The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 6:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 24, 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:

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, District16

Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all committee members had received a copy of the minutes for the meetings held on February 1, February 3, February 10, February 16, February 17, February 22, March 1, March 3, March 8, floor minutes from March 19, and floor minutes from March 22, 1999. She stated she would entertain a motion for the approval of the committee minutes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.C.R. 32 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblyman Thomas.

Assemblyman Thomas distributed a copy of his prepared speech (Exhibit C). He explained the bill enabled an interim study to be done pertaining to available energy sources in and for Nevada. His recommendations were that the committee for the interim study have representatives from the following:

• The Senate and the Assembly;

• Businesses knowledgeable about the efficient use of energy;

• Businesses knowledgeable about the renewable resources;
• Energy users and producers from the commercial, industrial, and residential sector, bankers, architects and land planners;
• Existing utilities company;
• Nevada State Energy Office
• Commission on Economic Development;
• Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Office of the Attorney General;
• Housing Division of the Department of Business and Industry;
• Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, and
• Economist familiar with energy issues.

Assemblyman Thomas felt the interim committee members should address without limitation certain issues. Certain criteria should be met, and he covered the following issues in his discussion:

Assemblyman Thomas stated the main intent of A.C.R. 32 was to address untapped renewable resource availability in the State of Nevada. He offered a letter for the record from Glenn Rambach in favor of A.C.R. 32 (Exhibit D). Mr. Rambach had worked with energy development in advanced technology and policy at Princeton and Stanford Universities and the Department of Energy National Laboratories in California. Assemblyman Thomas read another letter in favor of A.C.R. 32 from Rose McKinney-James, president and CEO of Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources (Exhibit E). She believed the State of Nevada needed a comprehensive energy policy, and her letter included information about what types of energy were available within the state.

Assemblyman Beers asked Assemblyman Thomas about funding availability, and Assemblyman Thomas stated there was only limited funding available.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted previous studies had been done on energy efficiency and to her knowledge the studies had been done for office buildings and state buildings, not the general public or for the issue of renewable energy.

Assemblyman Price wanted clarification about groups included in the interim study. He asked Assemblyman Thomas if the committee interim group was looking for a set number of committee members. Assemblyman Thomas stated the interim committee would consist of 13 to 15 members. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated interim committees had utilized advisory or experienced people other than legislators in the past. She stated Assemblyman Thomas might want to look at the language for the use of advisors. She referred to a housing interim committee study done in the 1995 session when an advisory board as well as legislators was used.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Alan Caldwell, president, Prime Energy Corporation, who spoke in favor of A.C.R. 32. He stated the company was creating a new type of small wind turbine that would be manufactured in Nevada (Exhibit F). Mr. Caldwell distributed a handout with his prepared speech, and listed how Nevada could improve the growth in population and diversify the economy. He felt Nevada could accomplish those two areas if the following methods were used:

Mr. Caldwell gave as an example a windfarm in Texas (Exhibit G) that had a positive financial impact each year. He listed a rural town in Culberson, Texas, that generated $400,000 in tax revenues per year, and the town’s population was only 4,000. He compared energy renewable resources with gold or silver. An interim study committee created by A.C.R. 32 would not generate an energy plan or resource assessment. The value of a committee who discussed and formulated ideas with other people would be invaluable for the content of a future plan.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Marion Barritt, president, Sunshine Sustainable Resources Group and private citizen. She spoke in favor of

A.C.R. 32 and gave as an example her home as having been the first net metered home in Nevada due to a net metering bill passed in 1997 (Exhibit H). Her electricity bill for the past 2 years was only $93, and she noted the State of Nevada would be paying $800 million less in energy bills by the year 2012 if A.C.R. 32 passed. She stressed the need for a policy and a plan that would enable the energy sources in Nevada to be used for the benefit of the state. She suggested an amendment to the bill, as she felt the consumer should be represented in the planning of the interim study committee.

Introduced for the record in favor of A.C.R. 32 was a letter from Fred Schmidt, Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Consumer Advocate (Exhibit I), stating surveys had shown a desire by the public for greater utilization of renewable energy resources in the generation of electricity; and Bob Shriver, Executive Director of Nevada Commission on Economic Development (Exhibit J), stating the planning for a cost-effective use of energy had a significant impact for the future of the state.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recognized Ernest Nielsen, representing Washoe County Senior Law Project, in favor of A.C.R. 32. He stated that with the deregulation of utilities the state had more reason to look into other forms of energy use. Mr. Nielsen stated people with fixed incomes needed a source of funding. Those people would not want to generate the work for an energy plan and then have no funding. Presently there had been no policy within the state to promote resource planning, and he felt it was very important for everyone to have an option to have home improvements made to save money on utilities. People needed to have fixed rates and funds available. He felt the list of advisors should include a member from public utilities.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted for the record Joe Johnson, representing the Sierra Club, was in favor of A.C.R. 32 as he agreed with all statements made by other people. She called on Ray Bacon, executive director, Nevada Manufacturers Association, in favor of A.C.R. 32. He stated the issue about which to be concerned was the regional hazing within the states. The states would have 60 years to clean up the environmental processes. The other option suggested would be nuclear usage and the reduction of fossil fuels. Mr. Bacon noted he knew others might not want to hear that statement, and yet the State of Nevada had the potential to be a leader in the energy renewal process.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on DeeAnn Parsons, administrator, Nevada State Energy Office in favor of A.C.R. 32. She commented the state needed to take a long-term rather than a short-term view, because most government budgets did not have the money to fund the program. The energy renewal process would create big savings for the State of Nevada. Ms. Parsons suggested the state examine the quality of the air breathed. The Chair noted for the record Ellen Jacobson, program coordinator, University of Nevada, Reno, was in favor of A.C.R 32.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 32 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.C.R. 30 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated that during the 1997 session 88 bills had no action taken. She felt every bill needed to be acknowledged and heard. The statute for the 120-day session should include a portion about every bill being heard in committee and/or floor of the Assembly and the Senate. Assemblyman Price noted every bill introduced in the state of Colorado was balloted in the general election or the primary election.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted for the record Janine Hansen, president, New Eagle Forum, was in favor of A.C.R. 30 according to the attendance sheet. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 30 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.C.R. 31 and called on the main sponsor, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated she had done her research pertaining to the insurance costs and care available for residents. She quoted a letter sent by Jerry Cade, M.D. (Exhibit K) in favor of A.C.R. 31. She stated the miracles of modern medicine should be available to all people regardless of their socioeconomic status. The bill would encourage the State of Nevada to provide an interim study to determine coverage for those people who were not able to obtain insurance. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall felt it was time for the State of Nevada to align the health care issue with the coverage available for those same people. It was important for everyone who could not obtain health insurance to be covered by some type of state insurance plan.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted for the record Janine Hansen, president, New Eagle Forum, was in opposition to A.C.R. 31 according to the attendance sheet. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.C.R. 31 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the hearing on A.B. 612.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Legislative Commission had requested

A.B. 612 from the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and called on Scott Wasserman, chief committee counsel, to explain the changes to be made and the content of the bill (Exhibit L).

Mr. Wasserman explained section 1 of the bill would be changed from the 30^th day of the legislative session to the final day of the legislative session; The date by which the legislature must, by concurrent resolution or other appropriate measure, declare that such a regulation would not become effective. The change would be as a response to the 120-day limitation on the legislative session and would allow the drafting of legislative matters at the beginning of the legislative session to concentrate on legislator and committee requests and save those types of administrative tasks until later in the session. Section 2 of the bill addressed a specific regulation adopted by the Ethics Commission during the last interim to which the Legislative Commission objected. The regulation, R044-98, would have authorized the Ethics Commission to adopt a motion that authorized the Chairman, without consulting the Ethics Commission, to issue all subpoenas the Chairman deemed reasonable and necessary for further investigation or proceedings related to a request or an opinion. Mr. Wasserman also referred to Senate Bill 540, which would amend the Nevada statute.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that she would entertain a motion on

A.B. 612.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on A.B. 611 and turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Price. Chairwoman Giunchigliani sponsored A.B. 611.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the bill section by section and distributed a presentation about disclosures to the committee members prepared by Michael Stewart, committee policy analyst (Exhibit M). Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the intent of the bill was to make it easier for a person on any board not to have to file a disclosure statement if that person received no compensation for serving in that position. She gave as an example during the last election cycle many legislators and board members were fined, because they failed to file disclosure forms in a timely manner. In the rural areas many board members were not compensated. In section 1 of the bill it stated if a person served without compensation, they would not have to file a report. Section 2 referred back to section 1 and was mainly drafting language for a 3-month window for disclosure filing rather than the time currently set. Section 3 dealt with requiring only one report rather than filing a report for every board or committee. According to current law, a person must file a disclosure report for each position. Section 2(b) dealt with the ethical issues of reporting about the spouse and children or any other person in the household that might contribute to expenses or income. Each source of income, if over $10,000, must be reported with the person’s name or names unless it was confidential information pertaining to the person or associated with business. Section 3 allowed the Ethics Commission to waive fines. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the committee.

A discussion about the issues that could arise from the bill began between Assemblywoman Von Tobel, Assemblywoman Tiffany, Assemblywoman Leslie, Chairwoman Giunchigliani and Assemblyman Beers. Assemblywoman Von Tobel wanted to know if section 2 applied to the stock market, and Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated no. Assemblywoman Von Tobel used former Assemblyman Herrera as an example. He filed as an Assembly candidate then changed to run for the county commission. The Ethics Commission fined him for not filing the Assembly candidacy disclosure papers even though he filed for the commission position. She wanted to know if the bill would eliminate that type of fine, and Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated it could be waived or reduced under the bill. Assemblywoman Tiffany wanted to know if the household would include someone like herself who rented a room from another person, and Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was the current language, and she did not know.

Assemblywoman Leslie felt A.B. 611 was a good step forward. Assemblyman Beers stated people sitting on unpaid boards made decisions and thought those same people should complete the disclosure form anyway. He then referred to another section that required disclosure of clients if the person had received more than $10,000. He stated if he had to disclose the names of his clients, he would not be able to run for office. He was in a very competitive field when not serving as an Assemblyman, and that section of the bill would negatively affect him.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the areas of concern included the issue of the disclosed income of the household. A work session would be scheduled at a later date. Her intent was not to prohibit a possible candidate from filing and running for office. She asked Mr. Wasserman to research the language used in the bill to make sure it captured the meaning of household income.

Vice Chairman Price asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the hearing closed on A.B. 611 with no action taken by the committee. Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 355 and asked for discussion. Michael Stewart had distributed the work session handout with all of the proposed amendments (Exhibit N).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the bill had been requested by the Nevada Association of Counties. The main concern of the bill was the low threshold of $2,000 for unfunded mandates. Assemblyman Dini had recommended $5,000. Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted to know if the committee was in agreement or had thought of a different amount for consideration.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Wasserman to explain the fiscal notes attached to the bills. Whether the legal staff or the fiscal staff had drafted the bill, each department would attach a conservative amount on the fiscal note of the bill. He explained the procedure eliminated the legal repercussions on the bill. Assemblyman Beers noted the geographical loophole, and the option of zoning the areas by zip codes rather than districts. He stated the unfunded mandates would be funded according to each person if done by zip codes. Assemblywoman McClain felt the amount of $2,000 determined by Nevada Association of Counties was because of the smaller counties that had a problem with funds or unfunded mandates.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the committee would hold the bill until further discussion could be done while Assemblyman Dini was present. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the work session closed on A.B. 355 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 479 and asked for discussion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Michael Stewart for explanation of the proposed amendments to A.B. 479. The proposed amendments included were:

• Section 1, page 1, line 13, deleted "third" and replaced with "second."
• Section 12, page 8, line 14, deleted "10" and replaced with "5."
• If the committee chose to adopt provisions related to minor political parties and independent candidates in A.B. 520, the amendment deleted sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 13 from the measure.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the committee needed to look at the actual reason for moving the election dates back a month. Assemblyman Perkins noted for the record if the election dates were changed, the fiscal impact upon counties would be larger. His interpretation of the 1-percent clause was it would cover expenses for the smaller counties. Alan Glover, Carson City clerk recorder; Association of Election Officials, responded by stating the Office of the Secretary of State and the Office of the Attorney General were in disagreement with elections officials as to procedure for a recount and when an appropriate recount needed to be done. His example was of an election in which the candidate requested a recount. The entire election was recounted, and the person won by one vote. The elections department felt no need to recount all of the ballots when the issue was only one area of the election. The district attorneys for both Carson City and Douglas County agreed. He suggested the language "challenger" or "winner." Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated during the work session 1 percent or 5 votes was suggested, whichever was the most.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Mr. Glover and Barbara Reed, Douglas County clerk-treasurer; president, Nevada Association of County Election Officials to explain the proposed amendments to A.B. 479 (Exhibit O). The exhibit contained the proposed new filing dates as well as the current dates for primaries and general elections. Mr. Glover stated the recount issue was a major concern, because the recount would not be a statutory change and the question would arise as to who would pay for the recount. According to current statutes, the district would pay for the recount. If A.B. 479 was passed, the candidate who challenged the results would pay for the recount. He felt clarification was needed in the area of the recount payment. The timeframes listed in the bill now gave small amounts of leeway if something was to happen in the mail or the ballots.

Ms. Reed stated most elections were done before tax season so as not to create more problems. The tax collections started on the third Monday in August. According to Ms. Reed, the recount could not be finished in less than 30 days. She noted only a couple of states had primary elections later than the State of Nevada.

Assemblyman Beers asked about the new people who came into the districts to vote, and those people would be used to an earlier primary. He wondered what the reason was for the Nevada primary to be so late in the season. Mr. Glover replied the dates suggested in Exhibit O would enable a short campaign period for the candidates. The advantage of a short campaign was to enable each candidate to save money in the campaign. If minor parties filed on the same date as all of the other parties, there would be fairness to all parties.

Assemblyman Perkins inquired about the handling of municipal elections. Mr. Glover stated there were few municipal candidates in the primary, as those candidates had been elected during a general election. Ms. Reed stated the federal deadlines had to be met, otherwise there was a possibility of being sued. Mr. Glover noted the state and the local elections could be run at the same time, although it was not practical and would cause an impact on the counties.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated her intent with A.B. 479 was to have the filing dates similar for all party affiliations, not to change the interpretation of a minor party. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the work session closed on A.B. 479 with no action taken by the committee. She opened the work session on A.B. 518 and asked for discussion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Michael Stewart for explanation of the proposed amendments to A.B. 518 as stated in Exhibit O. The proposed amendments included were:

• Deleted lines 37 through 41 on page 2;
• Added language to the measure establishing a "de minimis" rule stipulating gifts with a value of $10 or less needed not be reported; and
• Additional amendment received from Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters of Nevada, requested committee consideration of existing language found on page 1, line 13, and page 2, line 1, referencing a "registrant’s express or implied consent."

Introduced into the record was a letter from Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters of Nevada, in favor of A.B. 518 (Exhibit P). She suggested the committee look at the language in section 1, line 13 and page 2, line 1, as to the disclosures reported against those disclosures not reported.

Mr. Stewart called upon Mr. Wasserman for clarification about the expenditures of lobbyists. The question who paid for what and when became an issue in the bill. Lorne Malkiewich, director, legislative counsel bureau, had stated all of the expenditures must be reported, and if not there were legal actions. He noted many lobbyists did not declare expenses. Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted someone could have an open tab at a restaurant or somewhere else and once that tab was paid, it became an expenditure to be declared. Mr. Wasserman stated that was a true statement.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wanted clarification about a person not spending up to $10, and would that same person have to report the amount when it totaled $10. Mr. Wasserman explained the exemption was meant for the infrequent gift not everyday gifts. According to current policy when the gift exceeded the $2 cap, it must be reported.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that she would entertain a motion on

A.B. 518.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for a motion to be made to send a letter of intent to the Legislative Commission.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the work session on A.B. 169 and asked for discussion.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called on Mr. Stewart for explanation of the proposed amendments to the bill from Exhibit O. The amendments included were:

• Deleted sections 2 and 3 of the measure and replaced the amended language in section 1, lines 13 through 19 (Nevada Revised Statute 293.507), with the following language lifted from section 20, page 16, lines 38 through 43, and page 17, lines 1 through 3 of Assembly Bill 614.
• The form for an application to register to vote must have included: A line on which to enter

1. The first two letters of the last name of the voter;

2. The year, month, and day of the birth of the voter;

3. The first four digits of the voter’s social security number, without objection. If the last four digits of a social security number were not provided, the county clerk assigned a four-digit number.

A discussion began between the committee and Mr. Glover as to whether there would be a block of numbers used or the use of alpha numbers. Overall delegation of the number would be included at the discretion of the county clerk. Mr. Glover stated a block of numbers would not be used. All members of the committee were in agreement about the use of the alpha codes. Ms. Reed stated she had notified all 17 counties to verify whether the counties could accommodate the long numbers. She stated all counties could accommodate between 20 and 25 letters or codes. Mr. Glover stated Carson City could only accommodate 17 letters or codes.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there were any further questions or comments. Hearing none, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jodie Van Wyhe,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: