Carson City (Wednesday), June 4, 1997

Senate called to order at 11:14 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Lt. John Van Cleef.
Father God, as we gather this day we are mindful of the fact that this senate gathers in representation of people. As they govern life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I pray that these men and women will be mindful of their constituency and their needs, both great and small. In Jesus' name.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

Senator Raggio moved to dispense with reading of the Senate Journal for the balance of the session.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.

William J. Raggio,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 346, 348, 404; Assembly Joint Resolution No. 14 of the 68^th Session, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bill No. 312; Assembly Bill No. 174, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Natural Resources, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 266, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Dean A. Rhoads,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 374, 375, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Mike McGinness,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, June 2, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 38, 76, 387, 420, 431, 434, 459.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Joint Resolution No. 8.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 34, 35.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, June 3, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 104, 358, 360, 435, 460.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 35--Memorializing former Speaker of the Assembly Cyril O. Bastian.
Whereas, The members of the 69th session of the Nevada Legislature were saddened to hear of the recent passing of former Speaker of the Assembly Cyril O. Bastian on March 5, 1997; and
Whereas, Cyril Bastian was born in Leeds, Utah, on October 22, 1903, to Lewis H. and Pearl Huntsman Bastian; and
Whereas, After receiving his education in Utah, Cyril met and married Vilda Robinson on June 4, 1922; and
Whereas, The young couple moved to the town of Alamo in the Pahranagat Valley in Lincoln County in 1929, where Cyril and Vilda Bastian entered the ranching business; and
Whereas, Cyril Bastian was first elected to the Assembly of the Nevada Legislature in 1942 and served as an Assemblyman from Lincoln County for many of the legislative sessions between 1943 and 1965, and also as the Chief Clerk of the Assembly in 1957; and
Whereas, As an Assemblyman, Cyril Bastian was elected Speaker of the Assembly in the regular session in 1955 and the special session in 1956, was Chairman of the Committee on Taxation for four legislative sessions, was appointed to the Legislative Commission in 1959 and was on numerous other committees including the Committee on Ways and Means; and
Whereas, Cyril Bastian was a highly respected member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and served on the school board, the Chamber of Commerce and the Farm Bureau; and
Whereas, Cyril Bastian was preceded in death by his wife Vilda in 1974 and is survived by 7 children, 22 grandchildren, 95 great-grandchildren and 2 great-great grandchildren; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of Nevada, the Senate Concurring, That the Nevada Legislature extends its heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of former Speaker of the Assembly Cyril O. Bastian; and be it further
Resolved, That Cyril O. Bastian will long be remembered as a family man and rancher who was a pillar of his community; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the children of Cyril and Vilda Bastian including Roberta Speirs of Cherry Valley, California, Beatrice Stewart of Alamo, Wilma Brinson of Carson City, Carma Boswell of Sparks, Weldon Bastian of Nampa, Idaho, Grant Bastian of Nampa, Idaho and Zina Johnson of Moundhouse.

By the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 47--Directing the Legislative Commission to conduct an interim study of welfare reform.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.
Motion carried.

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 8.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.

Senator McGinness moved that Senate Bill No. 353 be taken from the Secretary's desk and placed on General File.
Remarks by Senator McGinness.
Motion carried.

By Senator Neal (by request):
Senate Bill No. 441--An Act relating to racketeering; expanding the definition of "crime related to racketeering" to include certain crimes related to gaming; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Neal moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator Neal:
Senate Bill No. 442--An Act relating to public welfare; requiring the state plan for assistance to the medically indigent to offer at least one health care plan that does not provide health care services through primary care case management; requiring the state plan to allow eligible persons to choose whether to enroll in a health care plan that provides health care services through primary care case management; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Neal moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 443--An Act relating to motor carriers; revising provisions governing the amount of liability insurance or other surety required of motor carriers; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 444--An Act relating to persons who engage in the intrastate transportation of household goods; requiring such a person to include the number of his certificate of public convenience and necessity in his advertising and the complete address of his place of business in any advertising or listing in a telephone directory; authorizing the public service commission of Nevada to petition the court for certain injunctive relief concerning unlawful advertising by such a person; requiring a provider of telephone service to disconnect the telephone service of such a person upon order of the court; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By Senator O'Donnell:
Senate Bill No. 445--An Act relating to taxation; providing in skeleton form for the use of the proceeds of certain taxes and fees for projects related to infrastructure; authorizing certain cities and the Southern Nevada Water Authority to impose an excise tax on the use of water for water facilities; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By Senator Porter:
Senate Bill No. 446--An Act relating to marriage; increasing the number of branch offices of the county clerk that may be designated by the board of county commissioners for the issuance of marriage licenses in certain counties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Porter moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 38.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 76.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 104.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 358.
Senator Rawson moved that Senate Standing Rule No. 40 be suspended and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 360.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 387.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 420.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 431.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 434.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 435.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 459.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 460.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 205.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Amendment No. 360.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 2, by deleting "means:" and inserting:
"[means:] includes, without limitation:".
Amend sec. 2, page 1, line 14, by deleting "Data" and inserting:
"[Data] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, data".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting lines 28 through 36.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 37, by deleting "(n)" and inserting "(m)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 41, by deleting "[n] (o)" and inserting "(n)".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 6, after "[Any]" by inserting:
"An agency investigating a report of the abuse or neglect of a child shall, upon request, provide to a person named in the report as allegedly causing the abuse or neglect of the child:
(a) A copy of:
(1) Any statement made in writing to an investigator for the agency by the person named in the report as allegedly causing the abuse or neglect of the child; or
(2) Any recording made by the agency of any statement made orally to an investigator for the agency by the person named in the report as allegedly causing the abuse or neglect of the child; or
(b) A written summary of the allegations made against the person who is named in the report as allegedly causing the abuse or neglect of the child. The summary must not identify the person responsible for reporting the alleged abuse or neglect.
3.".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 10, by deleting "3." and inserting "[3.] 4.".
Amend the bill as a whole by renumbering sections 3 and 4 as sections 4 and 5 and adding a new section designated sec. 3, following sec. 2, to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. NRS 200.508 is hereby amended to read as follows:
200.5081. A person who:
(a) Willfully causes a child who is less than 18 years of age to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering as a result of abuse or neglect or to be placed in a situation where the child may suffer physical pain or mental suffering as the result of abuse or neglect; or
(b) Is responsible for the safety or welfare of a child and who permits or allows that child to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering as a result of abuse or neglect or to be placed in a situation where the child may suffer physical pain or mental suffering as the result of abuse or neglect,
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor unless a more severe penalty is prescribed by law for an act or omission which brings about the abuse, neglect or danger.
2. A person who violates any provision of subsection 1, if substantial bodily or mental harm results to the child, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.
3. As used in this section:
(a) "Abuse or neglect" means physical or mental injury of a nonaccidental nature, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child under the age of 18 years, as set forth in paragraph (d) and NRS 432B.070, [432B.090,] 432B.100, 432B.110, 432B.140 and 432B.150, under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm.
(b) "Allow" means to do nothing to prevent or stop the abuse or neglect of a child in circumstances where the person knows or has reason to know that the child is abused or neglected.
(c) "Permit" means permission that a reasonable person would not grant and which amounts to a neglect of responsibility attending the care, custody and control of a minor child.
(d) "Physical injury" means:
(1) Permanent or temporary disfigurement; or
(2) Impairment of any bodily function or organ of the body.
(e) "Substantial mental harm" means an injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity or the emotional condition of a child as evidenced by an observable and substantial impairment of the ability of the child to function within his normal range of performance or behavior.".
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 395.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Amendment No. 448.
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 1 through 4 and adding a new section designated section 1, following the enacting clause, to read as follows:
"Section 1. 1. The legislative commission shall appoint a committee to conduct an interim study of the statutes of this state, including, without limitation, the provisions of chapter 433A of NRS, and the statutes of other states, that establish criteria for determining whether a person is mentally ill for the purposes of evaluation and treatment.
2. The legislative commission shall report the results of the study and any recommendations for legislation to the director of the legislative counsel bureau for transmittal to the 70th session of the legislature.
3. Any recommended legislation proposed by the committee must be approved by a majority of the members of the senate and by a majority of the members of the assembly appointed to the committee.".
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

"An Act relating to mental health; directing the legislative commission to conduct an interim study of the statutes of this state and other states that establish criteria for determining whether a person is mentally ill for the purposes of evaluation and treatment; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

"Summary--Directs legislative commission to conduct interim study of laws relating to definition of mentally ill person for purposes of evaluation and treatment. (BDR S-1184)".

Assembly Bill No. 463.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 113.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James, Neal and O'Donnell.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 113:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 113 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 168.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 168:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 168 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 254.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Finance:
Amendment No. 493.
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 37.5.
Amend sec. 38, page 30, lines 34 and 35, by deleting:
"13, 37 and 37.5" and inserting:
"13 and 37".
Amend the title of the bill, eighth line, by deleting:
"making an appropriation;".
Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 353.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by Senator McGinness:
Amendment No. 475.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 6 and 7 and inserting:
"(a) Purchase residential real property which [abuts] shares a boundary with a highway with limited access or a project related to the construction of a highway with limited access, and which is adversely affected by the highway.".
Senator McGinness moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator McGinness.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 100.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 100:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 100 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 156.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James, Raggio, Coffin and Schneider.
Conflict of interest declared by Senators James, Raggio and Coffin.
Senator Schneider requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Assembly Bill No. 156 is patient protection legislation for patients, enrolled in managed care. It arises from a need to ensure that care is not denied to patients when needed and that quality of care is not sacrificed in our haste to cut rising medical costs.
The major provisions are these:
First, in section 11, the bill sets forth when covered care can be denied. It provides that coverage can only be denied, once recommended by the treating physicians, if a Nevada physician makes the decision and has the relevant training and expertise to make the denial. This is to ensure that physicians, and not clerks, are making denial decisions.
Second, in sections 12 and 13, it requires that each MCO establish written policies and procedures setting forth the manner in which it determines when to deny coverage or treatment and how it conducts utilization review. It requires that this criteria be prepared with the assistance of providers, be updated annually, and be open for inspection. This is to ensure that protocols on length of stay and other treatment is not used to deny care even when it is needed, just because a protocol sets the time a patient can stay in the hospital.
Third, in sections 14 and 15, an MCO must set up a quality assurance program and a quality improvement committee. This is to ensure that quality of care receives the attention it deserves.
Fourth, in section 16, an MCO is prohibited from restricting or interfering with discussions between a provider and a patient. This ends the practice of allowing gag clauses to be imposed upon providers by MCOs.
Fifth, in section 17, an MCO is prohibited from retaliating against providers because the provider advocates or assists a patient.
Sixth, in section 18, an MCO is prohibited from paying financial incentives or bonuses to providers for denying or withholding medically necessary care to a patient or patients. This is to combat a practice where physicians may feel they have to deny or delay necessary tests in order to earn payment from the MCO.
Seventh, section 19, reforms emergency room treatment payment denial abuses. First, it prohibits MCOs from requiring prior authorization for emergency care treatment. Second, it requires that emergency room treatment be paid for if the patient, acting as a prudent person - an average every day person - believed their situation required immediate treatment or else their health would be placed in jeopardy. This reform will ensure that people will seek care when they believe they need it and not be discouraged from doing so because of fear that their insurance company will turn them down. It will also ensure that patients' bills are not denied because someone determines, weeks later, that it really didn't turn out to be a serious problem.
Eighth, section 20 requires that each MCO have a Nevada physician serve as its medical director.
Lastly, sections 23, 24 and 25 requires that each MCO establish a grievance procedure with a review board consisting primarily of patients insured by the company. It requires that all decisions be made within 30 days or in 72 hours in an emergency case. It requires that all notices of denial be made promptly and in clear language.
These patient protections will help many Nevadans and have received the support of patients, providers and the MCOs who have worked very hard to create balanced reforms in this area. It received unanimous support of the Commerce Committee and I urge your support.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 156:
Yeas -- 18.
Nays -- None.
Not voting -- Coffin, James, Raggio--3.
Assembly Bill No. 156 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 215.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators O'Donnell, Porter and Raggio.
Conflict of interest declared by Senators Porter and Raggio.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 215:
Yeas -- 17.
Nays -- Adler.
Not voting -- Coffin, Porter, Raggio--3.
Assembly Bill No. 215 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 243.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 243:
Yeas --21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 243 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 38.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 229.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 5 and 6 and inserting:
"1. The city must be divided into [four] six wards, which".
Amend the bill as a whole by adding new sections designated sections 3 through 5, following sec. 2, to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Section 5.010 of the charter of the City of Las Vegas, being chapter 517, Statutes of Nevada 1983, as amended by chapter 193, Statutes of Nevada 1991, at page 363, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 5.010 Primary municipal elections.

1. [On the Tuesday after the 1st Monday in May 1985, and at each successive interval of 4 years, a primary municipal election must be held in the city at which time candidates for two offices of councilman and for municipal judge, department 2, must be nominated.

2.] On the Tuesday after the [1st] first Monday in May [1987,] 1999, and at each successive interval of 4 years, a primary municipal election must be held in the city at which time candidates for mayor, for [two] three offices of councilman and for municipal judge, department 1, must be nominated.

2. On the Tuesday after the first Monday in May 2001, and at each successive interval of 4 years, a primary municipal election must be held in the city at which time candidates for three offices of councilman and for municipal judge, department 2, must be nominated.

3. The candidates for councilman who are to be nominated as provided in subsections 1 and 2 must be nominated and voted for separately according to the respective wards. The candidates from wards [2 and 4] 1, 3 and 5 must be nominated as provided in subsection 1, and the candidates from wards [1 and 3] 2, 4 and 6 must be nominated as provided in subsection 2.

4. If the city council has established an additional department or departments of the municipal court pursuant to section 4.010 of this charter, and, as a result, more than one office of municipal judge is to be filled at any election, the candidates for those offices must be nominated and voted upon separately according to the respective departments.

5. Each candidate for the municipal offices which are provided for in subsections 1, 2 and 4 must file a declaration of candidacy with the city clerk not less than 30 days nor more than 40 days before the day of the primary election. If the last day for filing a declaration of candidacy falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the period for filing expires on the preceding business day at 5 p.m. The city clerk shall collect from each candidate, at the time of filing that candidate's declaration of candidacy, the filing fee which is prescribed by ordinance for that office. All of the filing fees which are collected by the city clerk must be paid into the city treasury.

6. If, at 5 p.m. on the last day for filing a declaration of candidacy, there is only one candidate for nomination for any office, that candidate must be declared elected for the term which commences on the day of the first regular meeting of the city council next succeeding the meeting at which the canvass of the returns is made, and no primary or general election need be held for that office.

7. If, in the primary election, regardless of the number of candidates for an office, one candidate receives a majority of votes which are cast in that election for the office for which he is a candidate, he must be declared elected for the term which commences on the day of the first regular meeting of the city council next succeeding the meeting at which the canvass of the returns is made, and no general election need be held for that office. If, in the primary election, no candidate receives a majority of votes which are cast in that election for the office for which he is a candidate, the names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes must be placed on the ballot for the general election.

"An Act relating to the charter of the City of Las Vegas; increasing the number of wards in the city; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

"Summary--Amends charter of City of Las Vegas to increase number of wards. (BDR S-146)".

Senator Porter:
Thank you, Mr. President. First I would like to state that I do not disagree with the intent of the amendment, but I do disagree with the means to the end. What I tried to accomplish, with the help of Senator Schneider, was a compromise. Having come from local government myself and having been Mayor for four years, I have a great appreciation for local government and also for Senator Neal's frustration as to the process.
I would like to continue with some history on this measure. The bill was introduced January 29^th . We had a hearing in Las Vegas with presentations by the City of Las Vegas. It went from committee with a do pass, a do pass in the Senate and on to the Assembly the same day. On April 11^th I believe the problem started for the maker of the bill. On that date, there was a hearing in Las Vegas with the Assembly Government Affairs Committee. At that time, the City Manager of Las Vegas, Mr. Larry Barton, testified and apparently implied that either he did not have the intentions of it happening or it was not going to happen very fast as compared to what the maker of the bill would prefer. On the 23^rd of April, the measure came from committee with an amendment and moved on to concur or not concur. At that time we had testimony in the Senate Government Affairs Committee on the 12^th of May by Mayor Jones, Councilman Adamson, and Councilman McDonald who testified in favor of the original bill and not the amendment. At that time, Senator Schneider and myself requested to work with Senator Neal and the City of Las Vegas to try to form some compromise. Some of the language that was discussed was to establish a blue ribbon task force by the City of Las Vegas with the responsibility to review the ward and support structure of the City of Las Vegas. They would review the responsibilities of the individual councilmen and their ability to service the people in their wards. They would specifically recommend to the city council their priorities regarding the need for expansion of the wards.
The bottom line is that the City of Las Vegas has offered a task force with members of the Senate, members of the Assembly and members of the council from the City of Las Vegas. This would allow Senator Neal the opportunity to safeguard the interests of his constituents by helping to craft the appropriate boundaries. They have suggested time certain to try to appeal to the good will of our Senator who made the bill. The time certain would be that this task force be appointed no later than August 1, 1997 and then submit a final report to the council by July 1, 1998. This would then give the task force and the council time to put it on the primary ballot in September of 1998. We also would require this be a vote of the people on September 1998. Specifically, by request of Senator Schneider and myself, the City Council of Las Vegas did take action on May 27^th . That motion was - and I quote that "I moved that the City Council direct the City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney to prepare a petition to the registered voters of the City of Las Vegas pursuant to NRS 268.010 regarding the number of council wards." Senator Schneider and I requested this because we felt we were receiving mixed signals from the City of Las Vegas as to its intent. When I met with the maker of the bill this morning, I don't believe that he concurred with that suggestion.
Once again, I would like to add that I believe that they need to add additional wards, but I do not agree with the means to the end. I appreciate the opportunity to try to resolve these differences with the city and the maker of the bill.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the motion. I'm reminded that a few weeks ago I ran into a good friend of mine who used to be in this house. He asked me how I was doing this session. I said that they were treating me good. He replied that this was only two months into the session and that I had at least another two months to go. He said to come back and tell him how I had been treated then.
The question you have before you is one whose genesis started over a year ago when the City of Las Vegas decided, without the vote of the people, to redistrict its wards in order to help a council member and also to remove a gentleman who was registered as a Republican from the Black community. This community was comprised of some 27,000 people and they shifted him out of that particular area. Certain groups appeared at that council meeting and presented their arguments as to how they felt the district should be redrawn. They did not consider the question of race, but they told the City Council that rather than having a district in the older part of the community consisting of Blacks and Hispanics, why not separate the group into two wards. Therefore, their voices would be heard and be able to influence local government decision. The City Council did not listen to that particular argument. They went forward, took Mr. McDonald out of the Black community, redistricted Mr. Callister's district down to where they thought he might be re-elected and put the Blacks and Hispanics in one ward in an older part of town where their voices could be stifled by having one council member vote for their interests and the others spend money in other sections of their town. The group did not stop there. They said to the council that since you are not going to adhere to our requests, why don't you expand the council by two seats. Of course, the council said to the groups present, that they could not do that since it had to be done by the Legislature. "If you can go to the Legislature and make those changes, we would adhere to your requests." As an individual who was sitting in the council meeting that particular day, I offered to bring that request to this body with the idea and intent that, if such legislation was passed, the council would add two seats. But, once the bill was introduced, passed this house and went to the Assembly, the council sent their City Manager to speak to the bill. He said that they did not intend to expand the council, but to have this request go before a vote of the people. My fellow legislators, this is tantamount to changing the direction of the goal posts once the game has started. That is what they did. The Assembly listened to this argument and added an amendment to say, in effect, that you are now mandated to add two ward seats. You can do whatever you want with the other.
I have put before you the section of the law which allows the Legislature to change these wards. It is found in NRS 268.010 titled the Method for Amending a City Charter. "As used in this section, city means an incorporated city, and amendment to the charter may be made by the Legislature." The other portion is that it can be proposed and submitted to the people. They asked us to come here and change this.
I am like any other Senator when someone requests that you do something, you try to take that request and bring it before this body to be acted upon. I have seen many things come in here, but somehow when the question got down to where the representation began to point toward minority groups as beneficiaries. Somehow, members of this Senate want to run from this particular issue. Let me say to you that Blacks and Hispanics have served this nation from its inception and nowhere can you recall that we ever betrayed it. Even though we have had every opportunity and right to do so. But yet, when we talk about adding representation and giving minorities a voice, you want to compromise. This is something that you would not do for yourselves. You would not do that for yourselves nor any of your constituents. You would not try to compromise their voice. This is what you are doing to minorities when you are asking for a non-concurrence on this amendment. The law is going to have to be changed anyway no matter what you do. But, the fact that you want to send minorities through these hoops by way of a petition and then place it on the ballot is adding to the defeat of the measure because the Mayor testified that it costs $500,000 for a councilman's seat. That is what I would call a termological inexactitude. In other words, it is a lie. It does not cost that much to put a councilman on that bench. The council has already been set up for 11 seats. Even if you look at the city charter of your Class A cities, you have no less than eight members of your council. Why should Las Vegas be any different? Why should Las Vegas, given the size of its population, be among the two cities in the United States that have four council members and a mayor. The other city is the city of Miami. So, why do you want to compromise the voices of minority groups and have them stagnated into the older city where the resources and infrastructure is in need of repair? I put a copy of an editorial from the Las Vegas Sun on your desks. It says to "make room for a larger city council. Last year, redistricting of a Las Vegas ward which limited low income and minority voters to one councilman, was called inevitable results of the city population growth. Now, we are told that the inequity can not be remedied by enlarging the council because of insurmountable obstacles which include the lack of room in the council chambers. It's little wonder that Senator Joe Neal of Las Vegas thinks he is being conned." You, the Legislature, are being conned into promising that this body not concur.
I was talking to a reporter from the Review Journal just last week. I said, do you know that I have not received one call in opposition to increasing the wards. He told me that I was not going to receive any because the information they received was that the people want this. If you want to be fair, allow minority individuals to have a voice, to have some determination, then you want to expand the wards and allow this measure to go forward. I think it is ill advised, given the state of things politically, to continue to ward off representation for any group. It is ill advised to send any signal to the people of this state saying that they cannot appeal to their legislature and have someone honestly bring an issue before this body and then have it kicked back to Queen Jones and her four princes who want to keep their little castle and not have an additional place setting at the table of government in Las Vegas in order to add two more people to the table of government. It is ill advised for you to do that. If you cannot stand in the role as a legislature and be appealed to for redress on issues, then what are the people supposed to think? Who are they supposed to go to? Are they supposed to go to Steve Wynn? Go to some high gaming owner? Who are they supposed to go to when you tell them that you can't seek redress here. It is ill advised to let people think that their government is not supposed to address their needs and respond rightfully to their requests. This issue was brought here because the Hispanics and Blacks were told that this was where it needed to be resolved. Now, this Legislature, through some of its members, propose to send it back because somehow we have been afflicted by something akin to home rule that does not exist. That is to allow the cities to govern themselves. Cities are creatures of the Legislature. That is why we have charter laws. Yet, one member of this body said that he worked in local government and he doesn't like mandates. Well, we send mandates every session to the people in the form of taxes. We have a mandate here involving taxes which we want to send to the people. We did not tell them that they have to vote on it. A bill before us now, which the chairman wants to kick out of committee, does not have a vote of the people. So, why this one? We have a problem with the Homeowner's Association, but they come here and seek redress. We don't tell them to take their issue back to the vote of the people. We are saying by this motion, take it back, have the voters get 15% of the voters who voted in the last election, and then put it on the ballot for a referendum and then send it back to the Legislature.
People wake up! Wake up! The issue here is not whether or not a Joe Neal can win against Mayor Jones or the Majority Leader. The issue here is whether or not minority individuals can be heard by this legislature and that the legislature would respond in kind to their issues. That is what the issue is about. That is the issue before this body; not whether or not who wins and who loses. The city has made it very plain what their position is. Every minority person, be they with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, or the NAACP understands what the city wants to do. They don't want this. The City of Las Vegas wants to keep their power. Think about this. A City Council Seat in the City of Las Vegas costs $400,000. That in itself tells you that something is wrong. They don't want to expand that council. So, my friends, I ask you not to vote for non concurrence, but to vote to concur in Assembly Amendment No. 229. I believe in the argument that was presented by the Assembly. They understood what was being said and that is why this amendment was added. This would tie that city council down to two additional wards.
Let me tell you something else. This would not help me since I do not live in the City of Las Vegas. I live in the City of North Las Vegas, but they asked me to carry this as many of your constituents ask you to carry many requests before this house. It is a request that is most basic to constitutional representation because it speaks to giving people a voice.
Mr. President, I would request a roll call vote on this issue.

Senator Porter:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to briefly respond. I do not disagree with the frustrations of the great Senator from North Las Vegas. I share that same frustration with the message that has been sent to the community of Southern Nevada by the City of Las Vegas. I would again like to stress that the process be followed. What is a part of this process is our subcommittee and what we attempted to accomplish.
First of all, the original bill did pass unanimously out of committee. Second, it passed out of this house with a unanimous vote. The original bill says that the city may be divided into as many wards as the city council determines are necessary.
If I may, with your permission, respond to an article that my colleague mentioned earlier. It says that "last years redistricting of Las Vegas wards that limited low income and minority voters to one councilman. Emphasis on redistricting. Council last year didn't give the public a nod when the ward boundaries were redrawn.' We are again talking about redistricting. "Under the new boundaries, the new ward now consists of affluent and middle class neighborhoods." Again, we are talking about boundaries. "A Las Vegas ward system is geographic in nature and often pits one neighborhood against another which is in itself bad. But, drawing boundaries to deliberately mute the political voice of one group is unacceptable." Again, the article consistently refers to boundaries.
What Senator Schneider and I have attempted to do was to provide a mechanism so this Senate and our Assembly could be involved in redrawing those districts. So, instead of merely saying that we are going to have two new councilmen, we are suggesting that Government Affairs appointments from both houses be a part of drawing the boundaries. The concept about boundaries and representation seems to be consistent throughout the arguments presented at our public hearing and this would put special emphasis on what appears to be a priority. In our suggested change, we also are requiring that the plan go on the ballot of September 1998. Then those findings be reported to our full body in 1999.
Again, I do not disagree with the Senator's frustration. I think something has to happen. I think the message is there and it is very compelling. Again, just to explain how we got to this point. I think it was a fair approach to try to resolve a problem and to allow this Senate and Assembly to be involved in boundary changes to provide equitable representation.

Senator Washington:
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to quickly address this issue. This is a difficult task for me. I understand the concerns of the Senator from North Las Vegas and what he is attempting to do. Reading the bill for the first time as it was passed out of this house, the language was permissible. The amendment comes over from the other house which makes it a mandate to redraw lines in order to benefit a group of people, whether they be Hispanic or Afro-American.
I understand that it has been difficult for people of color, for many years, to be elected. I also want to say that times and people have changed. Granted, there are some who will still remain concrete in their ideas and their opinions. I also know that if ideas are expressed and people buy into the ideas you are expressing, you can overcome great obstacles concerning racial bias, gender, creed or whatever else. If they agree with your ideas, then they will vote for you. If they disagree with your ideas, then they will not vote for you. I understand, even on the National level. Gerrymandering as a constitutional issue was contested.
I supported S.B. 38 because it was permissive. Now it is contradictory to the things which I believe in; where we have to mandate something to the people. I was not elected to mandate, but elected to perform the will of the people. If the people decide that they want to redraw this district into two new districts, then let them do so.
If you will allow me to say this Mr. President, I am tired of being called a victim all the time. We need to get out of the mode of being victims and get into the mode of learning how the process works. I may not understand the process as well as Senator Neal, but I do understand that if we learn how the process works, and we play by the system, then we are able to make changes. This can be done without having either house mandate certain requirements. I understand, from Senator Porter, that they tried to achieve a compromise to allow these two districts to be formed. The compromise was not acceptable nor was the language passed out of this house. Because I am a man of integrity and a man of my word, I am going to support the Senator from North Las Vegas, but I disagree with the amendment that mandates the redrawing of this district into two districts. I think the language should be permissible, by the council and the vote of the people the way the original bill passed out of this house. I am going to support my word to him, but once again I want to reiterate that I disagree with the proposed amendment.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure but did I understand correctly that the Senator from Boulder City, who hails from local government and talks about the need for local government autonomy, is now suggesting that the Legislature get into the business of drawing district lines for local government. Is this something this state legislature is going to take up? Every ten years, we have enough trouble drawing our own lines. Are we now going to start drawing district lines for every city, every county, every school board. Is that something we should be involved in?

Senator Porter:
Thank you, Mr. President, to my colleague from southern Nevada. That suggestion came from the City of Las Vegas as an attempt to try to resolve the differences and allow Senator Neal and his constituents to be a part of the process.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a brief statement I would like to make. In the Senate, we have never allowed the people to draw district lines. We have always mandated those lines. We did not raise the issue of race. It has never been a part of our argument. The first time the issue was raised was when the Mayor of Las Vegas made the statement that if she was forced to draw the lines, she would draw them where no Blacks would ever be elected. My response is "let's give her the opportunity to do that."
As to compromise, in that instance minority groups usually lose. So, we are talking about having their voice heard and this body responding to that voice.
Senator James:
Mr. President, just a point of order. The vote to not concur is a vote not to kill this bill in either form but to send the two different forms from the two different houses which were passed unanimously to a conference committee of members of both houses to discuss and work out the best solution to this.
Senators Neal, Titus and Adler requested a roll call on Senator O'Connells motion.
Roll call on Senator O'Connells motion:
Yeas--11.
Nays--Adler, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Washington, Wiener--10.
The motion having received a majority, Mr. President declared it carried.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

On request of Senator James, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Randy Black, Sr., Cash Black and Tisha Black.

On request of Senator Regan, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Mr. and Mrs. Daniel J. Lyons.

On request of Senator Schneider, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Rachel East and Sarah Penfold.

On request of Senator Townsend, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Captain Theodore B. Purvis, Jr., U.S. Navy, Retired.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Friday, June 6, 1997 at 10 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 1:19 p.m.

Approved:

Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.

President of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate