The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, February 19, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District 37

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, Assembly District 25, testified. She stated A.B. 223 was a very simple bill that attempted to give a greater voice to representative government. She submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) which read "Except as otherwise provided in NRS 244.018, the term of office of a county commissioner is 4 years from the day next after his election." She proposed all relevant sections of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) be amended in like manner.

Ms. Gibbons stated an incumbent was sometimes voted out of office because of failure to listen to the voters. When that happened, the incumbent’s term of office continued for 2 months after the election in which he was voted out of office. She said Washoe County had some county commissioners who were "lame ducks." She explained, "They were turned away by a big percent by the voters. They weren’t even in the primary." Those county commissioners refrained from acting on a bill on which they could have voted before until 1 week after the general election. They then voted for a tax increase which enraged the public. Ms. Gibbons asserted county commissioners should either take action on pending issues prior to the time of an election or postpone action until newly elected county commissioners took office.

Assemblyman Greg Brower, Assembly District 37, testified. He said he was pleased to be co-sponsor of A.B. 223 and maintained the issue being discussed was government accountability. He expressed support for the bill and urged the committee to give it careful consideration.

Jim Galloway, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Washoe County, testified. He stated the Washoe County Board of Commissioners endorsed A.B. 223 as drafted and was even more enthusiastic about the bill in its proposed, amended form. He contended "lame duck" sessions, mandated by current state law, provided an opportunity for diminished accountability. He explained if commissioners felt uncomfortable about a particular issue and believed their position conflicted with that of the public, they could postpone a vote on the issue until after an election, thereby diminishing the chance they would be held accountable for the result of that vote.

Commissioner Galloway pointed out in such instances as he described, creation of an ordinance could be delayed. He said the Washoe County Board of Commissioners had 18 months prior to an election in which to act on a controversial tax measure but did not do so. The board discussed putting the measure to a public vote but rejected the idea. It became apparent to both him and others that no action would be taken on the issue until after a pending election was held. He asserted such delay of action was wrong. The public, he stated, wanted both legislators and county commissioners to make tough decisions, make them prior to elections, defend them, and stand accountable for them.

Commissioner Galloway said 50 percent of negative newspaper comments about the situation he described pertained to a vote being held on the tax measure during a "lame duck" session. He maintained there were two things wrong with county commissioners voting on such issues after an election rather than before: first, they escaped accountability; and second, they denied the will of the public by depriving newly elected county commissioners a chance to affect the outcome of issues on which their election platforms were based.

Commissioner Galloway expressed enthusiasm for A.B. 223. Under the bill’s provisions, a county commissioner would know he had to either address an issue prior to an election or defer that issue until after the election. Commissioners would not be in the position of having the public point fingers at them and say, "You’re out of office, and you know you’re out of office because of that issue." He contended neither commissioners nor the public should be in that position.

Commissioner Galloway enumerated various issues which could arise during a "lame duck" session. He said the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) eliminated "lame duck" sessions, the source of the problem. County commissioners would continue to have a 4-year term of office; they would merely commence and end that term earlier.

Ted Short, Vice Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Washoe County, testified. He reiterated previous testimony about the tax measure voted on in Washoe County during a "lame duck" session of the county’s board of commissioners and clarified there were, in fact, two tax measures passed. One pertained to lowering railroad tracks and the other to flood control. Voters objected to taxes being imposed by officials they previously voted out of office, and A.B. 223, particularly if amended as proposed, would prevent that happening in the future.

Commissioner Short explained in Reno, when a city councilman was defeated in an election, the newly elected city councilman was installed immediately; therefore, Reno’s city council experienced no "lame duck" sessions. However, Washoe County experienced a 2-month hiatus between an election and the installation of newly elected county commissioners. During that period, many things could be done for which there would be no accountability to voters.

Ms. Short contended everyone in the United States wanted a participatory democracy in which they could vote for people who stood for their beliefs. They did not want people who were not accountable to them to make long-range decisions for them. He expressed belief A.B. 223, if amended as proposed, would solve a major problem in Washoe County and, probably, in other areas as well. He stated Washoe County voters would welcome the effect of A.B. 223, and he urged the committee to support the bill.

Assemblywoman Freeman commented the situation that occurred in Washoe County was very unfortunate. She always wondered why there was a period of nearly 2 months from the time officials were elected until they took office, and she believed A.B. 223 would solve many problems.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked whether A.B. 223 would affect every county in Nevada. Ms. Gibbons replied affirmatively.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether anyone expressed disagreement on the bill. Ms. Gibbons replied she was primarily concerned about Washoe County. She indicated legislators from Las Vegas with whom she spoke, both Democrat and Republican, wanted accountability and what was right for the public.

