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

6:10 p.m., on Monday, March 8, 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

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Richard Perkins

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Joseph Dini

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, District 28

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, District 13

Senator Jon Porter, District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.C.R. 1 and called on the main sponsor, Senator Jon Porter. He testified the resolution would be for an interim study on reapportionment and redistricting within the state from the census.

Senator Porter explained the committee would consist of eight members from the Seventieth Session. There would be three members from the Senate appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate, three members from the Assembly appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, one member from the Assembly appointed by the Minority Leader of the Assembly, and Legislative Commission shall appoint the chairman of the committee. He stated the language was taken from an actual bill 10 years ago and any questions he could not answer would be referred to Scott Wasserman.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Leslie. She stated when the drafting was done on A.C.R. 14 she had looked at S.C.R 1.

The main difference between the two bills was specific language that pertained to members in S.C.R. 1. She asked Senator Porter his reasons for the use of the specific language. He replied there needed to be a specific number of members within the committee and both bills were good bills. He felt a need to streamline the decisionmaking process in order to be equal and fair to both houses.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani responded to Senator Porter that the 1989 bill did not call for actual delineation of committee members and neither did A.C.R. 14. She asked if he would have any objection to representation from the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics as well as the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, and would the redistricting issue be heard before his committee or the Committee on Government Affairs. Senator Porter said his impression was the bill would be heard before the Committee on Government Affairs next session and the committees would be able examine the issue during the interim.

Assemblywoman Tiffany wanted to know if the interim study had come up with a plan or just recommended a plan. Senator Porter responded by saying he hoped to come up with information so a plan could be developed by the next session. She questioned how and what information was received. Senator Porter stated the first step was to analyze technology information and results in order to develop a definite plan. Assemblywoman Tiffany wanted to know if there was more than one Government Information Systems (GIS) program. Senator Porter explained hardware and software core groups were hard to find. It was easier to do the software than the plan to redistrict. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she agreed with Senator Porter. As the interim committee came up with vendors for software and hardware core groups in the next session the plan depended on who the caucuses hired to create the plans for redistricting and assisting the committees. She referred to Scott Wasserman for more information.

Mr. Wasserman stated the providers of Government Information Systems were located in Washington, D.C., and provided consulting services, legal advice, research advice, and other services. It was not just a matter of which vendor was selected, but what type of services the legislative branches wanted from the vendors. Government Information Systems had the ability to mirror any services other vendors would provide all in the same place or locate them if needed. The bill would look at the number of terminals in the building. Last time there were two terminals per house and a central terminal for the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Rules must be adopted to proceed with the redistricting process according to regulations set forth by the Supreme Court. The committee must adhere to those guidelines and examine them before the next session.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblyman Price. He asked if the committee could look at the Nevada Constitution and determine whether to have 50 legislators, 25 in the Senate and 25 in the Assembly. Scott Wasserman stated he thought the intent was to look at equipment and other issues for redistricting. The legislature and not an interim committee would make a determination of size for the legislature.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on S.C.R. 1 with no action taken by the committee. She asked for introduction of two Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

• BDR R 1666 – Commending the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners for 100 years of dedicated service ensuring that the residents of the State of Nevada receive quality care (A.C.R. 28).

ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF

BDR R 1666.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI WAS NOT PRESENT FOR VOTE.

**********

• BDR 24-975 – Makes various changes concerning city elections (A.B. 444).

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 24-975.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI WAS NOT PRESENT FOR VOTE.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R. 21 and called on two of the sponsors, Assemblyman Tom Collins and Senator Jon Porter.

Assemblyman Tom Collins stated A.C.R. 21 was for all people who were ham radio operators and particularly Bill Starky. Ham radio operators were responsible for the communication during times of emergency with help or assistance. He introduced Senator Porter as co-sponsor in the Senate and in support of A.C.R. 21.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Assemblywoman Von Tobel and Assemblyman Beers. Assemblywoman Von Tobel wanted to know where her name was, since she thought she had signed the bill as a joint sponsor. Staff would check the actual bill. If it was a legal draft error, she could be added. If not, then she could not be added. Assemblyman Beers noted he was in favor of the bill as ham operators provided emergency access whenever needed and acted as a backup for emergencies.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Senator Porter and Assemblyman Tom Collins if there was a time limit for the bill to be passed. They both requested it be soon. Mr. Starky was planning to retire, and they wanted to have enough time for him to visit the legislature. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 21 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 355, and called on the main sponsor, Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties.

Mr. Hadfield brought with him in favor of A.B. 355 Leroy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner; Gary O’Connor, Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Esmeralda County; and Rey Flake, County Commissioner, Lincoln County. He wanted to make brief comments about the bill, and read from a prepared speech (Exhibit C). He stated the legislature needed to address the issue of unfunded mandates directed toward local government by the State of Nevada. In the 1992 general election 82 percent of the public voted, and of those 78 percent voted to end the practice of unfunded mandates. The legislature responded by placing into law unfunded mandates. NACO had requested a procedural change by a proposed amendment to the original bill with which the Legislative Counsel Bureau in the past two sessions had problems. The original bill did not have a financial threshold by which to identify unfunded mandates. He explained the process and the bill came as a result of working in the 1997 session with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Fiscal Division. At the end of most bills from the 1997 session was an exemption in the statute that circumvented the unfunded mandate issue.

A.B. 355 anticipated if a county had at least a $2,000 financial impact, it had to be notified on the bill. Mr. Hadfield stated any bill that caused a local government to endure a cost and had no funding source became an unfunded mandate and it should be published at the top of the bill. The figure of $2,000 was already on other fiscal notes for local governments, so he drafted that amount for each local government area.

LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, testified A.B. 355 affected Lyon County as presently 57 percent of the general fund budget went to public safety and 61 percent of the tax rate went to education. He felt the county continued to be bombarded with unfunded mandates. Even with all of their revenues, the county was still $120,000 in the red due to mandates of approximately $750,000. Everything that came down from the legislature and the Federal Government required the dollars to be stretched further.

Gary O’Connor, Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Esmeralda County, testified the county he represented had only 1,400 citizens and unfunded mandates were breaking the county. He explained a situation where the landfill or dump was not properly maintained and when inspected the county was told it had to correct the problems. The penalty if not corrected was $5,000 a day.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for clarification from Mr. Hadfield about the thresholds and the impact on $3.64 property tax caps in place at present. She asked if the caps been examined and what was being done to solve some of the main problems. He stated S.B. 253 had been introduced to help some counties, but the bill was being held until other bills were passed for public hearings. She wanted to know who would have the responsibility of deciding a mandate. He responded the sponsor or the legislature itself.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted to know if the exclusion for indigent funds and for the schools that was recommended several years ago to help reduce the cap had been considered. He stated he thought some of the necessary language was being examined during the current session.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wanted to know if the amount of the threshold was for county or city. Robert Hadfield answered by saying the threshold pertained to each town.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized the following people to be in favor of and on record for A.B. 355: Tom Grady, Executive Director of Nevada League of Cities; Bjorn Selinder, County Manager of Churchill County; James Spinello, Clark County NACO; Dan Holler, County Manager of Douglas County; Lisa Gianoli, Senior Administrative Analyst, Office of the County Manager; and Stephanie Licht, Legislative Liaison from Elko County.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 355 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.C.R. 17 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Chowning.

Assemblywoman Chowning testified everyone needed to master other languages and asked for support of A.C.R. 17. She explained her background in language and commented on the Native Americans who helped during World War II with intelligence work and the codes they were able to use that stayed unbroken. Businesses thrived if employees were able to speak other languages and felt all states should take a strong stand on the mastery of a language other than English. She noted each person needed to recognize the Spanish language as one of the universal languages that was spoken around the world.

Rita McGary testified in favor of A.C.R. 17 and spoke both French and Spanish, and she worked in a family resource center in a Latino area and had never been turned down for a job because of skills.

Ms. McGary commented that according to the current law, a seventh grader could not take Spanish if it was their native language and could not take a second year of Spanish if they had not had the first year. She requested a look at changes so everyone would be able to speak languages. Discussion ensued between Rita McGary and Chairwoman Giunchigliani about stereotyping a person who spoke a language as being fluent in all areas of that language, whereas one could be able to speak the language and not be able to write the language so schooling needed to be open for students to learn. The Chair hoped to remove the negative aspect of learning a language. She mentioned schools in Clark County had 47 ethnic representations.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Fernando Romero, member, Hispanics in Politics, in Las Vegas. He testified in favor of A.C.R. 17 as he felt everyone benefited when another language was studied and it enhanced their entire lives.

Assemblywoman Leslie felt a program for people to learn English was also appropriate and gave people an opportunity to learn. Assemblywoman Chowning responded by saying those who spoke little English were also an issue. She hoped, if passed, A.C.R. 17 would have a pilot program for adults to learn English with their children in kindergarten. She further explained the problem for students whose parents did not speak English was that the student could not ask for help at home with homework.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, she stated she would entertain a motion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R. 20 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Dennis Nolan. He testified A.C.R. 20 was a 23^rd addition to the joint rules of Senate and Assembly which would codify and clarify an existing practice of videoconferencing that already occurred but had no formal rules as to when or where it could be used. He explained legislators would be able to take definite action on any legislative measures brought during session regardless of where one might be located. Legal staff had researched a constitutional prohibition or a standing rule prohibiting the use of voting during videoconferencing. Neither he nor legal staff found any reason in the Nevada Constitution not to use videoconferencing according to the standing rules of both houses. He suggested an ill legislator would have the option to videoconference from his or her home and participate in session.

Assemblyman Nolan explained the videoconferencing capacities of rooms in the legislative building and rooms in the Las Vegas state building.
The bill stated for any remote site. If the public was involved, it could open the door for more participation.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Stephanie Licht. She spoke in favor of A.C.R. 20 as it would benefit people in remote areas such as Elko. She noted the community had been saving capital gains in order to set up a videoconference room in Elko.

Assemblyman Perkins stated his main concern was the legislative branch would become a virtual legislative branch, and lack of interaction could have a negative effect.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani related a story when students were testifying in Las Vegas during a committee hearing. The committee wanted to vote, and thought they had to come back to Carson City in order to ratify the vote. She suggested more cautionary language be added to the bill so voting and videoconferencing were not abused. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 20 with no action taken by the committee.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: