MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 1, 1993
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:10 p.m., on Tuesday, June 1, 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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Matthew Q. Callister (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary
Chairman McGinness opened the discussion on Senate Bill 485.
Senate Bill 485: Prohibits nonreturning legislator from receiving compensation for certain conferences and other meetings.
(BDR 17-727)
Senator McGinness continued stating that Senator Titus had worked on the amendment which each member had received, and asked her to explain the amendment.
Senator Titus stated her belief that this amendment would cover the problems that arose in the hearing. She noted, it would clarify that the committee meetings referred to are not like the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), but are statutory committees that exist as a result of the legislature. She indicated a second option was a person, who because of his expertise, was requested by leadership to attend a meeting and report back on the contents of the meeting.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 485.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator McGinness requested that Senator Titus handle the amendment on the floor. She accepted.
Chairman McGinness then opened discussion on Senate Bill 450.
Senate Bill 450: Required fiscal note and summary of certain legislation to include specified information (BDR 17-1389)
Senator Raggio stated he supports the concept of the bill, but thought previous testimony had suggested that the present language on line 23 was not needed as it was covered by the new language contained in lines 19 through 22.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 450 BY DELETING THE REDUNDANT LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION 2b, IF THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY DELETING LINE 23; OTHERWISE, SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REMOVE ANY REDUNDANT LANGUAGE.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Discussion followed between Senators Rawson and Raggio relative to the redundancy and whether or not the appropriation was contained in the executive budget.
Senator Raggio indicated he would leave it up to the bill drafter, but added that in her testimony, Ms. Vilardo, indicated that it was redundant.
Senator Rawson asked if it was really necessary, indicating the purpose was to bring attention to whether or not it was in the executive budget.
Senator Titus asked if it was not redundant because one can
have an effect on the state or industrial insurance, be in the executive budget, and not have an appropriation.
Senator Rawson agreed.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman McGinness opened discussion on Assembly Bill 202.
Assembly Bill 202: Requires immediate disclosure on weekly list of bill draft requests of name of legislator who requests preparation of legislative measure. (BDR 17-1456).
Senator Raggio indicated that when they revamped the law, they acceded to the request of proponents, by requiring all the agency bills and other bills, not requested by legislators, to be labeled. He continued, stating that the understanding is that legislators, for many reasons, request bills and their names would be released when the bill was introduced. However, he indicated he would support the following concepts: Any bill that is a committee introduction, or a request for a bill draft by a committee, would have indicated on it the name of the requestor, be it a legislator or otherwise; when that bill is printed, the name of the requestor would be printed underneath the committee introduction on the bill. He added that this is
a major concern, as well as a troublesome area, where people could hide behind committee requests and committee introductions.
Senator Smith stated he agrees with Senator Raggio, but said he would add that if there were local governments that were making the requests, he would like to know who they were.
Senator McGinness summarized stating that individual legislators would still not be listed until they introduced the bill, but committee introductions would have the names attached to the bills.
Senator Raggio said that would also apply to the committee requests for bill drafts as well as the committee introductions.
Senator Glomb indicated she did not understand the rationale as to why a person's name should be on a committee introduction and a legislator's name would be omitted when he made a bill request. She stated a committee might also need to see the language before they make a decision as to whether they want to go anywhere with the bill.
Senator Raggio explained that the present law says that if a legislator requests a bill he need not have his name disclosed, but once the bill is introduced the bill drafter's office releases that information. Senator Raggio continued stating that there is nothing in the current law that indicated who requested a bill if it is introduced by a committee. He stated he believes that after a bill is introduced, whoever sponsored it, or whoever requested it, ought to come forward and not hide behind a committee introduction or a committee bill draft.
Senator Glomb replied she thought they heard testimony that people wanted to know even when the bill was requested, so that prior to the bill being introduced, they could have some input.
Senator McGinness agreed stating that he thought that was what Mr. Price's bill is trying to do.
John Crossley pointed out that they might want to amend Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 218.2477 on standing committees, which addresses standing committees during the session, instead of NRS 218.2475 which deals with standing committees starting before the session.
Senator Raggio agreed.
Senator Glomb noted that this proposed amendment would totally change the nature of the bill.
Chairman McGinness concurred that it would substantially change the direction.
Senator Titus asked if you are the chairman of a committee and receive all these additional bill drafts, from, for example, the District Attorneys Association or the trial lawyers, are their names put on the bill too?
Senator Raggio confirmed that they would, indicating he would put down whoever requested the committee to introduce the bill. He stated that people, agencies, and groups hiding behind committee introductions is one of the most misused devices he has observed in the 20 years he has been here.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A. B. 202 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. 1) DELETE THAT PORTION WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE PRESENT LAW REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF A LEGISLATOR'S NAME. THAT WOULD REMAIN AS IT IS AT THE PRESENT TIME, EITHER THE LEGISLATOR CAN ADD HIS NAME AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST, OR WHEN THE MEASURE IS INTRODUCED. 2) AMEND NRS 218.2477 TO PROVIDE THAT ANY BILL DRAFT MEASURE REQUESTED BY A STANDING COMMITTEE WOULD REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE REQUESTOR, WHETHER IT BE A LEGISLATOR, AN AGENCY, OR PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, AND THAT WHEN THE BILL IS PRINTED, UNDERNEATH THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION WILL BE THE INFORMATION AS TO WHO REQUESTED THE BILL FOR THAT PURPOSE.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS GLOMB AND TITUS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator Glomb indicated she would like the record to note that she was voting no because she thought it should be completely open; therefore, she would support the original language as well as the committee introduction.
Senator Titus concurred with Senator Glomb.
Senator McGinness opened discussion on Senate Joint Resolution 4.
Senate Joint Resolution 4: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to authorize Legislature to convene temporarily at places other than seat of government.
(BDR C-47)
Senator McGinness indicated that Senator Coffin spoke to him after the last meeting noting that he would be amenable to amending this resolution to include a maximum of 20 days.
Senator Raggio said, in his opinion, they should not amend the constitution further on this issue. He stated there was a purpose in having the legislature meet at the seat of government, and noted that hearings are held in other places in the state, but said he felt it would be unwise to broaden this language and allow for full blown hearings, or even partial hearings of the legislature as a whole, other than in the seat of government.
Senator Titus disagreed and indicated that she did not know why that would be unwise. She stated that with a majority of the people now 450 miles away from the capital, and feeling pretty excluded from things that happen in Carson City, the legislators would see support if this was put to a vote. She continued, saying if the legislature is worried about a possible permanent move out of Carson City, put on a 20 day limitation, but at least give the people a chance to vote on this. She noted the state is moving into an era where there is more emphasis on making government accessible, going to the grass roots, and allowing people to participate.
Senator Glomb asked how other states handle this, and do they hold their actual sessions in other parts of the states.
Mr. Crossley stated he contacted NCSL and was informed that other states do not meet elsewhere. He indicated other states have moved their capitals but they do not meet in session other than in the state capital.
Senator McGinness, addressing Mr. Erickson, stated that in some of the information provided the committee, other states do allow for temporary meetings under emergency conditions, but that is the only other situation.
Mr. Erickson concurred.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVE THAT S.J.R. 4 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator McGinness opened discussion on the two annual session bills identifying Assemblyman Price's Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 11, which had 60 days one year and 90 days the next, and Senator Coffin's Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 21 which had 120 day annual sessions.
Senate Joint Resolution 21 Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to make various changes relating to the legislature, including annual sessions.
(BDR C-1117)
Assembly Joint Resolution 11 Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-12)
Senator Rawson indicated that there are some major changes that had to take place before they have annual sessions. He suggested that they put an absolute limit on a biennial session, try to develop their techniques over several years, and then readdress the issue. He stated that at this point, he would not support an annual session.
Senator Raggio, agreeing with Senator Rawson, noted that probably one of the more compelling arguments is that most states do have annual sessions; however, he indicated that most of his constituents do not support annual sessions. He continued, stating that if they are going to preserve some of the upside of the system, preserving as fully as possible those benefits derived from the citizen-type legislature, even though Nevada has grown to 1.3 million people, that it was premature for them to go to annual sessions. He stated that he, too, believes that they should amend the constitution to provide a fixed time limit on biennial sessions.
Senator Glomb disagreeing, stated that most of her constituents keep asking her when they were going to regular yearly sessions. She stated that the current budget crisis points out that need even more. Senator Glomb indicated that the resolutions before them would put this to a vote of the people, and she said, it is time for the people to make that decision. She stated that meeting the way they were, that they are at a crossroads as far as being able to have a citizen's legislature which takes exceptional people and exceptional situations to do this.
Senator McGinness said he is not sure either of these vehicles is the proper one, and that he thought people would react favorably to the limiting of biennial sessions.
Senator Smith indicated that he thinks annual sessions tend to be counter-productive. He said that they have the mechanisms, with standing committees empowered in interims to take legislation to the public throughout the state, to meet for a very brief period of time at the capital to enact what they have done in the interim. He suggested that they use one of these two vehicles to propose to the people that they have their biennial sessions be limited to 120 days.
Senator Raggio indicated he would agree if the motion used the language in A.J.R. 11 which states "any legislation action taken after midnight on the 120 calendar day is void unless the legislative action is conducted during a special session convened by the Governor."
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO USE A.J.R. 11 TO ACCOMPLISH LIMITING BIENNIAL SESSIONS TO 120 DAYS AND MAINTAIN THE LANGUAGE IN A.J.R. 11 WHICH SAYS ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION TAKEN AFTER MIDNIGHT ON THE 120TH CALENDAR DAY IS VOID UNLESS THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS CONDUCTED DURING A SPECIAL SESSION CONVENED BY THE GOVERNOR.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator McGinness asked Senator Smith if he would like a change in the date of the convening.
Senator Smith said he would leave that up to the committee.
Senator Rawson indicated they could use more time with the budget. He said he would like to see the budget presented as early as it is now, but have the legislature come in to session with the budget already presented for the legislature to take action on it.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, TO AMEND SECTION 2, TO CONVENE ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF FEBRUARY, AND THAT THE GOVERNOR PRESENT HIS BUDGET WITHIN AT LEAST 7 CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE CONVENES. THE BUDGET SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Raggio stated, "Convening the legislature on the first Monday of February and requiring the Governor to present his budget at least 7 calendar days before the legislature convenes would give the Executive Branch that much more time to prepare even if it has to be presented 7 calendar days before the legislature convenes. Delivering the budget should be presented to the Legislative Counsel Bureau would make the budget available to all legislators before they get here and they will have an opportunity to be ready to work on the budget in ample time so we are not wasting the first week or so of the legislature. This year we wasted almost a week and a half before we even saw the budget. So I think it accomplishes two things; it gives the Budget Office that much more time to prepare a budget; we would begin formal session later and we would have the budget available to us in ample time before we begin."
Summarizing, Senator Glomb said, ..."We've taken A.J.R. 11 and we have removed the language that would put it to a vote of the people to see whether they would want yearly sessions, and have put in language that would say we would have biennial sessions of 120 day limit."
Senator Raggio said that, as a constitutional amendment, it would still have to go to a vote of the people.
Senator Glomb replied that the intent of this bill is gone, and the new intent is the 120 day sessions biennially beginning on the first Monday of February.
Senator McGinness concurred.
Senator Titus indicated that she did not support annual sessions for the reasons stated, and she thought current public opinion was not in favor of them. Continuing, she said that if the state goes to annual sessions, the state will have people here who either unemployed, who are very wealthy, or who are retired. But, she continued, neither can I support this move, out of nowhere, limiting the legislature to 120 days. She said, "We've not had any hearings on this. We've not talked about how long it takes to deal with a budget that's growing increasingly complex. I think you're just chopping down some more trees to send a bill back to the assembly with something that has no chance of being passed and I just don't support that."
Senator Raggio denied that they were sending this bill back to the assembly with the thought that it did not have any chance to pass. He stated he thought the bill was sent to the senate with full knowledge that annual sessions have no chance of passage at this point. However, he continued, he thought it was uniformally understood and recognized that we need to put some finite date on the legislative session. He noted he was sending it to the assembly hoping they would understand the practicality of the situation and the desire of most of the public. He stated that was the reason he is supporting this amendment.
Chairman McGinness called for the vote on the amendment of section 2
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Chairman McGinness then called for the vote on the amendment to change to 120 day biennially including the amendment just voted on.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS GLOMB AND TITUS VOTED NO.)
* * * * *
Senator McGinness indicated that no action was taken on S.J.R. 21. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mavis Scarff,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
June 1, 1993
Page 1