The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Thursday, March 18, 1999. Chairman Robert E. Price presided in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman

Mr. Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. Don Gustavson

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Assembly District 18

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Assembly District 11

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Price explained changing the constitution with a resolution required passage of the resolution in two consequent legislative sessions. He said the second time the resolution came through the legislature, there could be no amendments. If the resolution passed the legislature the second session, it would go to a vote of the people in the year 2000 election. Chairman Price turned the gavel over to Mr. Mortenson.

Assemblyman Bob Price, representing district 17, introduced the resolution and handed out a document entitled "Nevada Public Affairs Review" (Exhibit C). The report was a compilation of newspaper articles, polls, and research on how other states’ legislative sessions were structured. Mr. Price had prepared the report during the previous legislative session. Mr. Price’s wife also contributed a short history of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, included in the report. Mr. Price said Nevada was one of a few states that did not have annual legislative sessions. Of those states, one or two had a flexible session, which did not sine die like Nevada, but recessed and returned the next year to handle new business. Although the session was technically biennial, those legislatures met on an annual basis. Under the proposed legislation, sessions on odd-numbered years would continue to be 120 days long and in even-numbered years, the session would be 45 days long. He said resolutions like it had been submitted for the last 14 years, with varying results. Mr. Price proposed the session would begin in the first Monday of March as opposed to February 1. That would allow for more accurate budget predictions. He referred to
Exhibit C noting a section entitled "A Prospect For Greatness." The commission that authored the report recommended "the Nevada Legislature have the authority to function during both years of the biennium, ideally the authority should permit a flexible biennial session that allows the legislature to convene, recess, and reconvene at any time it deems necessary during that 2 year period."

Mr. Price said the public supported annual sessions, according to many polls. A 1975 poll included in the report suggested 71 percent of the population favored annual sessions. A 1991 poll complied by the University of Nevada showed 85 percent of the public favored annual sessions. He referred to a legislative history complied by the Secretary of State’s office; and stated the legislature had met in odd-numbered years since 1867, with the exception of one regular session that met in 1960. Mr. Price introduced a former legislator who was a member of the Assembly during the only annual session in 1960. He said after the 1960 session, the voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting the legislature to biennial sessions. Mr. Price stated the 1960 annual session lasted 55 days. It began on January 18 and concluded on March 12, 1960.

Gene Evans, a former Nevada Assemblyman, served in the only annual session of the Nevada Legislature. Mr. Evans was the Assembly majority leader during that time. He emphasized the annual legislative session in 1960 did not happen by accident. The state was growing rapidly during that time. Mr. Evans held the position of editor of the Elko Daily Free Press. He expressed the need of annual sessions to Governor Grant Sawyer, especially because special sessions were called so often. Russ McDonald, who started the Legislative Counsel Bureau, had supported Mr. Evans’ request for annual sessions. Mr. McDonald had suggested a constitutional amendment to allow for annual sessions. He helped Mr. Evans put together the referendum, which went to the voters and passed in two general elections. Mr. Evans said there was a lot of opposition after passage of the initiative, especially in the leadership of the legislature. Aggressive legislators wanted to keep the annual sessions, but opposition wanted to keep them out of the legislature for as long as possible. Although the press and Governor Sawyer supported annual sessions, the legislature repealed the provision after one session. He said Nevada’s growth demanded annual sessions, especially fiscally. In his personal experience, annual sessions benefited the state.

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, representing district 18, said he wanted the voters to make a decision on whether Nevada should have annual sessions. He said his constituents were surprised Nevada did not already meet annually. Mr. Manendo opined the voters would approve the measure overwhelmingly. He stated passage of the resolution would be fulfilling the agreement made to send a 120 day session to the voters.

Mr. Brower asked how the annual session law was repealed after the 1960 session. Mr. Price said there were people with strong voices on both sides of the issue. The repeal was accomplished with an initiative.

Mr. Erickson said the Nevada Constitution had originally stipulated the legislature meet no longer than 60 days. The legislature had been able to meet that requirement until the 1920’s. However, Mr. Erickson had learned through newspaper articles that those sessions did last longer than 60 days. The longest had been 71 or 72 days. After the only annual session in 1960, an initiative petition was put before the voters which was approved. That petition removed the annual sessions and the limit on the number of days the legislature could meet. The legislature would again meet biennially, but legislators would only be paid for the first 60 days. Mr. Erickson presented a bill summary of the resolution (Exhibit D). The resolution stipulated the legislature would meet no more than 120 calendar days during odd-numbered years and no more than 45 calendar days in even-numbered years. Legislative action taken after that period would be void. Sessions commenced on the first Monday in March of each year. The governor was required to provide the legislature with the executive budget in odd-numbered years and any proposed appropriations or revisions in even-numbered years no later than 30 days before session convened. The resolution limited special sessions to 20 calendar days. It allowed the legislature to petition the governor to call a special session. The petition had to specify topics for consideration and be signed by two-thirds of the members elected to each house. Upon receipt of such a petition, the governor had 45 calendar days to call the special session. The governor had the power to add topics to those already listed for consideration. Additionally, an initiative petition could not be circulated more than 1 year before the regular session to which it would be submitted. The resolution required the sample ballot explanation include a statement legislators would be allowed to receive compensation for each calendar day of service, up to 60 days for each regular, annual session.

Mr. Price said many states "covered the clock" like Nevada in the early part of the century. Although the legislature claimed to adjourn after 60 days, in some cases they adjourned weeks later. A case had been taken to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled any legislation acted on after the constitutional time limit had passed was void. Mr. Price said three special sessions had taken place during his tenure in the legislature.

Francis Gillings, a member of the Independent American Party of Washoe County, said he opposed the resolution. He said the Texas Legislature met for 120 days in biennial sessions and the South Dakota Legislature met for 3 weeks every year. He stated every legislator came to serve with good intentions. Mr. Gillings said he would gladly quadruple the wages of legislators if no more laws were passed restricting freedom. He said shorter sessions occurring every year were acceptable. Some legislators could not afford to serve because of the length of legislative sessions. Mr. Gillings felt legislative sessions were too long and should not last more than 45 to 60 days.

Mr. Price said the Texas Legislature recessed on the odd-numbered years and come back during even-numbered years to complete the session. Although the session was biennial, the legislature was meeting every year. Mr. Gillings responded special sessions did occur in Texas on a regular basis. Their legislature was still restricted to 120 days.

Mr. Gustavson asked if the resolution was in the same form as originally passed in the 69^th Session. Mr. Erickson replied the resolution was in exactly the same form as the previous session.

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, representing district 11, commented on the quick pace of the 120 day session. He said the adoption of an additional session in even-numbered years would allow for deferral of complex legislation. He referred to Mr. Gillings testimony, stating Texas was limited to a 120 day biennial session, but the legislature had many special sessions. Mr. Bache said the annual sessions would also benefit incoming governors.

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, opposed the resolution. She said the resolution was not specific enough as to budget issues during annual sessions. She stated most states, businesses, and Federal Government agencies were moving away from an annual budget, and moving toward biennial budgets because they were more efficient. Ms. Vilardo said the association was very reluctant to support annual sessions until that concern was addressed.

Mr. Price commented most of the states with biennial budgets had a procedure in place to alter the budget annually if a situation arose. Ms. Vilardo replied those measures were considered emergency provisions.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, representing district 9, said she supported the resolution. Ms. Giunchigliani said the language was drafted in an attempt to satisfy the concerns of groups like the Nevada Taxpayers Association. She said she had been part of the agreement to bring forward annual sessions. She felt the public should have had both questions on the ballot at the same time so their merits could be debated. Ms. Giunchigliani said the voters were astute and supported annual sessions with a cap on the number of days.

Vice Chairman Mortenson closed the hearing on A.J.R. 5 of the 69^th Session and returned the gavel to Chairman Price.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the resolution was an exact reprint of A.J.R. 9 of the 69^th Session. It was an attempt to provide a long-term funding mechanism to the counties for the construction of schools. Assembly bill 353 was passed in the 1997 session. It was a school construction bill that allowed Clark County to charge an additional room tax, along with a tax to the convention authority and real estate transfer taxes to fund school construction. A bond issue was passed by the voters in Clark County to match those funds. However, no funding mechanism had been created to help the rest of the state. Ms. Giunchigliani passed out a memorandum on changes in the state indebtedness limit
(Exhibit E). The memorandum outlined changes in the original constitutional provision allowing the state to incur public debt. In 1916, the limit was raised from $300,000 to 1 percent of the assessed valuation of the property in Nevada. The school construction interim committee Ms. Giunchigliani served on found $1 million in unmet school maintenance and construction costs throughout the state. The resolution was patterned after legislation passed in 1987. The bond rate had been increased from 1 to 2 percent by the voters for higher education construction. The resolution before the committee would raise bond indebtedness from 2 to 3 percent for kindergarten through 12^th grade construction and joint use agreements.

The Nevada Constitution stated a uniform and equal education had to be provided for all students. The type of program mandated by A.J.R. 7 proved its worth in financing construction for higher education. The resolution would required the public to participate in the debate and financing of the bond. The resolution would establish a mechanism to help fund school construction in an equal and uniform manner. An opportunity existed for potential lawsuits if facilities were not maintained adequately. Many students were housed in buildings with inadequate lighting and water. Ms. Giunchigliani felt it was important to provide an alternative for financing school construction. She stated S.J.R. 8 was being amended to provide additional alternatives for financing. Ms. Giunchigliani supported that resolution as well and stated a funding source was needed to assist with school construction statewide. She said the Senate resolution would not affect the state’s triple A rating. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested Carole Vilardo would be better able to explain both resolutions.

Ms. Vilardo supported both the Assembly and Senate resolutions. The one restriction on A.J.R. 7 was the limited amount of funding provided by passage. Senator O’Connell’s bill, S.J.R. 8, was passed out of the Senate Committee on Human Resources with an amendment Ms. Vilardo distributed to the committee (Exhibit F). The amendment changed the resolution to address concerns on funding outside the present cap. Ms. Vilardo said bonding and rating companies would not know how much bonding the state would or should have. She suggested if a state school bond fund was created, the full faith and credit of the school districts would become the pledge for the general obligation. However, because the state administered the fund, the bond would have a double A rating. The reason for deleting the language on the Senate resolution was to eliminate redundancy. According to Ms. Vilardo, the state already had a municipal bond bank. She said the language was deleted to eliminate confusion from which bank the local districts would be borrowing. Additionally, the amendment deleted the time limitation on bond issuance. Ms. Vilardo said it was simpler to amend S.J.R. 8 because the resolution would not impact the state debt rate. Fiscal notes to the smaller counties showed interest rates between 6 and 6 ½ percent on bond notes. The interest rate to the state was near or below 5 percent. Additionally, the insurance costs to bring counties’ bonds to a triple A rating were too expensive. Ms. Vilardo said mechanisms needed to be available to make rural counties’ dollars go further. She felt the Senate resolution allowed more flexibility than the Assembly resolution.

Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director of the Nevada Association of School Boards, said the association supported A.J.R. 7. He acknowledged passage and enactment of the resolution was a slow process but said it was critical for voters to resolve long-term school construction issues. Mr. Etchemendy stated one of Nevada’s school districts was impacted by federal and state land ownership of approximately 98 percent. He said A.B. 597 would cover those short-term issues of immediate maintenance and repair. There were still critical long-term issues needing to be addressed.

Mr. Bache commented the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs dealt with the same issue during the previous legislative session. He recalled the bill passed the Assembly but was held up in the Senate. He referred to previous comments from Ms. Giunchigliani about possible liability due to school inequality.

Janine Hansen, president of Nevada Families Eagle Forum, appreciated the cap increase would have to go to the people before passage. Ms. Hansen said innovated alternatives needed to be explored aside from increased taxation and state indebtedness. She stated over 50 percent of funds in the state were allocated to education. Ms. Hansen advocated freedom of school choice to solve many of the debt problems. Private schools and other school alternatives would spring up to supplement public education. There were many benefits of school choice, including taxpayer relief and increased quality of schools due to competition. She said government monopoly of schools should not be the only choice and positive alternatives existed. Another issue Ms. Hansen addressed was the limitation on tax bases of the rural counties. She suggested implementation of the Nevada Public Lands Ownership Act would solve that problem. If federal land was returned to private use, the tax base for counties would increase. She asked the committee to find innovative alternatives to tax increases. Ms. Hansen said half of families’ incomes went toward federal, state, and local taxes. According to the Nevada Policy Research Institute, Nevada was the sixth highest taxing state.

Mr. Gillings stated the education problem did not lie in funding. He asserted the education system had been in a mess for the past 30 years. Mr. Gillings advocated competition for public schools using a voucher system. He said establishing a voucher system would ensure all high school graduates could read and write. He said 32 percent of high school graduates could not fill out a job application. Mr. Gillings stated his adopted daughter could not read and write because of the public school system. He emphasized putting children in private school was expensive. Mr. Gillings asserted the voucher system would cure every school problem in the State of Nevada. The means were available without raising taxes to solve the school construction problem.

Chairman Price closed the hearing on A.J.R. 7.

Mr. Bache noted the annual session bill heard by the committee earlier in the hearing accomplished the same goal as the A.J.R. 11. He explained the resolution assumed a biennial session, in case the earlier resolution did not pass. Mr. Bache felt it was important to move the beginning of session to a later date in the year to allow more time for preparation of the executive budget. Also, it would give bill drafters more time to have bills ready for the session.

Denise Miller, representing the Office of the Governor, said her office was in support of the measure. The governor agreed time was needed to review the budget and resolve personnel issues before the start of the legislative session. She also said the 120 day session imposed a bind on the office to put together a legislative agenda.

Mr. Anderson asked when the ending date of the legislative session would occur under the new provision. Mr. Bache replied he had not calculated the exact date. He said it would depend on the date of the first Monday in March.

Mr. Anderson was concerned about the ability of the Economic Forum to make accurate projections. Ms. Miller said in previous sessions the legislature adjourned in late June or early July. The Economic Forum’s final forecast had to be submitted by May 1. That deadline had not changed with the 120 day session. If the resolution passed, the same situation would occur as in years previous to the current legislative session.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the committee was considering both the Assembly resolution and the Senate resolution. Chairman Price answered S.J.R. 8 had not been passed out of the Senate and was not in possession of the committee. Although the resolution was on the agenda, no action could be taken.

Mr. Anderson stated A.J.R. 7 should be amended to mirror the language in S.J.R. 8. Chairman Price thought such an amendment would be appropriate.

Chairman Price said he would accept a motion on A.J.R. 5 of the 69^th Session.

Mr. Anderson said he had asked a question of Mr. Erickson, and he would like a response before considering the resolution. Chairman Price suggested a meeting at the bar of the Assembly would be appropriate to consider a motion on the resolution.

Mr. Erickson presented a work session document (Exhibit G). The document contained a letter drafted by Mr. Erickson to Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation. The letter was drafted in response to a request by the committee. He acknowledged the committee had already moved to amend and do pass the resolution. Mr. Erickson read the letter to the committee. The letter requested the Division of Parole and Probation to "provide information to offenders at the time of their discharge concerning the restoration of their civil rights. Of particular importance, the statement should inform discharged felons of the current procedures to become a registered voter in Nevada."

Mr. Anderson said the letter answered some of the concerns he and Mr. Brower had on the resolution. He stated he had conversations with Mr. Concha about current procedure and felt the letter would spur the division to improve the process.

Lucille Lusk, founder of Nevada Concerned Citizens, explained there was existing language in NRS referring to the process. Under NRS 176A.850, a person honorably discharged could apply to the court for restoration of civil rights. The statute specified a felon must be informed of that privilege in his probation papers. She suggested the letter should be stronger because the current law was not being followed.

Ms. Leslie said she agreed with Ms. Lusk. She wanted to see a reference to the statute in the letter to Mr. Concha.

Mr. Anderson stated the division, according to Mr. Concha, was following the current law by informing felons of their right to petition to restoration upon discharge. He said they sent out letters to felons after their release informing them of their right to petition. He said they were following the process, if not meeting the mark specified in NRS 176A.850. Mr. Anderson did not object to making the letter stronger unless the Division of Parole and Probation were not following through with the process outlined in statute. He felt the division was "meeting the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it."

Ms. Leslie disagreed with Mr. Anderson. Based on Ms. Lusk’s testimony, the division was not meeting the letter of the law because they were not informing the felon of his rights in his probation papers.

Mr. Mortenson recalled testimony from the March 4, 1999 hearing on A.J.R. 6. According to testimony, the felons had not received notice of their right to petition some time significantly after discharge. Mr. Anderson said there were two types of discharges and processes for informing felons on their right to have civil rights restored. He stated some of the felons released had to complete a waiting period. Mr. Mortenson said he had not recalled that information from the hearing.

Chairman Price asked the committee if the letter should be written with stronger language. He pointed out the committee had already taken an amend and do pass action on the bill.

Mr. Anderson said a citation to the statute could be made in the last paragraph to reaffirm the requirement felons must be advised of their rights.

Chairman Price asked Mr. Mortenson to report on the subcommittee proceedings on A.J.R. 3.

Mr. Mortenson said the subcommittee met and considered some amendments to the resolution (Exhibit G). He was not impressed with the changes accomplished by those amendments. In his opinion, the resolution was still the same. Mr. Mortenson said he could not speak for Mr. Brower, who was the other member of the subcommittee. They decided to bring the resolution back to the committee so it could consider the amendments and decide as a whole.

Chairman Price said it might be appropriate to consider the measure at a later time when Mr. Brower could be present. He thanked Mr. Mortenson for the work of the subcommittee.

Mr. Erickson gave a short discourse on the history of the "rule of thumb." The common law of England never permitted a man to beat his wife. The rule of thumb probably derived from when people used thumbs as a measuring device. He also suggested the term came from brewmasters who used their thumb to test the temperature of beer.

The meeting of the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Gregory,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

DATE: