MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:39 p.m., on Tuesday, April 4, 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 Diana M. Glomb
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dina Titus (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner
Senator Bob Coffin
Assemblyman Bob Price
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters
Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned
Citizens
Andrea L. Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 11 solely to hear testimony from Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner.
Assembly Joint Resolution 11:Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-12)
Lieutenant Governor Wagner read from prepared text (Exhibit C) after which Chairman McGinness asked if there were questions.
Senator Raggio asked if she also supported the provision that the sessions begin in February rather than in January?
Lieutenant Governor Wagner noted that since she was not involved in the drafting of the resolution, and did not hear Mr. Price's testimony as to why he chose that particular date, she could not answer that question. She stated that she was only interested in supporting the general concept of annual sessions, and having them limited in the number of days. She concluded, saying if amendments were posed to this resolution and subsequently referred back to the committee, she would like the opportunity to testify on them.
Senator McGinness indicated that if there were amendments presented he would hold another hearing, and that she would be notified.
Chairman McGinness then closed the hearing on A.J.R. 11 and opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 21 asking Senator Bob Coffin to testify.
Senate Joint Resolution 21: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to make various changes relating to legislature. (BDR R-1866).
Senator Bob Coffin, representing District 3 in Las Vegas, said that S.J.R. 21 was a three point resolution. The first stresses a gubernatorial line item veto on budgetary matters, the second provides for a strictly limited 100-day annual session of the legislature, and the third provides for dissolution of the interim finance committee. He noted his reasons for introducing the legislature were:
1. Nevada has become a legislature with perpetual legislative sessions.
2. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who can serve in the legislature for such an unpredictable period of time.
3. Limited length sessions would allow people in business and the professions to give serious thought to serving in the legislature.
4. The 100-day session is not an arbitrary choice of time. Presenting the budget to the Governor by the 90th day allows 7 days for the Governor to veto line items he is displeased with, leaving 3 days for the legislature to make a decision on overrides.
5. This eliminates the need to budget more than 2 years in advance.
6. Strictly limited annual sessions would remove much of the unnecessary closing panic of legislation that is experienced in the biennial sessions.
Senator Coffin discussed the information contained in Annual Legislative Sessions (Exhibit D) and Interim Finance Committee and Line-Item Veto (Exhibit E). He pointed out that both of the proposals, A.J.R. 11 and S.J.R. 21, call for annual sessions of limited duration, and further, he noted that proposals of this type have never been given to the voters. He left the reading of the Bill Draft Summary--Proposed Constitutional Amendment Concerning Legislative Sessions and Procedures (Exhibit F) to each member's pleasure. Finally, Senator Coffin stated that the constitution gives the Governor the power to adjourn the legislature in case of disagreement between the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment. This power has never been exercised.
Senator Raggio confirmed that this bill would not preclude having special sessions at any time. He then asked how Senator Coffin felt about limiting every other session to a budget session.
Senator Coffin answered that, if it was not for the fact that Nevada is growing at almost geometrical proportions, and has equivalent problems of states which are much larger, he could support the proposition that they limit their actions in the even numbered years to budgetary considerations only. He noted that limiting sessions did not answer the question about what the other legislators do when the finance committees are working on the budget.
Senator Raggio again asked if he would support a provision that would limit every other session to a budget session?
Senator Coffin replied he would not because that would leave no other functions for the other legislators.
Senator Raggio continued by asking how other states, which limit the off year session to a budget session, handle the situation.
Senator Coffin indicated he did not know.
Bob Erickson, Research Director, indicated he believed that most states, that have a second year as an annual budget session, have moved away from that format. He said he would check on it.
Senator Raggio noted that the reason he most often hears for annual sessions is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to budget for a 2-year period.
Senator Coffin responded that the legislature obviously has forecasting problems. But, he stated, he felt that the budget is just one of many problems, particularly in a state growing at the rate that Nevada is growing.
Senator Raggio noted that, other than for special interest groups, he does not find surveys, supported by constituents, that suggest annual sessions are necessary. He noted that was something they would find out if they put it on the ballot.
Senator Coffin replied that this would, for the first time since 1864, give the voters a chance to approve limited sessions.
Senator Raggio conceded that a ballot measure would provide that opportunity, but from what he hears, constituents do not want annual sessions. Understandably, he said, there is less risk of raising taxes if there is not a session. Relative to the line-item veto, Senator Raggio said he was told that states who have the line-item veto would repeal it if they could, because it is misused or abused by a chief executive who holds the line item veto as a threat or a lever against individual legislators on other measures. He asked if there is a danger that a governor could misuse that authority in the same manner?
Senator Coffin said he was not sure it would be a misuse of political power. He commented that he was not sure that it was wrong for a chief executive to pressure a legislator on an issue, and conversely, he does not think it would be wrong for a legislator, or a group of legislators, to pressure a governor on a single issue. He noted he did not think a line- item veto would be much different from the current state of affairs, since any chief executive knows the pet bills of each legislator.
Senator Raggio and Senator Coffin discussed the time restrictions of the bill. Senator Raggio expressed his concern about the role the legislature would play as an equal participant in having the opportunity to properly review a budget, and then have the opportunity to undo some major provision of it which had been vetoed by the line-item process.
Senator Coffin acknowledged that this year was different because of the format change and the reorganization. He said he thought the legislature would learn the process by the time this legislation would take effect. Currently, he noted, the legislature is approaching 170-180 days, and he said, that before the end of this decade, they are going to be at a 200- day annual session.
Senator Glomb indicated she was not convinced about the line-item veto, and asked how the state would maintain a citizens' legislature if Nevada goes to 60 or 100 day session each year.
Senator Coffin replied that there is no certainty in the present system. He discussed the problem of leaving one's business every 2 years for an uncertain period of time, noting that with a limited annual session, a person would know exactly how long he will be gone. He also pointed out the difficulty of getting good people to run for office.
Senator Glomb conceded that, unless the legislature makes changes, Senator Coffin may be right, but maintained that she felt, it would be easier for a company to know a person was going to be gone for 6 months out of a 2 year period. She stated that though the 100 days each year is easier to do, how can Nevada still maintain a citizens' legislature.
Senator McGinness asked if Senator Coffin saw his legislation as a way to maintain a citizens' legislature or did he consider that at all.
Senator Coffin replied that he thought it was the only way they would ultimately maintain a citizens' legislature.
Senator Callister said it was his experience that it would be infinitely easier to say to his clients he was leaving on January 20 and would return on a fixed date. Also, he noted that compressing the length of the session would enormously increase the level of participation. He stated that the capacity of a private citizen to participate falls off precipitously when they pass the 90th day. Finally, he indicated that, in the absence of some fixed term annual session, one is guaranteeing a legislature comprised of wealthy people, retired civil servants, public employees, or a person who can get their employer to release them from their job, thereby eliminating the broad mainstream of the middle class who are self employed or who are working in small businesses.
Senator Raggio stated, in opposition, that he believed going to annual sessions was the first step toward creating a more professional type legislator, one who can afford to leave his business each year instead of every other year. He proposed instead amending the constitution to provide an absolute termination date for each biennial session, as is done in Oregon and Texas.
Senator Coffin countered, stating that annual sessions were needed because Nevada was growing so fast. However, he said he would agree with limiting biennial sessions if Nevada's Governors would use the special session to regroup, to fix problems in midstream, and to create the mid-course corrections that a growing state needs.
Chairman McGinness noted Bob Erickson had answers to an earlier question asked by Senator Raggio regarding the way in which other states handle their second session.
Mr Erickson said four states have conditions on their second sessions:
Connecticut considers bills introduced by individual legislators of a fiscal nature, emergency legislation and bills raised by committees.
Maine considers budgetary matters, legislation in the governor's call, and emergency legislation and study bills.
New Mexico considers budget matters, appropriations and revenue bills, and bills drawn pursuant to the governor's message.
Wyoming considers budget bills only.
Senator Coffin indicated that he would not oppose the committee removing the line-item veto section from his bill if Senator O'Connell's bill was going to make progress.
Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.J.R. 21 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 11.
Assembly Joint Resolution 11:Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-12)
Assemblyman Bob Price discussed the procedural advantage of an annual session that absolutely terminates at a specific "time certain." He said that during election years, after the majority has been decided, in either house the legislature has the same committee members, the same leadership, and the same committee makeup for 2 years at a time. He cited Colorado as an example.
Senator Raggio agreed that Colorado does involve people from all committees and exposes them to the budget, a procedure that he tried to adopt but was thwarted by the assembly. He said the legislature needs to examine whether or not this enhances, preserves, or diminishes the legislative opportunity to be a substantive part of the process.
Mr. Price indicated that he felt strongly that they should be a very strong part of the budget process, certainly a lot more than they are currently. He said that sessions of 60 to 90 days would be an adequate time for the budget process to be accomplished. Mr. Price cited other advantages: Uncompleted bills can be carried over to the next session without any re-drafting; legislators can continue hearings as committee members are the same; legislation can be developed prior to the session with the bills in the committee on the first day of the session; and, as has been proposed previously, if the legislature uses standing committees for interim studies instead of special committees, the same committee members who have been gathering information, and holding hearings, can begin to pass bills in the first days of the session.
Senator Raggio reminded Mr. Price that was one of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission which the senate passed, but the assembly killed.
Mr. Price concurred, and referred to material contained in Nevada Public Affairs Review (Exhibit G), (Original is on file in the Research Library.) noting that the small legislatures are citizen-type legislatures, and that they have a broader spectrum of types of citizens than Nevada has, including small business people. He said with limited annual sessions, the small business person or professional has a better opportunity to plan for their business. He pointed out university surveys, when polled at large, show that a consistently of 70 to 78 percent of the citizenry, feel that it would be reasonable for the legislature to have annual sessions. On the 2 year budgeting process, he said that the real key is that the legislature is present each year, as a governing body, to make adjustments. Regarding the number of days, Mr. Price indicated he thought around 70 days each year would be a reasonable and appropriate amount.
Senator McGinness asked what happens to the rest of the legislators during this short legislative session?
Mr. Price said his resolution does not address budget sessions per se, just short 60 to 90 day sessions in which any bill could be introduced. He said, if either of these measures pass, he envisions that the legislature would implement a number of statutes, rules, and regulations showing that the legislature would operate more efficiently, including a limitation on the number bills that would be allowed. He said he thinks the legislature is currently dealing with more legislation than is really necessary. Hopefully, he continued, the legislature would not have any more bills with annual sessions, within a 2 year period, than they have now in a 2 year period.
Chairman McGinness confirmed that if this legislation passes, the legislative process would be forced to work within the confines of the time.
Mr. Price concurred, commenting that when the legislature is in session, it not only gives more opportunity to raise taxes, but it also gives more opportunity to reduce taxes.
Senator Raggio indicated that the concern generally expressed to legislators was that annual sessions would provide greater opportunity to raise taxes.
Mr. Price emphatically said that he would not vote, support, or do anything that would support Nevada becoming a "professional legislature." He stated that Nevada needs a citizens' legislature that meets often enough to handle its problems.
Senator Raggio noted that the bigger states, which are in session all the time, do not seem to solve their problems. He added that he liked Mr. Price's absolute limitation on the length of a session.
Janet L. Gilbert, League of Women Voters, said the League of Women Voters does support limited annual sessions. She made the following points:
1. The new format of carrying bills forward to the second year would eliminate the redrafting expense and repetition that currently occurs.
2. The League of Women Voters has always supported joint hearings, due to the time it saves. She used State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) as an example.
3. The public would support annual sessions if they knew there was a time limit.
4. More candidates would run if they thought there was a definite time period in which they were going to be obligated to be in Carson City. The same would be true of citizen lobbyists.
Ms. Gilbert indicated her research has shown that the number of bill introductions, in some of the states that have annual sessions, does not differ that much from Nevada's biennial sessions. She provided figures from Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico.
Senator Raggio commented that the number of bill introductions would not be a result of annual sessions, but from the fact that currently the legislature allows agencies almost unlimited requests. The majority of bills do not come from legislators. He said he felt bill introductions would double if they had annual sessions. Also, he indicated carrying bills forward into the second year was not a favorable argument.
Ms. Gilbert indicated she thought those bills returned whether one likes it or not. She continued, saying, with annual sessions, the legislature would have more input on budget cutbacks, eliminating having the Governor, in the off year, totally change the allocated numbers and figures, thereby defeating the purpose of what the legislature had done.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), said that, though she has comments on both A.J.R. 11 and S.J.R. 21, they differ markedly. She stated that A.J.R. 11, by limiting the length of the sessions to a reasonable period time, by establishing an absolute limit, and by an absolute prohibition on continuing to take action after that time limit, had resolved the primary reason the coalition opposed annual sessions. She agreed with Ms. Gilbert's comments about citizen involvement, and the ability of unpaid citizens to be involved in the process, noting her coalition believed the situation would be enhanced by severely limited and absolutely limited annual sessions. However, she said, they are opposed to S.J.R. 21 because they believe the length of the sessions is too long.
Senator Raggio asked how she personally felt about limiting biennial sessions to an absolute fixed termination date of 90 or 100 days.
Ms. Lusk said, "That would be wonderful."
Senator Raggio asked if that would be preferable to annual sessions?
Ms. Lusk replied that if you could limit the biennial to a short enough period of time, 100 days or less, that would be preferable. However, she continued, it would not be preferable to provide an absolute limit of 6 months, because it is too difficult for citizens to be involved. Ms. Lusk indicated that she hears fairly often, comments from citizens who feel that the interim finance committee violates or denies citizens' rights to representative government, and she believes that, eventually, it would be challenged. She indicated that in terms of eliminating the interim finance committee, the coalition does support S.J.R. 21.
Regarding the interim finance committee, Senator Rawson commented that perhaps it was an issue of weighing the best representation, because without an interim finance committee more decisions are left in the hands of an executive. He queried, "How much authority should we leave an executive during the interim?"
Ms. Lusk replied that maintaining more authority in the hands of the legislature was a factor that led NCCC to support absolutely, limited, annual sessions. She stated they have no problem with the authority in the hands of the Governor, they simply think it should be properly balanced among the three branches of government.
As two committee members needed to leave for a subcommittee meeting, Chairman McGinness interrupted testimony on A.J.R. 11 so that the committee could discuss approval of the ballot question language on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 7 of the 66th Legislative Session.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
OF THE SIXTH-SIXTH SESSION: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require open meetings of legislature and its committees, except meeting to consider certain personnel matters.
(BDR C-1121)
Chairman McGinness asked the committee look to at Proposed Ballot Question Language - Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 of the 66th Legislative Session (Exhibit H) provided by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He reminded the members that, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the committee is required to submit the condensation and explanation to members of the senate, for presentation to the public, after which it is entered in the journal, enrolled, and delivered to the secretary of state for presentation.
Senator Glomb asked the reason for the senate meeting in executive session?
Senator Mcginness said, to anybody's knowledge, it had never happened.
Senator Raggio noted it was more symbolic than actual. He said that there had been no actual executive session since 1875.
Andrea Englemen, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, reported that previous research had shown that the Nevada constitution had copied the California constitution, and that the reason for the executive session was that the senate used to appoint Nevada's U.S. senators.
Senator Rawson noted that there had been some interpretation that the executive session was set up for personnel matters and that was the way they interpreted it when they made the change in previous sessions.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR S.J.R. 7 OF THE 66TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE PURSUANT TO NEVADA REVISED STATUTES 218.443.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Ms. Lusk continued her testimony on A.J.R. 11, stating that NCCC is opposed to a line-item veto provision in S.J.R. 21, or to any line-item veto provision in any other piece of legislation, because it provided an ability to trade off that is too powerful. She referred the committee to a 2-page document by Chuck Horne, The Line-Item Veto: Solution or Fast Tract to Tyranny? (Exhibit I) which she feels explains the concerns about a line-item veto better than any piece she has read. Finally, she said, it was NCCC's opinion that the three matters contained in S.J.R. 21, annual sessions, elimination of interim finance, and the line-item veto, should not be in the same bill, and should not be placed before the voters in that form. Ms. Lusk stated that it is too confusing to the voters, and NCCC would suggest that bills placed before the public should be simple and a single issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mavis Scarff,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
May 4, 1993
Page 1