The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 5:35 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 1999. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Richard Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, District 5

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District 42

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District 13

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 170, and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Dennis Nolan.

Assemblyman Nolan gave a brief introduction to A.B. 170. He felt the draft of the bill was understandable as most legislators made payments on more than one home while in attendance for session. He explained expenses of dual households and emphasized many legislators had no pay from employment or other sources while in session. He recommended one amendment to A.B. 170. Mileage should be changed from 75 miles to 50 miles to comply with federal definition. The supplemental income would be based on the publication of the United States Department of Housing and Development using a one-bedroom unit in the Carson City area, which amounted to $550 to $590 per month. The fiscal note was prepared for $600.

Current law stated legislator’s income was fixed for the first 60 days of the session without consideration for members who resided outside of Carson City. Assemblyman Nolan explained A.B. 170 was for legislators outside of Carson City and stressed a need for fair, straight forward, and better compensation for legislators who needed extra services due to maintaining two homes.

Assemblyman Nolan gave personal details on salary each time he had been in

session: For example, the first session he received no salary from his employer; the second session, he received a partial salary from his employer; and for the Seventieth Session, he received full compensation from his employer. Assemblyman Nolan felt the current pay for legislators discriminated against the Nevada population. Qualified people would not run for office due to insufficient pay and families suffered from loss of essential income.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions or comments, and none were asked. She noted the bill would not be in effect until October 1, 1999. The Seventieth Session would be adjourned before the bill went into effect, giving the public advance notice. Legislators elected in the next election would receive benefits from the bill. She thanked Assemblyman Nolan for his testimony and noted he had requested other people to testify on A.B. 170.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on former Assemblymen Brian Sandoval and Larry Spitler.

Larry Spitler spoke in favor of A.B. 170 and stated the perception of legislators’ salaries needed to be addressed. He had been a legislator and knew the compensation plan. He read from a prepared speech (Exhibit C) and explained

what he had seen and experienced regarding financial problems. He felt the legislature needed to have Nevadans of all backgrounds with diverse, real-life experiences representing all ages. Unfair compensation should not be a factor to discourage anyone from becoming a candidate for office.

Former Assemblyman Brian Sandoval testified in favor of A.B. 170. He discussed his experiences while in the legislature. Mr. Sandoval had a law practice and had income from his practice while in office and did not suffer undue hardships. At the same time, he saw many others in the legislature that had a hardship and felt the bill before the committee would help bridge the gap.

Other public speakers in favor of A.B. 170 were former Senator Stephanie Tyler and former Assemblyman Rick Bennett. They stated A.B 170 was a positive step forward and the bill would remove a barrier for many people who wanted to run for office. The perception of the distance of the rural area legislators and the outlying areas made a difference. Both noted the financial difficulties each of them had experienced during their term in office.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani complimented Assemblyman Nolan on A.B. 170 and stated the salary issue had been brought up in previous sessions as all legislators had experienced some type of problem. Due to negative input the issue had not been resolved in past, and A.B. 170 was very straightforward. She explained the Legislative Commission for the Seventieth Session had already brought up the salary issue. The public wanted to maintain a citizen’s legislature.

Jim Hulse, Common Cause, spoke in favor of A.B. 170 and supported the proposed amendment changing the mileage from 75 miles to 50 miles. He explained Common Cause was a watchdog organization, and believed more citizen participation would be possible with the changes in A.B 170.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, in favor of A.B. 170. She agreed the amendment requested was supported, and the bill dealt with the issue of equity. The federal law allowed up to $113 per diem with actual expenses, and noted for the record an amount over $113 per day plus expenses would require federal income tax to be paid. She stated a compensation bill might come to the committee from the Legislative Commission. Perhaps A.B. 170 could wait to be processed pending the compensation issue.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Tiffany. She wanted to know if the press could testify since they tended to paint those types of money

issues in a negative light as they did in 1989. She wanted their impression on the subject. The press declined to comment.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani expressed the need for legislators to be more upfront about the compensation issue. She recognized Assemblyman Nolan who stated the media had been more favorable toward A.B. 170.

Lucille Lusk, member, Nevada Concerned Citizens, was called to testify by Chairwoman Giunchigliani. She spoke in favor of A.B. 170 as step one but did not know what step two would be yet. Elected officials needed to make sacrifices although there was no reason for dual households to suffer while in session. With a 120-day limit, the public would be prone to accepting an increase in salary for the legislators. However, she cautioned she was opposed to large salaries in government.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked Lucille Lusk if housing was an issue for her when she ran for office, and she stated no as her husband provided an adequate income. Assemblywoman Tiffany commented to make ends meet she was renting a room in someone’s home during the current session.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for further comments or questions. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 170 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 200. She called the main sponsor, Assemblyman Harry Mortenson.

Assemblyman Mortenson explained A.B 200 was a very simple bill. He implied when one person had written both the "for" and "against" language for an initiative on a ballot, the potential of bias had been created. He had asked LCB to research what other states had done to eliminate the problems with ballot questions. Washington State required two groups of people to write the questions. One group had to be known as opposed to the issue, and the other group in favor of the bill. It was helpful to look at other states, but his bill was directed at local governments not the state.

Assemblyman Mortenson felt overall citizen involvement was important. He noted there was a fiscal note attached to A.B 200 which imposed a fine for anyone who violated the provisions of the bill. According to his interpretation, there was no real cost to the bill. Assemblyman Mortenson asked if the committee had any questions.

Assemblyman Dini asked Assemblyman Mortenson to turn to page 3. He stated not all counties had an auditor anymore, some had a recorder, and others had a clerk. Assemblyman Mortenson stated LCB had included the language and was open to an amendment.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Scott Wasserman to respond to the question asked by Assemblyman Dini. He stated the county auditor was based on the Washington state statute, and the language could be changed to recorder or the county clerk, whichever one applied. She asked if there were any further questions or comments, and recognized Assemblywoman McClain and Assemblyman Beers.

Assemblywoman McClain wanted to know who wrote the "for" and "against" language now. Assemblyman Mortenson stated he thought the writing of the language was a function and responsibility of the county commission. Assemblywoman McClain asked if the language would then be written by the district attorney’s office. He did not know and assumed the district attorney’s office would be involved.

Assemblyman Beers asked Assemblyman Mortenson if he were open to an amendment specifying committee members who were involved in writing the questions would do so with no compensation. Assemblyman Mortenson stated he would be happy with the provision.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani acknowledged Assemblywoman Tiffany. She stated she had seen what happened when the 1/4 percent water tax question had been written, and the language on the ballot was specific but biased. She wondered if the commission would form a subcommittee to write the language. Her understanding of the intent from the sponsor of A.B. 200 was the committee structure would allow drafting language without bias.

Assemblyman Mortenson replied it would be a better statement if two committees wrote the language "for" and "against". Assemblywoman Tiffany thought the process would be more efficient if the legal division wrote the pro and con. She felt the process should be similar to how a bill in committee was passed. All terminology and legal aspects would then be correct.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out NRS 293.482 noted in the bill which allowed the local governing boards to write their own "for" and "against" issues.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated one aspect missing in A.B. 200 were timelines and needed to hear more in that area. She asked if "for" and "against" language was currently written now on the local level. The answer was yes as stated by Scott Wasserman.

Scott Wasserman explained another statute would govern the timelines and the committee had 90 days to submit language for ballot questions. Additional deadlines of "for" and "against" would be set under the regulations of the board or council.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, she called on Jim Hulse, member, Common Cause, who testified in favor of A.B. 200 because the bill provided for public awareness and input.

Janine Hansen, President, New Eagle Forum, testified in favor of A.B. 200. She hoped the bill covered school bond issues. In 1990 an abortion referendum was placed on the ballot. New Eagle Forum sued Frankie Sue Del Papa, Secretary of State, in the Nevada Supreme Court to have the language explanation changed since New Eagle Forum felt it was biased. New Eagle Forum won and the court proceedings could have been avoided were the process more like the language in A.B. 200. In the legislature, legislators had the ability to have the language written and have it checked. She expressed the need for those issues to be addressed with opposing views placed on the ballot. Janine Hansen continued by saying staff should not prepare the language used on a ballot because she thought staff were bias. Staff would not have the overall experience needed for the language and expressed more citizen participation and public opinion needed to be considered.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Janine Hansen for her testimony and called on Lucille Lusk.

Lucille Lusk testified in favor of A.B. 200 and voiced concerns about language conflicts on a ballot. She explained "against" on ballots were sometimes a veiled "in favor" of an issue. She read from a prepared speech (Exhibit D). Also included in her testimony was a letter from Richard Ziser, Las Vegas, in favor of A.B 200, a copy of California election codes, a guideline for needed information on the ballot, and what needed to be included for a proper ballot. She emphasized the need for correct and understandable language and felt

A.B. 200 would increase voter participation.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Clark County, to testify. She stated Clark County Elections Department had requested amendments to address the time issues mentioned previously. Their main areas of concern were deadline requirements, which would not allow sufficient time to prepare and finalize the printing of the ballot for specific deadlines as stated in

NRS 293.481. She distributed a copy of the requested amendments (Exhibit E). Those amendments included the main area of concern being specific language needed to ensure compliance with deadlines established in another section of the chapter. Those deadlines were required in order to allow the Election Department sufficient time to prepare and finalize the ballot and meet printing deadlines. The deadlines were established in NRS 293.481. The sections affected are:

• Section 4, subsection 3(b)

(page 3, line 24)

• Section 5, subsection 3(b)

(page 4, line 18)

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Colleen Wilson-Pappa for her testimony, and called Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk Recorder, Nevada Association of Election Officials.

Alan Glover agreed the amendments requested by Clark County Elections Department would solve the time issue problem on A.B 200. Anytime the language came to the attention of an election board a definite date would work better. He informed the committee the word "auditor" for the State of Nevada was unusual, and the committee might want to amend the wording to reflect the actual position used, as some counties had auditors and some did not. He also suggested the bill be amended to include school boards.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Dan Musgrove, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, City of Las Vegas. He spoke in favor of A.B. 200 and agreed with Alan Glover about the issues and amendments. His main concern was how petitions would affect the timelines of the bill.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Tiffany. She asked for clarification about taking the bias out of the language in questions or explanations on ballots. She felt bias would remain depending on how the bill was written. Assemblyman Mortenson commented by saying the bill was drafted from Washington’s law and was an attempt to eliminate bias. He wondered if it was not possible to remove bias. The discussion turned to inherent bias and whether "for" or "against" language could be unbiased. Assemblywoman Tiffany felt a sponsor should not be involved in the "for" and "against" language writing of a bill and felt legal staff should draft it. Chairwoman Giunchigliani presented the theory that as long as a bill had the "for" and "against" issues there would be some bias involved. She felt the sponsor or organizations supporting or opposing a ballot question should participate in the drafting.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested a work session. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on

A.B. 200 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 218. She called the main sponsor of the bill, Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske.

Assemblywoman Cegavske testified to what the bill would accomplish. She wanted NRS 218.912 amended to make university lobbyists register since they were paid specifically to entertain legislators. In 1999, they voluntarily registered as lobbyists and wore a badge identifying them to legislators.

A.B. 218 would amend the current lobbyist statute and include university staff.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification from Assemblywoman Cegavske as to the interpretation of section 1 of the bill. Almost everyone must be a registered lobbyist according to the language stated in the bill. She voiced her concern about not prohibiting or restricting anyone from testifying in person or in committee hearings, especially state employees. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblywoman Cegavske if she wanted state employees to wear badges or something to distinguish them from others. Assemblywoman Cegavske replied some of those areas were uncharted territory and some people could be made exempt.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the language in section 2 (c) was taken out of the bill, would that accomplish the needed effect. She deferred the question to Scott Wasserman. Scott Wasserman replied university employees fell under the section regarding state employees, therefore it would apply to them. He stressed university staff were state employees, but in the 1999 session chose to register voluntarily. The current exempt status of university staff existed in paragraph c. A lobbyist would not include someone giving formal testimony in committee hearings in the interest or interests for whom they testified. They would not fall under the lobbyist definition. His concern would be with people who came to the building to talk to a legislator or to testify for someone other than themselves to influence the legislator. Those persons must register as lobbyists. The only way a person would not have to register as a lobbyist would be if they were in the building and did not try to influence legislators.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the definition for lobbyist could be better defined since some people testified on behalf of the agency for which they worked due to budget matters and others testified on behalf of themselves. Scott Wasserman felt the legislative branch could try and pointed out the statutes read the only person who did not have to register were those who were exempted.

Assemblyman Price voiced his concern about not being able to talk to anyone on the plane or anywhere else. University people should be able to talk to legislators as a private citizen without going through a lobbyist registration process. He was not aware the lobbyists’ process was that tight. Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Scott Wasserman.

Mr. Wasserman defined a lobbyist as one who appeared in the building and acted on behalf of someone’s interests other than themselves.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblyman Perkins. He was concerned the language could not be crafted without affecting everyday people and wondered if everyone could agree upon a common language. He felt the Legislative Commission could deal with the policy portion.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked about receiving e-mail from people and asked the difference between that and a person being physically present to lobby? The Chair deferred to Mr. Wasserman, who defined a lobbyist as someone who appeared in the legislative building in person according to the statute. E-mail would be exempt.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested from Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, his definition of a lobbyist and wanted to know if something was written. Lorne Malkiewich testified lobbyists were given a packet with information when signing up as lobbyists, and included in that packet were definitions of lobbyists with terminology and regulations (Exhibit F). The definition of lobbyists was they appeared in the legislative building, appeared for someone other than themselves, and they wanted to influence the legislator. He felt the employees of the state were representing themselves. Since the university became an issue, he suggested the committee exempt only state employees. He cautioned university employees were state employees and crafting the language would be difficult.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Cegavske. Her intent was to capture university lobbyists the bill draft. She was agreeable with the recommendations from Assemblyman Perkins.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Janine Hansen, President, New Eagle Forum. She testified state agencies should have to register as lobbyists. County governments had to register so why not state. She suggested a 1-day exemption for citizen participation. She felt state agencies should go through the same steps as the unpaid lobbyist.

Lorne Malkiewich asked to be recognized by Chairwoman Giunchigliani. He stated a 1-day exemption had been an item discussed in lobbyist orientation. If the committee were so inclined it could place an exemption within the bill for people who attended for 1 day in connection with organized activities. He had no objections for 1 day added to the bill. Chairwoman Giunchigliani wondered if the sponsor would mind the changes, and noted in trying to get the language of the bill correct, possibly the wording became too tight. She thanked Mr. Malkiewich and Janine Hansen for appearing before the committee.

Lucille Lusk testified there should be little distinction between state employee and government. Other people had voiced her main concerns, so she had no more to add to the testimony. She felt citizens must be on equal footing with state and government lobbyists. She had initially intended to support the bill and she hoped she could when it was completed.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated she was confused about which employees were and were not covered. Mrs. Lusk replied elected officials were not affected and felt state employees should not be favored. Assemblywoman Von Tobel said according to what Mrs. Lusk said state employees had to be registered.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association. She testified she felt there needed to be a policy change as to who was a lobbyist and how ethical they were. When local governments were involved, the committee needed to deal with whether the public was attending as advocates or as private citizens. She emphasized the need for badges to identify all people involved with testimony on bills, particularly those from out of the area. The press wore badges, so the same needed to apply to state employees in the legislative building.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani took discussion from the committee regarding badges. Some felt name badges would help the public be identified during the committee hearings and emphasized not everyone needed to be present for a committee hearing. She stated it was worthwhile to take into consideration.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B 218 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Price as she was the main sponsor of A.B. 268 and A.C.R. 5. Vice Chairman Price opened the hearing on A.B. 268 and A.C.R. 5.

A.C.R. 5, therefore would be heard together in committee. A.C.R. 5 was to be heard first. She had asked legislative staff to look for what had not been approved in the 69^th session with the 1999 session limited to 120 days. She emphasized a need to have a handle on when resolutions were heard, and suggested all resolutions be heard on Friday. For the record, the two-thirds vote and the language were flexible and could be changed. Even though the budget committee was exempt under current rules, Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt they needed to heed timelines for action on bills after all testimony had been given. The Fiscal Division was nervous over the 20-day limit stated in Rule 24 of

A.C.R. 5. If not workable, it could be deleted and they could work on a rule change for next session. Her concern included the end of session when money bills tended to be held, and she felt some bills could have action taken on them if there was no negative impact. The final point of discussion was to have other agencies and branches submit bill draft requests early so they could be addressed when budgets were presented.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Majority Leader Perkins and Speaker Dini had commented on a possible amendment to allow addition of names on bills and a mechanism to allow names to be dropped.

A.B. 268 pertained to names of legislators being automatically listed on a bill. The committee would need to consider duplicated bills and a procedure to delete duplicate bill drafting. She thought there was more duplication in the legislation until she had talked to Mr. Wasserman and found it not to be the case. Under consideration would be the procedure to save time with the shorter session. Dates could be changed and the bill could be considered in work session. She felt no one had thought to change the economic forum dates now that session was 120 days. She placed that section into the bill to get the report early.

Vice Chairman Price recognized Assemblyman Perkins. He shared concern for resolutions and wanted to see how it worked, as Fridays might be cumbersome if locked in. He questioned the fiscal dates for passing bills on A.C.R. 5. Chairwoman Giunchigliani replied she contacted the Fiscal Division and noted they were uncomfortable when asked. Assemblyman Perkins suggested the issue be placed on the commission agenda for rules to be heard in the Seventieth session or the middle of next year when the committees started to meet to determine rules.

Assemblyman Perkins stated he thought the procedure was optional and did not know it was mandatory. The current statute read by request and with the legislator’s name noted rather than an agency or organization.

Vice Chairman Price gave an example of Oregon where bills had an organization listed on the Bill Draft Request. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it was sometimes hard to have an organization on the bill and could be cumbersome.

Vice Chairman Price recognized Assemblyman Perkins. He stated the economic forum needed to be changed as a mandate. When the economic forum received information from the gaming industry it was already outdated. He felt better numbers would be received.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed information from the economic forum would be better received and the information more useful for legislators at a later date.

Mrs. Lusk spoke in favor of A.B. 268. She raised questions that included all government organizations and wondered about lobbyists being listed. She felt something was missing in the bill. If she waited until after session to speak to someone about a bill, did that mean her name did not have to be listed as a lobbyist, since she would not be a lobbyist at that time. She spoke in favor of A.C.R. 5 and stated she was in favor of tracking duplicate bills and wondered how much the bills had to be alike to be duplicated. She questioned whether a phrase or a concept made a bill duplicated.

Vice Chairman Price called Carole Vilardo. She testified in favor of A.B. 268 and stated The Nevada Taxpayer’s Association supported the portion of the bill which required legislators names to be listed every time introduced. Every session the bill had been introduced, the bill died in the Senate. She suggested a variation of the bill to include language that a legislator must give his or her permission not to have their names on a bill when filed. She testified in favor of A.C.R. 5 and suggested a secondary date be placed in the language of the bill. She had attended economic forums and felt the bill needed a later reporting date to allow the third quarter of the sales tax and insurance premium tax to be more accurately reflected. She suggested February 25 and April 25.

Vice Chairman Price asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 268 and A.C.R. 5 with no action by the committee.

Vice Chairman Price turned the chair over to Chairwoman Giunchigliani. She adjourned the hearing at 7:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chair

DATE: