MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 26, 1993
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 6:00 p.m., on Saturday, June 26, 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, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, National Secondary Education
Association
Kurt Fritsch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Washoe County and the Nevada
Association of Counties
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks
Frank Barker, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of
Counties
James Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 457.
Senate Bill 457: Creates Nevada commission on long-term planning. (BDR 18-1006)
Senator Adler, Capital Senatorial District, indicated that this bill is the Kentucky plan for long-term planning, noting that it sets up a commission for long-term planning that establishes goals and objectives, including budgeting, for all the agencies within state government. He describe the essential parts of the bill.
Senator Raggio indicated that Senator Adler had presented this bill in detail before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, and everyone thought the idea has merit, but the problem is that it requires a new budget, and the committee thought it deserved consideration on the list of interim studies even though it is not in the proper form.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THAT SENATE BILL 457 BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM STUDY AND BE INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF THOSE STUDIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AUTHORIZATION WITHOUT HAVING TO AMEND THE BILL.
SENATOR CALLISTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Adler added that the states of Kentucky and Florida have already adopted this, and Texas is considering it.
Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 457 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 55.
Senate Concurrent
Resolution 55: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of overtime worked by state employees and methods of complying with Fair Labor Standards Act. (BDR R-2158)
Senator Raggio indicated that one of the main bills presented to the Senate Committee on Finance was a complete revamp of the state personnel system based on the need to address the liability of the state with reference to its employees for overtime that was not anticipated. He described the methods presented in the bill. He stated that a bill was passed out of committee that addresses the immediate problem, but as part of recommendation, a study is necessary to address the entire issue and S.C.R. 55 is the resolution for that interim study.
Senator Glomb asked if the study would also consider comparable worth?
Senator Raggio said no, that it deals with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Senator Callister said given the measure that the committee passed out, he wondered how much more focus is needed on the subject.
Senator Raggio indicated that all parties felt that the measure was just a stop-gap measure and that the study is supported.
Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 55 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 52.
Senate Concurrent
Resolution 52: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of public elementary and secondary education. (BDR R-2162)
Senator Rawson noted that, as they worked through the subcommittee on the distributive school account, it became clear that they may be getting away from the intent of the Nevada Plan. He stated the subcommittee had to make decisions and recommendations that would try to maintain the fair approach to funding across the state, but he noted, it was clear to him that there is not a large group of people that understand the Nevada Plan in any detail, and that a study of this plan, which includes both the structure and funding of education, would help.
Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, Nevada State Educational Association, requested that a representative from their organization, probably their state president, be considered for membership on the committee.
Senator Callister indicated that it is a very large study.
Senator Rawson said that if he were involved in the study, he would limit it to K-12 due to his involvement with the university system. He noted that the chairman selected would have to be careful about just how involved they would get.
Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 52 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 45.
Assembly Concurrent
Resolution 45: Limits number of requests that may be submitted to Legislative Counsel during interim for drafting and directs completion of 1,000 bill drafts before convening of 68th session of Nevada Legislature. (BDR R-1989)
John Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, described the differences in the original bill and the first reprint. Mr. Crossley referenced a packet in their folders, A.C.R. 45, (Exhibit C.)
Discussion followed regarding the number of allowable bill draft requests, and not allowing individual groups to come separately to the commission.
Senator McGinness asked if Mr. Crossley would compile the numbers the various entities had requested over the last two or three sessions. Mr. Crossley indicated he would.
Senator Raggio asked clarification on the present situation with respect with who, other than legislators and constitutional officers, make direct request for bill drafts.
Mr. Crossley indicated that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) lists certain organizations that must come before the commission for approval to submit bill drafts; however, he said, other organizations, mainly the counties and cities, can submit, direct to the bill drafter, as many as they feel necessary, without limitation.
Senator Glomb proposed the possibility of the joint introductions of bills.
Senator Rawson noted the necessity of providing for an entity with a viable need to be able to get an important measure into the system.
Kurt Fritsch, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, noted the city is supportive of trying to limit frivolous legislation, but feels that the limiting number should be based on client base or population.
Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, indicated that they too, try to limit their requests, but she noted that as long as the legislature is controlling the destiny of the local governments, she questioned whether it is a wise idea for the legislature to limit the city's ability to ask for changes in the law that help the city do its business from year to year.
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, indicated that her concern is the unfair way that the requests are distributed among the other local governments and hoped a fairer way could be found.
Senator McGinness asked if she worked with her cities to see if there are some common concerns in order to combine bill drafts.
Ms. Howard indicated she does.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Washoe County, indicated that they attempt to work to try bring bills forward that have impact on all Nevada's counties, and reinforced the need for a different rationale on the allocation of bills.
Senator Raggio indicated that every city, large or small, has the same number of problems. He noted his concern with the measure.
Senator Smith said that they might approach the problem differently, stating that the governments, which are creatures of the legislature, should possibly access their problems through their elected representatives.
Lisa Foster, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, indicated Sparks has a Charter Review Committee that has the ability to come directly to the legislature without going through the city council, and stressed that the committee could use up all the bill draft requests and then the City of Sparks would have no access to the legislature.
Frank Barker, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, asked that the Metropolitan Police Department be considered one of the agencies, rather than under Clark County.
Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney's Association, indicated that all of the District Attorney's bills currently come through Clark County, and requested independent consideration. He submitted a statement requesting such an amendment (Exhibit D.)
Senator Rawson presented figures based on population representation, and indicated that he feels that part of the formula should be representational.
Bob Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, indicated that limiting the number of bill drafts is good, because it requires entities to prioritize what is important to all of the seventeen counties.
James Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, indicated that due to the help the legislature provided last session in reducing the jail population of Washoe County, that they did not introduce any bills this session. He indicated that one of the reasons that public entities should be allowed to introduce bills, is that citizens come to them, legitimately complaining about a bill, and often his organization will introduce legislation to try to correct the situation.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, indicated that if the total number of requests per legislator was increased, and everyone went through the legislator, that there might be a clearer prioritization of the people's needs with the needs of government. She noted it would be self regulating in terms of the population, because of the apportionment according to population. She urged the committee not to forget that the rural school districts do not have the same needs as the Clark and Washoe County School Districts, and to require that every rural school district to go through the Board of County Commissioners while Clark and Washoe have direct access will probably not be seen as an equal playing field. She indicated their concern that some of the groups have pure political agendas that are in direct opposition to some the political agendas of other groups in the community. She noted there needs to be some method to assure equal access to the legislative process for all unions and citizens' groups, and her coalition would recommend that all of them go through legislators.
Senator Rawson noted the concerns that arise if all requests go through legislators are:
1. It can be used in a partisan way.
2. It may be used in an unfair way, giving stature and access to some legislators and not others.
3. Some legislators are more effective than others.
He indicated that problems of fairness and effectiveness require that somehow, if a legislator carries it in, the bill has to be recognized as a neutral bill that can be handled in a neutral way.
Mary Henderson indicated that she and Mr. Hadfield were discussing the fact that, if the state has have local governments competing for bills with private citizens, or with your constituents, there is already the assumption that the bills they bring forward represent what their constituents want. Since the commissioners, and elected council people, represent those citizens as well, she thought it would be difficult if they got into a situation where they had to compete for a limited number of bill drafts.
Senator Titus disagreed stating government's interest and the people's interest are not necessarily the same thing.
Discussion followed relative to how entities get their bill drafts introduced. Ms. Luck commented that direct access to the Legislative Council Bureau staff for bill drafting is an extremely valuable access, and where it is provided to an association that represents a body with a political agenda, that provides a clear, favored status for that body over those who have the opposing agenda. She indicated that seems wrong to her.
Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 45 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 79.
Assembly Concurrent
Resolution 79: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly with respect to bill draft requests by standing committees. (BDR R-2146)
Mr. Crossley, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the changes proposed to the joint rules addressed by this resolution.
Following discussion, Senator McGinness indicated that Senator Titus suggested that not only should the standing committee request the bill, but that only the committee that has the jurisdiction should introduce it.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.C.R. 79 WITH ADDITION THAT A STANDING COMMITTEE MAY ONLY REQUEST THE DRAFTING OF A BILL OR RESOLUTION, OR INTRODUCE A BILL OR RESOLUTION, THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Raggio suggested that they hold A.C.R. 45 for a time.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Mavis Scarff,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
June 26, 1993
Page 1