The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at

5:40 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 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:

Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, District 5

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, District 30

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested a motion for the introduction of

BDR 17-518 (A.B. 355).

• BDR 17-518- Revises provisions governing legislative measures which require local governments to establish, provide or increase programs or services (A.B. 355).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R.14 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Jan Evans.

Jan Evans testified on A.C.R. 14 which directed and redrew lines for the Assembly, Senate, Board of Education, and Board of Regents. She explained 10 years ago the legislature had a difficult time redistricting after the census was complete, and redistricting for the 2001 session must be done in 60 days. Census counts would not be received from the Census Bureau until April 1, 2001. The task of the 2001 session of reapportioning districts would become a housekeeping matter and would enable interim committees to set boundaries before the session following the census count. The Census Bureau requires an accurate count in the state to be able to redistrict all areas and noted the importance that all counts were done correctly.

Assemblyman Dini asked what the Federal Government had done to make the count more accurate, as the last count was not done well. Assemblywoman Evans replied the Census Bureau had thought that in addition to the actual count of people, they would conduct a sampling. She felt a sampling process would benefit the parts of country where counting was difficult. The process happened two ways: on paper mailed from the Census Bureau, a follow-up if the paperwork was not received. She deferred to Scott Wasserman for more information on Census 2000.

Mr. Wasserman responded the United States Supreme Court ruled against use of a sampling process. The decision was a black and white issue and other interpretations included the use of a process called ACE, Accuracy Coverage Evaluation. Dr. Kenneth Pruitt, Director of the Census Bureau, had given a discussion on the topic, and Mr. Wasserman read from his prepared speech (Exhibit C). He repeated passages pertaining to "differential undercount" and processes by which counts would be more accurate. The overall process would be subject to an appropriation from Congress. Whereas in the past the Census Bureau sent results of the count to each state early, Census 2000 would not be received by the state until at least April 1, 2001.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted the language of the statement and wanted to know who decided whether a state could make a decision to use both numbering systems. Mr. Wasserman replied Congress would make the decision for congressional districts. If handled in legislation, a state could have an option to use both numbers. It could be an area for an interim study to review.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained problems with undercounts from previous censuses were with minorities in urban and rural areas of the state. Either an undercount or a correct count would have an impact upon legislation and the correct status of reapportionment. Her interpretation of a study done by the commission would not count as one of the regular interim studies. She asked whether each state could set up its own count for redistricting. Mr. Wasserman answered not according to the constitution. According to federal mandates, the census count from the Federal Government would have to be based on accurate state counts. The legislature could attempt to set up a program to make sure the census count was more accurate in rural and urban areas.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R.14 with no action taken by the committee. A work session would be planned on a later date.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R. 13 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Jan Evans.

Jan Evans testified that an interim study started during the 69^th Session was done on the juvenile justice system and all other interacting systems. Early into the study the interim committee found much to be done which could not be completed in one session. She wanted a blueprint drawn for an interim study of the juvenile system with a need to do a top to bottom analysis of the system and not rush to conclusions about the system. The interim committee would not attempt to correct problems without all of the facts (Exhibit D). She explained the chart and explained a lot of work was in progress and ready to go if the committee approved the proposed interim study. She introduced Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Department of Children and Family Services.

Mr. Shaw testified the juvenile system study was vital and would affect children’s mental heath programs and would help with the guidance of juveniles and the interaction of different programs.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 13 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B.42 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Carpenter.

Assemblyman Carpenter testified the bill would create categories for misdemeanors. During the 1995 session, the legislature had taken appropriate measures with felonies, and it was an aid to law enforcement so law enforcement agencies had asked for changes on misdemeanors. In current law, there were only two categories, gross and misdemeanor. He wanted to have further categories added for efficiency of the system. Other people present were in favor of A.B. 42.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association; Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police; and Jim Nadeau, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff Department, all in favor of A.B. 42.

Ben Graham stated penalties for lighter crimes and other issues, such as community service fines for minor offenses needed to be examined by the public and the legislature. He stated in the long run it could show a lower crime rate, and he knew the district attorney’s office would take a closer look.

Stan Olsen testified as times change so shall the law, and he felt a need to update laws for today’s society.

Vice Chairman Price wanted to know if there were any committees set up to gauge misdemeanors and penalties of such. Ben Graham replied by saying committee formation varied from state to state with no set regulations and that was why he felt it was important to have one formed.

Jim Nadeau testified he was in favor of A.B. 42 and had no more to add than previous testimony.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Brian Doran, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts. He was in favor of A.B. 42 and felt the public and legislature could decriminalize several areas by having an interim study.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 42 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Assemblyman Nolan sponsored A.B. 170 and noted the work session sheet reflected the changes to the initial bill as presented with an amendment to page 1, line 6, replacing the mileage from 75 miles to 50 miles (Exhibit E).

Michael Stewart explained the proposed amendment was the deletion of 75 miles and was replaced with 50 miles for legislators.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she thought the bill needed an effective date so it would not take effect until after the current session. Assemblyman Dini noted an effective date was not needed, as the effective date on bill was October 1, 1999.

Assemblyman Price asked if the bill would have an effect upon the per diem received by legislators now. Mr. Stewart answered it would be in addition to, as drafted.

Assemblyman Perkins explained the per diem had a fiscal note of $100,000, and wanted to know if the present amount of $6,800 allotted per legislator could be made part of A.B. 170 or would it be complicated to accomplish. According to Scott Wasserman, the statute must be amended to expand the current statute to include the amount paid to each legislator. In other words, rather than being in addition to current $6,800 allotment, it could be part of the allotment and once spent, the legislator could not apply for reimbursement.

Assemblywoman Tiffany interjected many legislators had already been given the allotted amount and the committee needed to look at who had done so and go from there. Her concern was the impact on Clark County and was not the intent of the bill.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the work session closed on A.B. 170 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to Michael Stewart about the proposed amendments on A.B. 218. Two of the issues would be taken up with the Legislative Commission (Exhibit E) and certain language would be retained. The amendment stipulated representatives of Nevada’s universities and colleges would be considered lobbyists under NRS 218.912. Mr. Wasserman stated the language could be changed. The other clause emphasized concern for the people who visited the legislature for 1 day who may have to register under current provisions in Chapter 218. The committee felt those people should not have to register as a lobbyist.

Assemblyman Beers suggested a 3-day exemption before a person had to register as a lobbyist. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated 3 days would be hard to track.

Mr. Wasserman discussed the possibility of a language problem with discussion about lobbyists and who lobbied. There was a fine line on what, where, and how a person lobbied. He clarified a lobbyist had to be in the building and in front of the legislator and lobbying on someone else’s behalf.

Assemblyman Perkins stated the commission might be able to make exemptions.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments, and stated she would entertain a motion.

Discussion began among Chairwoman Giunchigliani, Assemblyman Perkins, Assemblyman Beers, Assemblywoman Tiffany, and Assemblywoman McClain pertaining to some language problems in A.B. 218. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee might want to do more work on A.B. 218 and discuss it during a work session.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated another work session was to be held on Wednesday on A.B. 218. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the work session closed on A.B. 218 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chair

DATE: