remove some of the feelings and concerns that many citizens have for those legislators, in the ivory towers, who do not understand the problems that we have. This is a common statement made in many areas of this state. We have to ignore the paranoia of people and papers who emphasize that this idea is not good and is the first step to moving the capitol. It is the first step in participatory government that may effectively involve more of our citizens in the governmental processes. It was mentioned earlier why we need to do this, and have other states done this. There just are not many other states that have the geographical boundaries that the state of Nevada has. It is essential that the legislature get out and visit the people and the voters of Nevada. Mr. Fend encouraged the committee members to give serious consideration to this bill.
Senator Callister thanked Mr. Fend for his testimony and reiterated that the heart of this bill is not the right to conduct hearings (we can do this now), but is the right to cast a meaningful vote, to make the final decision at some location outside of this building. He asked Mr. Fend whether his constituents felt that it was crucial enough to address a constitutional change of this magnitude, whether at the committee level or the entire legislature?
Mr. Fend replied he did feel it was that important. He indicated the AARP legislative committee had a thorough discussion on this subject. One of the concerns expressed was that this was the wedge to move the capitol somewhere else. He stated, "That's poppycock." There has been too much money invested in this area to even consider moving. Accountability is one of the problems. Committee sessions can meet anywhere, but when they return to Carson City and vote, frequently the people's interpretation of what they heard at the committee sessions, or the promises they thought were made to them, are significantly different from the final vote here. He emphasized that is why it is extremely important occasionally to have these votes taken outside the Carson City area.
Senator Callister indicated that realistically you are going to get a committee vote, because it is very difficult to imagine relocating the entire legislature for purposes of casting a vote. Indicating he appreciated Mr. Fend's vigorous support, he reiterated his question, "Do you think that the right of the people to see the committee decision making process and the final committee vote made is crucial enough to change our constitution."
Mr. Fend replied, "Yes."
Senator Raggio asked if this was the official position of the AARP Legislative Board?
Mr. Fend replied in the affirmative.
Senator Raggio inquired if AARP would support the same right that Congress should meet outside of Washington as a body and actually have votes?
Mr. Fend indicated he didn't know as that was not brought up and he did not want to speak for other members.
When Senator Raggio asked how he felt, Mr. Fend replied, "No." When asked why, Mr Fend indicated he did not think it practical to move the five hundred and some members of Congress compared to moving the small size of our legislature here.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Fend what he thought the meaning of the words "temporarily hold sessions" was. He asked, at what "point would you think it would be violative of the opposed changes in the constitution for the legislature if we passed this and adopted it? At what point do you think it would be inappropriate for the legislature, as a full body, to convene outside of the state capitol?"
Mr. Fend indicated that was a difficult question. He said, "I think that we're looking at the intelligence and good offices of the leadership of the members of the house and the senate to make the proper decision on when, how, and where this should be done without creating excessive costs or excessive meetings outside of the area. I think that by meeting outside the area, and reassuring the voters of this state that they are participating, will serve its purpose without a large number of meetings."
Mr. John Butterworth, Nevada Technologies, Inc., said he echoed much of what Mr. Fend had stated. He noted, correct or not, the public perception is that they do not have a handle on government any more. Using the example of moving things out of the beltway, the public perception of Washington, D. C., is that they no longer have a representative government. Nevada could be very trend setting by getting out and seeing the people. If the legislature continues to have biennial sessions, they could decide where they would go this year, then next year. This way costs could be held down, but at least the people would get the feeling that the legislators are going to be out there with them and that is what they want.
Mr. Butterworth said he represented a large group of disabled people who can only sit in their houses and wait for the newspaper to arrive to find out what has happened. The transportation issue is a real problem. He lives in Carson City so he can come to the legislature. However, those who live in Ely, never get a chance to participate. He stated he thinks even if the legislature were to meet one or two times a year somewhere else, it might be accomplished for a low cost and make the people of this state really feel like they are participating once again.
Senator McGinness asked what group Mr. Butterworth represented.
Mr. Butterworth replied that it is a nonprofit organization called Nevada Technologies which is a statewide information and referral service for disabled people.
Senator Callister indicated that Mr. Butterworth posed an "interesting notion." He asked if it was his perception that his group may have been given some significant "lip-service" in a committee hearing, while they were present but when the final vote was cast their unavailability at that moment changed the tenor of the committee between the time testimony was given and the final decision was made.
Mr. Butterworth indicated that most of the disabled people in Nevada do not have an active voice in government unless they write letters. As busy as the members are, they "cannot possibly ride herd on all the stuff that's coming at you." He is able to attend because he lives in Carson City, but the people in White Pine County must send letters or make telephone calls. He asked, "Where is their voice?"
Senator Callister replied that, "You view this as some kind of a empowerment tool that would compel the decision makers to, in some instances, make the decision at least at the committee level, in front of you."
Mr. Butterworth agreed. He said that it was a demonstration that these people wanted the opportunity to actively participate. He reiterated that he did not think it was a cost issue. He didn't think it would cost that much more to do something out of Carson City. The other perception that is created is that the legislature is doing some real business outside the political influence sphere that exists in the state capitol. When a person has the opportunity to speak at a committee meeting, it makes him feel wonderful, like he is really part of the political system.
Senator Glomb asked about the idea of sectionalism. Our capitol is viewed as a neutral place where all parties come together to discuss whatever differences there are. She asked, "Who would decide that we should meet somewhere." She asked if the legislature should meet in the location where the issue is of importance.
Mr. Butterworth indicated that he did not know that it should be issue driven. The legislature should decide where they are going to go next year or next session, i.e. a week in White Pine County. He said it is not something special, the legislature is just going there to work.
Senator Glomb replied if the legislature met in White Pine County, she felt the people there would want them to deal with issues that would have a more direct bearing on them rather than issues concerning another segment of the population.
Mr. Butterworth disagreed. He felt they would just be happy to see the operation in action. He conceded that there could be some White Pine issues that the legislature would want to address while they were there, but that was up to the legislature.
There being no more questions, Senator McGinness thanked Mr. Butterworth for his testimony.
George Brown, Concerned Citizen, indicated he was a registered voter from Las Vegas. He said for a long time now he has placed a great deal of face in the expression government "of the people, by the people and for the people." With the people's vote, the legislature has been given the absolute power over the "for the people." It is the "of" and the "by" with which he is concerned. He noted he had come a considerable distance to be a part of this; an opportunity he has never had before. He attends public hearings held in Las Vegas because he believes it is a part every citizen should be concerned with. He feels it is vitally important that, by law, the legislature has the opportunity to visit other portions of the state so that the people may have some input and possibly help the legislators make their decisions. He stated the people have absolute faith in what the legislators do, but the people are not given the chance to be a part of it. He stated, "So I'm asking that you have an affirmative vote on this issue. I think it's vitally important to every one in the state."
Senator McGinness asked Mr. Brown whom he represented.
Mr. Brown replied that he's not representing any firm but that he is a member of the Disabilities Planning Council for the state of Nevada and was here representing the people of Nevada.
Senator McGinness thanked him for taking the time and for coming all the way from Las Vegas.
Mr. Andy Laubert, P. T. Forum, indicated he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the committee as it is an important issue for him to access government. He noted it took the effort of two people outside of his family to get him here from Gardnerville. He remarked it appears sometimes that government likes to alienate itself from the mass of the people. Although there may be logistics involved by having the legislature meet in other areas, he thought it would be important for voters to feel the legislature puts them on a "level playing field" with the political pressures exerted on the legislature while in session in Carson City. The people of this country have become a mobile society and Mr. Laubert feels it would be good gesture on the government's part to experience the same life style that most of the people they represent are experiencing. Also, he pointed out the added benefit to committee members to experience the communities with which they would not normally be involved. It is important for the people to see the legislature in action, understand how government works, and thus feel they are a part of it.
Senator Callister indicated he was intrigued by Mr. Laubert and the previous two speakers who seem to be indicating the reason they support this measure is because they think it would send a message. That it would create a perception that government is more accessible at the state level than it is now. He stated that would really be the case. He asserted the maximum benefit would be that during the 2-week recess in southern Nevada votes would have been taken. Also, committees meeting elsewhere took a lot of organization and a lot of expense. The press would have to drive wherever the legislature was to see what was happening that day. Senator Callister said it sounded like the real reason he was supporting this was because he felt that the perception benefit, bringing government to the people, was enough to outweigh the expense and the difficulty. He asked, "Is that an accurate assessment of your position?"
Mr. Laubert indicated he did not think it was just a perception. It would be a benefit. Right now in many parts of the state there is no transportation system that people can access to get to Carson City to testify or participate in the legislative process. By having the legislature go into an area and giving those people a chance to participate, Mr. Laubert said he thought this would give people an incentive to participate more. He indicated many people will complain about what our government has done, but they do not participate in the process because they feel they have no voice in government or no access to be a voice. He thinks this bill would provide an incentive or an added benefit to spur more people to participate even, outside their own areas. He said it could make a difference in a person's life if they saw that their voice counted and that they do have representation. To keep more in touch would be a tremendous benefit to the people of the state as well as to our senators.
Senator McGinness thanked Mr. Laubert.
Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, read into the record a letter from Superintendent of Schools, Brian Cram (Exhibit D).
Kirby Burgess, Assistant Director, Administration Services, Clark County, expressed his support of S.J.R. 4 and his thanks to the committee and the legislature for meeting in Las Vegas for the last two sessions.
Mike Goodwin, representing Community Services Agency, a non-profit agency in Reno serving elderly individuals and people with disabilities, spoke in favor of S.J.R. 4. He reiterated the problem with transportation which, if available, would allow those individuals who are not able to get to Carson City to receive the information first hand rather than second hand. This would allow those people to be part of the process, see who they are dealing with, and who is representing them.
Joe Dahl, representing Elko County and Esmeralda County spoke in opposition to S.J.R.4. He said when the Elko commissioners first looked at the bill draft request (BDR) which became S.J.R.4, one of the commissioners said to make sure they did not just go to Las Vegas; that they also came to Elko. By the time the commissioners finished their discussion, they were all opposed to the bill.
Mr. Dahl said he would like to make several points to strengthen Elko and Esmeralda's point of view. Commissioners report that they have a hard time keeping track of the legislators when they know what building they are in. They dread having to chase them around the state to keep track of them. He noted that if the United States Senate districts were drawn the same way that the state's senate districts are drawn, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas would have one United States senator. If this actually is the start of moving the state legislature to Las Vegas, then as the demographics change it is a very realistic idea that northern Nevada would only have a senator or two and handful of assemblymen. Therefore, maybe its a good idea to get most of the legislators off their home turf in order to develop a balance. If the mining disaster, previously mentioned, is really coming to Nevada because of the federal government, it does not seem worth the effort to take state government to Elko In an attempt to head off what is coming for mining from Washington, D.C.
He continued, stating there has been a lot of talk of taking the legislature out to the people, but judging from the amount of people who came when the legislature went to Las Vegas, there was not a lot of interest. While the legislature is in session, the legislators, the lobbyists, and a few other people put their normal lives on hold and come and participate in the process. Citizens who are not closely following the legislative system are going to have a lot of spare time, because there are days when not very much happens. It was mentioned that people could be offended, when after participating in a hearing, the final vote was so different from what they had witnessed. He stated, "That's cheating them because that's only showing part of the picture." When it happens here in one place, as the bill proceeds through its course, with changes, and comes to a vote, that's all evident.
He said we have a representative form of government where the voters elect their representatives and their representatives come here and do the business of government for them. There are too many people for all the people to participate in the true democratic system of the town village. He concluded saying, "We send our representatives, we trust them, and we pray that God will help them do the right thing."
Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, indicated they oppose S.J.R. 4. Mr. Osborne said:
Some of the testimony we've heard here this afternoon would indicate the Nevada State Legislature operates in a vacuum. ... a vast majority of our citizens are disenfranchised from being a part of the process. As Senator Raggio has correctly pointed out that really is not so. The legislature does currently have the authorization to hold committee hearings, to hold meetings, to take testimony any place throughout the state, and in fact, you have done so on many, many occasions. Through the modern technology, the teleconferencing and video conferencing has also taken the legislature and its operations out to the people. I think ... we have seen over the last couple of sessions that we do hold hearings and committee meetings outside the state capitol [but] it has not necessarily resulted in overwhelming greater attendance at those meetings or participation by the citizens.
We would oppose this, mainly on the grounds that we feel that it's not necessary and the expense involved in holding these sessions outside of the seat of government would be astronomical. More than the state is ready to take on, particularly with what we might get back as far as cost benefit ratio. Through the staff's own study, I think we have seen just here, even though there is no dollar figure put with it, that just to address the facilities, equipment, communications, staff, etc. that that's going to be a tremendous expense. We would support what has been in a couple of the recent editorials of the local papers, the Nevada Appeal (Exhibit E) in part said, "We oppose the proposal by Senator Bob Coffin to seat the full legislature in southern Nevada for even 1 day. It just would be too expensive." The Reno Gazette Journal (Exhibit F) stated, "It would be a bad idea because of the expense involved. Fiscal studies have clearly shown that the cost would be prohibitive." We believe that the legislature does offer the opportunity for citizens to get involved. It's been my experience in my dealings, my involvement with the Nevada State Legislature as well as legislatures in the states of Washington and Oregon that the committee process, the hearings where testimony is allowed, is really the most important part of the involvement with the legislature. That's where the citizens can make their voice heard and we stand opposed to this.
Andrea Engleman, representing the Nevada Press Association, indicated that they have not come to a consensus on this issue. The Nevada Press Association is concerned about the access of the public to government. She recalled that 4 years ago in this committee, she and Senator Raggio discussed the interactiveness of video and public accessibility to the legislature via the new technology that was becoming available. She noted we are moving toward interactive technology where someday it would be possible for people, viewing the legislature at home, to actually "buzz" their legislators, and register their feelings on a bill by pushing a button on their television set. She said she felt we were moving, at least currently, away from representative government and more toward a pure democracy where a more involved public can express itself to a greater degree to the legislature. Ms. Engleman indicated the Nevada Press Association also has concerns about open government, noting that this committee just passed an amendment to the constitution bringing the legislature under Nevada's open meeting law. She indicated the concerns of the Nevada Press Association involved practicalities, such as the posting of agendas when the legislature is moving around the state and the location of the Governor and his staff. She asked if the Governor and/or his staff would follow the legislature around the state? She emphasized this is not a criticism of Senator Coffin, instead she applauded him as a legislator who has been for open government for many years and has always been concerned about access of the public to the legislatures and local government.
Senator McGinness indicated there are some workings going on currently to do more teleconferencing of the legislature to more rural areas.
Ms. Engleman replied that she was aware this teleconferencing was occurring and indicated her hope that more media would like to be involved.
Senator McGinness thanked Ms. Engleman for her testimony. There being no further testimony on S.J.R. 4, Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.J.R. 4.
Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 177.
SENATE BILL 177 Requires legislative auditor to include in audit report certain recommendations con-cerning programs and services provided by state agency or private contractor.
(BDR C-47)
Senator McGinness invited Gary Crews to give his perspective.
Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, said that S.B. 177 was a bill from the Interim Study on Privatization. His understanding of the bill is that it would require the auditor, during the normal course of an audit, to identify areas that are susceptible to privatization or vice versa, and report them to the Legislative Commission. This procedure would become part of the auditor's normal operations, but would not be the basic objective of a particular audit. By the time they finish an audit, they have a pretty good understanding of the operations of the agency and would be in a good position to make an assessment of areas that may be susceptible to privatization or areas under contract currently that might want to go in the other direction, because the state could be able to be more efficient or effective.
Senator Raggio indicated that he served as chairman of the interim committee, SCR2, which dealt with the study of the feasibility of contracting out governmental services. He indicated Mr. Crews stated the reasoning of the committee very well. He said it was probably necessary to take the whole report together to understand the reasoning for this bill. As part of the overall recommendations, the committee wanted to signal its desire and recommendation that every reasonable effort be made during the course of state government to determine and articulate those areas where it might be feasible to contract out government services. One of the prime unanimous recommendations was, if in the course of performing audits, if the legislative auditor was able to determine there was an area that might be performed more efficiently by a private contractor, or alternately, if there is something now being contracted out that, in the opinion of the auditor, might more cost efficiently and effectively be dealt with by state agencies, the auditor would include that in his final report. The Legislative Commission would receive the report and could instruct the auditor to perform further analysis.
Mr. Crews said the Audit Division, based on their interpretation of the bill and Senator Raggio's explanation, sees that no additional resources would be needed . However, if there was a
requirement that each time they were engaged in an audit they specifically made a detailed analysis, then there would be additional resources required.
Senator McGinness thanked Mr. Crews for his report. There being no further testimony, Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 177.
Senator McGinness advised the committee they would take up S.B. 48.
SENATE BILL 48: Authorizes constitutional officers to submit proposed bill drafts directly to legislative counsel. (BDR 17-906)
Chairman McGinness drew members attention to the memo from Mr. Erickson on the legislative process questions (Exhibit G) concerning procedures in other states. He asked if any member had questions for Mr. Erickson before considering this bill.
Senator Rawson asked if the chairman was suggesting that there be a limitation on how many bills could be proposed?
Senator McGinness replied that was the basis of Mr. Erickson's comments. The number of bill drafts allotted to constitutional officers should take into consideration past history, and the allotted number would be deducted from the total number of bill drafts allotted to the Executive Branch.
Mr. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, informed the committee that the document was prepared by Brenda Erickson who works for National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in Denver. This was a recent analysis of the sixteen states that have limitations on the number of bills that may be introduced.
Senator Rawson indicated that they should pick a number, such as what is allowed for a senator, and give each constitutional officer that number. Since the number is arbitrary, it might be made changeable either through the rules process or through the Legislative Commission. He indicated that he would prefer not to go back through the whole bill to change a number and offered to make a motion to that effect.
Senator McGinness indicated that if they added "within the limits prescribed by" and asked Mr. Erickson or Mr. Crossley if it was the Legislative Commission that sets those number.
Mr. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, informed the committee that prior to last session the limits were set by concurrent resolution. Last session, "something fell through the cracks" and the resolution did not pass the legislature so the commission set the same limits that was in the bill proposed to the legislature.
Senator McGinness reminded the committee that the University of Nevada Board of Regents wanted to be included in this bill. He said the committee needed to discuss this issue.
Mr. Crossley asked if Lorne Malkiewich had provided figures to the committee.
Senator McGinness indicated that he had and he apologized for not having brought the memo. He said he thought that the largest number requested by the university in the last 3 years was eight. Mr. Crossley concurred. Senator McGinness reminded the members that the number assigned to the Board of Regents would be deducted from the Governor's total. He reiterated that if the words "within the limits prescribed by the Legislative Commission" were included, then they would not have to visit this issue every session.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED THAT REASONABLE LIMITS BE ESTABLISHED AND THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS BE INCLUDED AS CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. AMEND AND DO PASS.
Senator Raggio suggested the bill include "within limits established by the legislature." Senator Smith concurred.
Senator Raggio explained that the wording provided the flexibility to change if desired. He stated he did not think it was necessary to include the University Board of Regents as he did not think they had ever been denied access and asked Dr. Richardson if he was aware of this.
Dr. James Richardson, Professor, University of Nevada, Reno, replied that this year the Board of Regents submitted eight bills to the Department of Administration and it was his understanding that at least four of those requests were not forwarded. The board considered this a serious problem and the reason they were asking to be included in the bill.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator McGinness stated it was moved by Senator Smith and seconded by Senator Raggio to amend and do pass S.B. 48 and the amendments would have the language "WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY (whomever)" and would also add the University Board of Regents.
Senator Glomb asked if the limits would be set by the legislature.
Senator Raggio confirmed that the number of bills would be within the limits set by the legislature.
Senator Rawson indicated he was supportive of the bill, but wasn't expecting the amendment concerning the university system. Noting that he works in the university system, he wondered about the implication of that and said he probably won't vote on the amendment, but will vote on the bill once it is decided.
Senator Raggio confirmed he did not think there was any peculiarity.
Senator Glomb indicated that she, too, had an association with the university and that she would be voting as she did not see a conflict.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio reported to the committee that a long time friend and lobbyist, Jim Joyce, passed away today in Denver.
Senator McGinness thanked Senator Raggio and indicated that all committee members had contact with Mr. Joyce and his humor will be missed.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THAT THIS COMMITTEE ADJOURN IN MEMORY OF JIM JOYCE.
* * * * *
Senator McGinness said that was appropriate and adjourned the meeting at 2:57 p.m., in memory of Jim Joyce.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mavis Scarff,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
March 2, 1993
Page 1