Chairman Bache referred to the actions of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners previously testified to and asked whether the newly-elected board of commissioners, once seated, considered repealing any of those actions. Commissioner Short explained pursuant to the board’s actions, bonds were issued, and Washoe County and the city of Reno entered into interlocal agreements. An overturn of the action related to the railroad tax would result in Washoe County being sued by Reno. With respect to the flood control tax, Washoe County could have posted between $600,000 and $.75 million in escrow to "defease" the bonds already issued, but that would have been a very wasteful process. He contended the new commission, after it was seated in January, could not effectively have changed what was done by the previous commission in December.

Chairman Bache asked whether obtaining a restraining order was considered. Commissioner Galloway responded according to an opinion rendered by Washoe County’s district attorney, the newly elected commission would not have prevailed in court. The commission held discussions about whether or not to seek additional legal opinions but decided to rely on Washoe County’s district attorney’s opinion because " . . . we couldn’t undo one-half of the tax, and the other tax we still had sufficient control over." Commissioner Galloway asserted the issue was not concluded.

Commissioner Galloway suggested A.B. 223 would prevent other county commissions from being placed in the situation in which Washoe County’s commission found itself and prevent a variety of contested issues from being considered during "lame duck" sessions.

Assemblywoman Tiffany expressed ambivalent feelings about A.B. 223 and said she believed it was wrong to remove elected officials’ powers. She assumed the tax measures on which the Washoe County commission voted were first put to a public vote, the public voted in favor of the measures, and the measures then came before the commission to be ratified. She asked, "Was it an advisory?" Commissioner Galloway replied the measures were not placed on the ballot. Although he moved twice on each of the two tax measurers that those measures be put to an advisory vote of the public, his motions were defeated.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether Commissioner Galloway meant his motions were defeated by the commission. Commissioner Galloway replied affirmatively.

Commissioner Galloway contended the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) should alleviate Ms. Tiffany’s concern about diminishing elected officials’ power. If amended as proposed, the bill would cause county commissioners’ terms of office to begin earlier than they currently did and end at the time of the next election. During their terms of office, county commissioners would have full powers.

In response to Commissioner Galloway’s last remarks, Ms. Tiffany observed county commissioners would have full powers with respect to all matters except taxes. Commissioner Galloway indicated Ms. Tiffany’s observation was incorrect. He said A.B. 223, if amended as proposed, made no reference to taxes. The bill established a county commissioner’s term of office commenced immediately after his election and ended immediately after the next election. Rather than specifying what a commissioner could not do during a "lame duck" session, eliminated such sessions.

Ms. Tiffany said she believed an attempt was being made, through A.B. 223, to use statute to eliminate political game playing. She indicated a county board of commissioners’ chairman controlled that board’s agenda and asked whether he could not also control the board’s political games. Commissioner Galloway replied that depended on who was chairman at a given time. Washoe County’s board of county commissioners rotated chairmen on a yearly basis. He suggested no matter who chaired a county commission, it was best not to create a situation that would allow the commission to delay taking action on an issue until after an election.

Chairman Bache asked whether it desired a county commissioner who did not file to run for re-election vacate his office at the end of the filing period because he would be a "lame duck" for the ensuing 6 months. He suggested if that philosophy was extended, a county commissioner serving his last 4-year term would essentially, because of term limits, be a "lame duck."

Ms. Gibbons observed the committee was straying from the intent of A.B. 223. She said the amendment to the bill had nothing to do with "lame ducks." It merely said a county commissioner’s term of office ended on the day of an election, and the term of office of either the re-elected commissioner or the newly elected commissioner would commence the following day.

Commissioner Galloway contended A.B. 223, if amended as proposed, no longer dealt directly with what occurred during a "lame duck" session of a county commission because it eliminated one of the principal causes of such sessions. He conceded Chairman Bache was correct there were other situations in which elected officials could be considered "lame ducks." Under A.B. 223, the only scenario in which a county commissioner could be considered a "lame duck" was if he was defeated in a primary election. That scenario had been considered; however, proponents of A.B. 223 realized the legislature probably could not pass legislation which would allow certain county commissioners to vote and not others. He asserted on a practical level, A.B. 223 went nearly as far as possible to eliminate the "lame duck" situation. He said, "It eliminates the motions that go with knowing who the replacement actually is and knowing how they stand on the issue and knowing they were elected by the people and knowing that the person who’s in there is voting contrary to that. This eliminates that situation."

Mrs. Freeman suggested Ms. Gibbons might want to employ either a letter of intent or a preamble to A.B. 223 to clarify legislative intent regarding the bill. She expressed belief the bill was needed.

Commissioner Short said A.B. 223, as he perceived it, disenfranchised neither voters nor their elected representatives. It merely changed the time frame of a county commissioner’s term of office.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether anyone inquired of the secretary of state as to his interpretation of what day an elected official of local government was deemed to hold the powers of his office. Ms. Gibbons deferred to Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, to respond to Ms. Tiffany’s question. Ms. O’Grady responded, "The secretary of state would interpret it based on the language. The language in the amendment is based on the same language in the constitution where legislators probably would interpret it the same way."

Paul Delorey, representing Citizens for Responsive Government, testified. He explained Citizens for Responsive Government began as a loosely organized group of citizens who lacked community status to influence political issues. However, after the incident in Washoe County which triggered the request for A.B. 223, the group decided to become more organized and was now registered with the state.

Mr. Delorey said Citizens for Responsive Government’s board of directors met the previous night to review A.B. 223. Although Citizens for Responsive Government did not favor of the bill in its original form, it did support the bill in its proposed, amended form.

Assemblyman Mortenson inquired whether Citizens for Responsive Government’s membership extended to southern Nevada. Mr. Delorey replied currently, the group represented a regional effort and its membership was confined primarily to Washoe County. However, the group was open and in its formative stages.

B. R. "Ike" Eichbaum, Ph.D., private citizen, testified. He informed the committee he was a member both of South Hills Improvement Association and Citizens for Responsive Government. He said because citizens’ voices were not heard in relationship to the incident in Washoe County, a loosely knit group of citizens from various homeowners’ groups helped elect Commissioner Short and Commissioner Peter Sferrazza to Washoe County’s board of commissioners. The group believed it now had representation on the board, believed A.B. 223 would eliminate the problem of county commissioners failing to listen to citizens, and supported the bill in its proposed, amended form.

Patricia Puchert, a private citizen, testified. She said she was both a Washoe County voter and a member of Citizens for Responsive Government and expressed support for the proposed, amended version of A.B. 223. She maintained an individual elected to a board of county commissioners should immediately be seated as a member of that board and allowed to vote.

Ms. Puchert explained the member of Washoe County’s commission who represented her at the time of the vote on the measure to increase sales tax was an appointed member. Therefore, she asserted, someone for whom she never had an opportunity to vote represented her on that heavily contested tax measure. Although she believed both her current representative on the commission, Commissioner Short, and another newly elected commissioner were elected based on their stand on the tax measure, they never had an opportunity to vote on that measure and express her wishes. Instead, a "lame duck" commission determined the outcome of the issue. Although voters in Clark County had an opportunity to vote on a sales tax increase in their county, Washoe County voters were denied the opportunity to vote on such an increase in Washoe County.

Ms. Puchert emphasized voters in Washoe County were outraged by the commission’s vote on the tax increase and believed only A.B. 223 could remedy such situations. She asked the committee to support the bill.

Mrs. Freeman commented she believed it was significant citizens of Washoe County represented by the appointed commissioner to whom Ms. Puchert referred never had an opportunity to vote for that commissioner.

Paul Zahler, a private citizen, testified. He said he resided in Incline Village and was a contractor and developer in the process of building a large subdivision there. He expressed wholehearted support for A.B. 223.

Mr. Zahler related an incident, which occurred in Incline Village, involving a lower level of government than that of a county commission. He explained an outgoing general manager of Incline Village’s general improvement district entered into negotiations and arrangements and made assurances knowing he would not have to deal with the results. Those arrangements and negotiations were not properly addressed before the general improvement district’s new general manager came into power. As a consequence, Incline Village was engaged in ongoing arbitration in which both sides had spent in excess of $50,000 for legal fees to arbitrate a $70,000 issue.

Mr. Zahler stated he supported A.B. 223 because he believed an elected official should acquire the powers of his office on the day of his election.

David Vickery, a private citizen, testified. He said he had lived in Washoe County for approximately 3 years during which time he was dismayed by the flagrant disregard of county commissioners for the county’s citizens. He asserted those commissioners held closed-door sessions at times inconvenient for working members of the community. Another example of their disregard for citizens was the "hurry-up vote" they took on a measure for a tax increase to pay to lower train tracks. He contended the commissioners who voted on that measure knew there would not be sufficient affirmative votes to approve the tax increase once the newly elected commissioners took office.

Mr. Vickery declaimed the entire procedure for increasing taxes was inappropriate. He asserted it was wrong for commissioners who would no longer be in office to vote for a tax increase that should have been put to a vote of the people. He stated A.B. 223 would allow people elected to represent citizens to represent them and prevent "lame duck" commissioners from voting for tax increases in retaliation for loss of power.

James Clark, Chairman, Independent Incline, testified. He explained Independent Incline was a Nevada non-profit corporation, with approximately 300 due-paying members, concerned about accountability and responsibility in local governments.

Mr. Clark said the committee might wonder whether, through A.B. 223, it was slamming the barn door after the cow was gone. He did not believe that was the case. He asked the committee to consider the public perception left by the incident in Washoe County. He asserted special interests pushed for the tax increase while advisory boards throughout the county wanted the matter put to a vote of the people. He urged the committee to restore confidence in government and utilize the simple measure embodied in A.B. 223 to restore government accountability.

William Parker, a private citizen, testified. He informed the committee he was chairman of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Board in Reno, a member of the park commission, and president of Northern Nevada Republican Men’s Club. He maintained although feedback on tax increases was always negative, the feedback on the tax increase imposed by the "lame duck" commission in Washoe County was especially negative. He said he believed A.B. 223 was a great way to correct such situations and supported the bill, which he believed was improved by the proposed amendment (Exhibit C). He asserted faith in government was declining and A.B. 223 would help restore that faith.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked Commissioner Galloway why Washoe County’s commission was so reluctant to place the very important issue of a tax increase before the voters. Commissioner Galloway replied it was rumored private polls had been conducted which showed the measure was not going to pass. In his opinion, there were people who believed they needed to effect the tax increase for the public’s good even though the public didn’t understand the tax increase was for its benefit. He maintained if someone wanted to take that position, he should be allowed to do so, but he should do so prior to an upcoming election and stand accountable.

Mr. Neighbors commented he did not understand how the Washoe County commission could go wrong by placing an issue as important as the tax increase imposed in Washoe County to a vote of the people. Commissioner Galloway responded he wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Neighbors and took that position at the time. He was voted down by a margin of 4 to 1.

Chairman Bache observed it required a minimum of three of the five commissioners who comprised Washoe County’s commission to prevail in a vote, and two of the five commissioners on the commission at the time being discussed were not reelected. He said, "There’s others that continue on the commission that did support this. My question is why did they?" Commissioner Galloway clarified he was voted down by a margin of 4 to 1 on the 8 cent tax increase having to do with public safety matters and by a margin of 3 to 2 on the 8 cent tax increase having to do with the railroad. He explained it required affirmative votes by four of the five commissioners to pass the tax measure. It became apparent to him on July 14th, when a motion to put the tax increases to a vote of the people was defeated, that proponents of both tax measures believed they could rely on the four votes necessary to pass those measures. Subsequently, he proposed " . . . the county commission would not take a lame duck vote on a tax increase." His proposal was defeated by a vote of 4 to 1, whereupon he was convinced proponents of both tax measures could rely on the four votes necessary to pass those measures.

Chairman Bache said Commissioner Galloway’s response did not answer his question about the two commissioners who remained on the commission. Commissioner Galloway replied one of those two commissioners did not run for reelection. He was told the commissioner who did run for reelection said, prior to the election, he had not determined which way he would vote on the tax measures. However, that was told him during the period of time he was convinced, by the results of the votes on the two proposals on which he was voted down, proponents of the tax measures had the necessary votes to pass those measures. He suggested had the board voted on the tax measures prior to the election, the outcome of the election might have been different.

Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified. Mr. Hadfield advised the committee he was testifying both in his capacity as executive director of NACO and as an elected official.

Mr. Hadfield stated NACO prided itself on bringing statewide issues before its membership in order to facilitate dialog on issues that would affect all its members. Prior to its last board meeting, NACO sent each of its members a request to bring before the board of directors any legislation they believed important so it could be discussed with the remaining members. Because A.B. 223 " . . . was not a Washoe County bill at that time . . . ," it was not brought before NACO’S board of directors and discussed. When A.B. 223 was introduced, in its original form, NACO sent copies of the bill to all 17 counties in Nevada and asked for their responses to the bill.

Mr. Hadfield said commissioners from throughout Nevada were present, and he had comments to relay on behalf of commissioners who could not be present. Mr. Hadfield asserted A.B. 223 addressed the integrity and actions of county commissioners throughout Nevada. He suggested unless the committee intended to limit A.B. 223 to Washoe County, the committee should consider whether it wished to process a bill that, because of the proposed amendment (Exhibit C), affected how counties had historically done business in Nevada without input from the state’s county commissioners. He said the responses NACO received from the 16 counties in Nevada other than Washoe County were based on the bill in its original form.

Mr. Hadfield contended A.B. 223 would not eliminate the "lame duck" situation. Many of Nevada’s counties had county commissions comprised of only three members. Frequently two of those members would be "lame ducks," and many would be "lame ducks" long before a November election. Mr. Hadfield explained the present members of the town board on which he sat had comprised the board for 14 years and been unopposed when they ran for election. If three of those members decided not to run for reelection, they would be "lame ducks." However, he did not believe the town’s citizens would consider those members "lame ducks" since no one chose to run against them for election. He contended the situation he described occurred often in rural communities.

Mr. Hadfield stated he understood from the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) the bill was no longer concerned with "lame ducks." What the legislature was asked to do, through A.B. 223, was change the procedure for electing county commissioners through the state. Because the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) was made available only that morning, the majority of Nevada’s counties had not had an opportunity to respond to the amendment.

Mr. Hadfield said although he respected Commissioner Galloway and his concerns, he also respected the fact no citizens’ groups from counties other than Washoe County were present to say their elected officials acted improperly or were perceived as having done so. He reiterated A.B. 223 addressed the issue of the integrity of elected county commissioners throughout Nevada. He pointed out no one was present from counties other than Washoe County to say they needed protection from their governing boards. He suggested if citizens were upset about something their county commissioners did, they had the ability to recall those commissioners from office. He pointed out recall elections were held frequently in Nevada’s rural areas, but most failed to result in a recall.

Mr. Hadfield contended the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) did not constitute a technical correction to the bill; rather, it effected a major change in public policy affecting all Nevada’s counties. He suggested A.B. 223 could be made to deal solely with Washoe County by amending it to include a population cap of more than 100,000 but less than 400,000. He declared he believed the committee owed county commissioners throughout the state an opportunity to discuss A.B. 223 as the bill would be if amended as proposed.

Mr. Hadfield said it was obvious Washoe County had a serious concern. However, he was certain the public did not want to imply commissioners of other counties were irresponsible and would behave irresponsibly if given the opportunity. He again asked the committee to allow the remaining counties of Nevada an opportunity to review A.B. 223 in its proposed amended form. He asserted he could not represent NACO absent a dialog on the amended form of the bill and did not believe the committee should take action on the bill in the absence of such a dialog.

Mr. Hadfield indicated his testimony on behalf of NACO was concluded, and he next wished to address the committee in his capacity as an elected official. He said as an elected official, he was very cognizant of the public’s concern and the issue of "lame ducks." He contended that issue could not be addressed without changing how all levels of government in Nevada functioned. He stated the town of Minden did not support A.B. 223. While Minden did not object to the bill applying to Washoe County if that was Washoe County’s desire, it did object to Washoe County telling it, with no prior discussion, that Minden must be subject to the bill’s provisions.

Ms. Gibbons said initially, she would have been happy to limit the effect of A.B. 223 to Washoe County. However, when she discussed the bill with other legislators, particularly those from Clark County, she was asked whether Clark County was included under the bill’s provisions. When she replied it was and asked the legislators who inquired if they would like the bill amended so as not to include Clark County, they indicated they liked the bill as it was.

Ms. Gibbons reminded Mr. Hadfield she approached him with the "lame duck" problem and told him she would attempt to have the A.B. 233 amended. She was unable to obtain an amendment when she first requested one and did not receive the proposed amendment until the previous day. Ms. Gibbons asserted she resented Mr. Hadfield describing A.B. 223 to the committee as a Washoe County bill. She informed Mr. Hadfield she represented Assembly District 25 and declared, "How dare you do that to me." She maintained elected officials did not want to take time to appear before the committee; however, ordinary citizens were present to express their feelings. Those ordinary citizens were not paid for their time; elected officials were. She stated A.B. 223 was not a "lame duck" bill; it was a bill which gave more power to citizens.

Mr. Hadfield explained he referred to A.B. 223 as a Washoe County bill because it revolved around what was clearly a Washoe County problem. NACO’s members had told him of no similar problems.

Ms. Gibbons stated it would be good to hear how representatives of counties other than Washoe felt about county commissioners taking office the day after election. She suggested Mr. Hadfield should have told representatives of those counties about her plans to amend the bill but acknowledged he might not have had time to do so.

Ms. Segerblom said she was anxious to hear what counties other than Washoe County thought about A.B. 223. She asked whether all county commissioners in Nevada took office on January 15^th. Mr. Hadfield replied all county officials were sworn to take office on the first Monday in January (following an election). Because all Nevada’s counties functioned identically in that regard, NACO wanted an opportunity to present A.B. 223 in its proposed amended form to all counties so they would have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Mortenson said although he concurred A.B. 223 would not solve the "lame duck" problem, he did not think Mr. Hadfield could argue the bill failed to mitigate the problem. He asked Mr. Hadfield whether he, personally, perceived any problem with A.B. 223. Mr. Hadfield replied if the legislature believed it best to establish consistency in the manner in which officials were elected and have them all elected in a particular manner, he had no quarrel with that in his capacity as an individual, elected official.

Richard L. Carver, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Nye County, testified. Commissioner Carver stated, "For the record, I am the only person in the State of Nevada that’s ever been on the cover of Time Magazine because of this constitution right here."

Commissioner Carver informed the committee on Tuesday of the previous week, Nye County’s county commissioners determined by unanimous vote to oppose A.B. 223. He stated the opinion he would express was his personal opinion and might or might not be the opinion held by Nye County’s board of county commissioners. However, when one of his fellow commissioners, who frequently opposed him, read A.B. 223, that commissioner screamed, "No way."

Commissioner Carver said he had been a county commissioner for 10 years and was unopposed the last time he ran for election. When he was first elected as a county commissioner, a "lame duck" commission hired a county manager for Nye County. Shortly after he took office, the commission was forced to fire that county manager. He suggested the solution to such problems was that action be taken after a newly elected board of county commissioners assumed its powers rather than before.

Commissioner Carver stated the United States constitution created a republican form of government, and the 10^th amendment to the Constitution established those powers which were neither delegated to the Federal Government by the constitution nor prohibited to the Federal Government by the states were reserved to the states. He pointed out Nevada’s constitution created both the office of legislator and the office of county commissioner. While the legislature met for a period of 120 days once each 2 years, county commissioners, he asserted, met twice a month and engaged in administrative duties 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, he believed county commissioners had somewhat greater governmental responsibility than legislators had. He maintained a county’s budget was the greatest responsibility its commissioners.

Commissioner Carver referred to Article 4, section 20, of the state constitution and contended A.B. 223 was clearly unconstitutional. He declared the legislature must allow citizens to exercise their greatest power, the right to vote, and allow them to both elect county commissioners and vote them out of office through the recall process. He stated there was no need to create another law.

Commissioner Carver declared the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) was unconstitutional because it constituted special legislation to deal with county commissioners. He contended if the legislature was going to make the change proposed in the amendment, it should make that change with respect to all elected state officials and not just county commissioners.

Commissioner Carver asserted county commissioners did not assume their official responsibilities until they took the oath of office, which happened on the first Monday in January.

Mr. Mortenson asked whether Nevada’s constitution established county commissioners must be sworn in on the first Monday in January. Commissioner Carver replied he was uncertain. He said the state constitution read, "Members of the legislature and all officers shall, before they enter upon the duties of the respective office, take and subscribe to the following oath."

Mr. Mortenson suggested the language Commissioner Carver recited did not specify a particular date on which an elected official must take his oath of office. He asked whether Ms. O’Grady, committee counsel, knew the answer to the question he posed to Commissioner Carver. Ms. O’Grady responded the state constitution did not specify county commissioners must take their oath of office on the first Monday in January; their term of office was established by statute.

Mr. Mortenson asked what objection Commissioner Carver had to mitigating some of the "lame duck" problem by causing county commissioners’ terms of office to commence the day after they were elected. Commissioner Carver replied he did not object to changing the time frame of county commissioners’ terms of office. However, the legislature could not change that time frame for county commissioners, who were constitutional officers of the state of Nevada, unless it changed the time frame for all the state’s constitutional officers. He reiterated there was a constitutional prohibition against special legislation and maintained everyone must be treated in like manner.

Mr. Mortenson observed if the date on which a county commissioner took office was established by the legislature, the legislature could probably change that date.

Kelly Kite, Commissioner, Douglas County, testified. He said he, Commissioner Bernie Curtis, and Douglas County’s county manager, Dan Hollar, were present to oppose A.B. 223. He expressed support for NACO’s efforts and for Mr. Hadfield’s position on A.B. 223 and contended action on the bill should be delayed until representatives of all Nevada’s counties had an opportunity to review the proposed amendment (Exhibit C).

Commissioner Kite said at one point in time, three of the five members of the Douglas County commission were simultaneously up for reelection. He ran against and defeated one incumbent commissioner, and one incumbent commissioner chose not to run for reelection. Therefore, from September 6^th to December 7^th, the resultant "lame duck" commission was " . . . supposedly out of this." However, a flood occurred on New Year’s Eve, and the "lame duck" commissioners acted responsibly and did what they needed to do. The "lame duck" commission also hired Douglas County’s current county manager.

Commissioner Kite explained his point was not every elected official became irresponsible or unresponsive to the public when he became a "lame duck." He conceded there were problems but maintained they did not occur on a daily basis.

Commissioner Kite stated, "I want to go on record as supporting the position of NACO. I’d like to see this go forward."

Bernie Curtis, Commissioner, Douglas County, testified. He said his position on A.B. 223 was, essentially, the same as Commissioner Kite’s. He stated the Douglas County commissioner against whom he ran for election acted responsibly and with integrity and did a fine job after she failed to be reelected. He said it appeared to him the issue being discussed affected a particular county and suggested all county commissioners should not be classified alike. He reiterated the request made by previous witnesses that representatives of counties throughout Nevada be allowed an opportunity to review A.B. 223.

Dan Holler, County Manger, Douglas County, testified. He said he believed the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) addressed Douglas County’s concerns about the bill; however, the board of county commissioners had not had sufficient opportunity to analyze the impact of the amendment. One question which arose was whether the change to A.B. 223 effected by the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) would affect all elected public officials, such as sheriffs, district attorneys, clerks, treasurers, and recorders, rather than only county commissioners. Another question was whether causing elected officials to take office the day following their election would impact the process of certifying elections. Douglas County would like to examine the issues exemplified by those questions as well as the impact A.B. 223 in its proposed amended form would have on the continuity of local government.

Mr. Holler suggested if newly elected county commissioners were required to take office the day after they were elected, they would have little opportunity to examine the issues with which they must deal. He said Douglas County would like an opportunity for dialog with other counties regarding the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C).

Ms. Gibbons said she was not opposed to allowing representatives of Nevada’s counties an opportunity to confer on the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C). She assured Douglas County’s representatives she believed county commissioners did an excellent job, and she was not attempting to attack them through the bill.

John O. Swendseid, Swendseid & Stern, representing Clark County, testified. He said he spoke with John Spinello, a representative of Clark County, about the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C) and believed Mr. Spinello would echo Mr. Hadfield’s request for an opportunity to study the amendment and comment on it.

Mr. Mortenson said he agreed Nevada’s counties should have an opportunity for input on the proposed amendment to A.B. 223 (Exhibit C). However he sensed county commissioners viewed A.B. 223 as a personal affront and believed the intent behind the proposed legislation was to make them act more responsibly. He did not believe that was the intent; however, it could not be argued the proposed legislation would fail to mitigate the "lame duck" problem even though it would not eliminate the problem. He hoped county commissioners and NACO would not perceive A.B. 223 as an affront but would examine the bill and determine whether or not it provided a better way of doing things.

Assemblyman Thomas said he signed A.B. 223 as one of its sponsors because he believed the issue it addressed should be raised. He concurred with Mr. Mortenson the bill would mitigate the "lame duck" situation but would not entirely eliminate it. He contended the bill did not constitute legislative interference with county business; it merely adjusted a time frame to conform to public perception that an elected official was either in or out of office as soon as the public cast its votes.

Mr. Thomas said he agreed with Mr. Hadfield’s remarks about treating elected officials consistently and asked Ms. Gibbons whether she opposed the provisions of A.B. 223 being made to encompass other elected officials as well as county commissioners. Ms. Gibbons indicated she felt comfortable about including other elected officials under the bill’s provisions and suggested the committee should gain input as to how everyone involved felt about it.

Mr. Thomas asked Chairman Bache why A.B. 223 was not being heard by the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics rather than by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Chairman Bache replied the bill pertained to NRS 244, and the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs had jurisdiction over that chapter of NRS.

Chairman Bache observed Mr. Swendseid was a bond counsel and asked him whether it was possible for the newly elected commissioners in Washoe County to have rescinded the action of the previous commissioners. Mr. Swendseid replied he believed Mr. Galloway’s testimony about what the new commissioners were able to do was accurate. He explained the railroad tax was out of their hands, bonds had been issued for the flood tax, and the most the commissioners could have done was combine the bond proceeds with additional funds in a defeasance escrow to pay off the bonds, which would have been expensive. He said the Washoe County commission retained control over how proceeds from the bonds were spent. If the commission chose to use those proceeds to pay off the bonds, the need for the money generated by the sales tax of one percent would decrease.

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Liaison, Elko County, testified. She declared Elko County supported Mr. Hadfield’s position and would appreciate an opportunity to work on A.B. 223.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 223.

Chairman Bache announced because Assemblyman Williams was unable to be present, the hearing on A.B. 213 would be rescheduled.

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel, provided copies of a written, proposed amendment to A.B. 127 (Exhibit D). Chairman Bache reminded the committee A.B. 127 was proposed by the secretary of state, and the only concern expressed about the bill had to do with making home addresses of court reporters and notaries a matter of public record. He explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) eliminated that concern.

Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, testified. She informed the committee she was deputy attorney general for the Secretary of State’s office. She said the concern raised at the previous hearing on A.B. 127 was that state employees’ addresses should be kept confidential. She explained all applications to become a notary public filed with the Secretary of State’s office were public documents. In order to address the concern about confidentiality of home addresses, the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) broadened the language of NRS 240.030, subsection 3, by deleting from it language referring to a peace officer. The remaining language established no applicant to become a notary public need disclose his home address. An applicant could use either his business address or a mailing address different from his home address if he had one.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether an applicant to become a notary public was required to disclose his age, race, or social security number.

Bru Ethridge, Supervisor, Notary Division, office of the Secretary of State, State of Nevada, testified. In response to Ms. Tiffany’s question, Ms. Ethridge explained an applicant to become a notary public was required to be at least 18 years of age and either a resident of Nevada or lawfully admitted alien and to provide a mailing address and telephone number. Applicants were not asked to disclose their race, sex, or social security numbers.

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, State of Nevada, testified, saying only she believed the proposed amendment to A.B. 127 (Exhibit D) effected a happy resolution of the concern raised at the previous hearing.

Ms. Cavin pointed out the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) effected one additional change to A.B. 127, made at Chairman Bache’s request. She explained under the current language of section 3, subsection 2, of NRS 240.030, people who lived in states bordering Nevada, including court reporters, and applied to become notaries in Nevada were required to provide their residence addresses. To make the law consistent, the proposed amendment changed section 3, subsection 2, to require such people to provide only the name of the state in which they lived and their mailing address. As a consequence, they would not be required to reveal their home addresses.

Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion on A.B. 127.

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She called attention to a proposed amendment to A.B. 12 (Exhibit E), previously provided to the committee. She pointed out the word "finding" was being deleted from section 1, subsection 1(d), and explained that change was made at the request of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for whom the term "finding" had a different meaning than it had for some other agencies. She did not believe replacing the word "finding" with the words "process or procedure," as suggested by PUC, would create a problem. The resultant language would read "the general application by an agency of a policy, interpretation, process or procedure."

Ms. Vilardo said the next proposed change occurred in section 1, subsection 1(d)(1), in which the word "and" was replaced with the words "in order to." Various deputy attorneys general believed that amendment would clarify the provision did not cover a two-fold circumstance. She said if an agency intended to assess a fine " . . . then you have to meet these conditions."

Ms. Vilardo explained the intent of section 1, subsection 2(f), was to provide if an advisory opinion or attorney general’s opinion was published, the opinion would be excluded from the requirement that such an opinion be established as a regulation. That exclusion would ensure opinions subject to confidentiality, particularly those of the attorney general, could not be used as a basis for imposition of monetary penalties.

Ms. Vilardo called attention to section 1, subsection 2(g). She explained the State of Nevada’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Environmental Protection Division was permitted by statute to issue resolutions. Because the agency issued its resolutions in a public forum, an exclusion was provided for interpretations or resolutions of an agency with specific statutory authority to them. However, Ms. Vilardo requested such interpretations or resolutions, when issued, be included in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) at the beginning of the applicable chapter. She pointed out businesses were required to know the law, which consisted of NRS and NAC, and resolutions, although issued in a public forum, were currently set forth only in the minutes of the meeting of the agency which issued them.

Ms. Vilardo called attention to a newly added exclusion which addressed the general duty clause of NRS 618.375. She said, "The reason for this is the fact that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) along with employment security department and a couple of others . . . if the state does not have these departments, then the feds come in and administer these provisions." She explained the general duty clause was a source of major concern for businesses because it constituted a "catch all." However, if the federal government audited OSHA activities in Nevada and discovered the general duty clause was not being applied, Nevada could lose state control of OSHA and end up with federal control of that agency.

Ms. Vilardo suggested statute be created to require a special report of citations issued pursuant to NRS 618.375 be made to the Department of Industrial Relations Advisory Council, on a quarterly basis, in order to determine whether or not there was a pattern involved in the issuance of such citations. She explained such statutory provision would not be applicable to the chapter of NRS addressed by A.B. 127 and would have to be included elsewhere in NRS. She indicated OSHA agreed with that being done. In addition, the Department of Industrial Relations Advisory Council would be required to submit a report of citations issued under the general duty clause to the legislative counsel on an annual basis.

Ms. Vilardo said an issue arose with respect to the 5-day reporting requirement contained in the proposed new section of NRS 233B, set forth on page 2 of Exhibit E. She explained a number of divisions of the State of Nevada’s Department of Human Resources operated under federal regulations and guidelines, and the 5-day reporting requirement might place them in conflict with those regulations and guidelines. She suggested language be added, after the words "the action," which would make the reporting requirement subject to the applicability of any federal or state statute. She explained adding such language would allow a generic report, which disclosed no names, to be issued in order to comply with the reporting requirement. She suggested a 12-day requirement would comport with federal law, which prohibited release of information for 12 days.

Ms. Vilardo informed the committee some deputy attorneys general were still not satisfied with A.B. 12.

Chairman Bache suggested it would be best to amend A.B. 12 and rerefer it to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. He pointed out the bill was highly technical and if the exact language of the bill, as amended, was available it would facilitate further hearing on the bill. He asked Ms. Vilardo if his suggestion was acceptable to her. Ms. Vilardo replied it was perfectly acceptable.

Ms. Vilardo said, "Two things relative to fiscal note. Doug Waverly, who was outside this morning, and I discussed the fiscal note issue, particularly in light of adding published attorney general’s opinions . . . I went to Senator O’Connell’s office yesterday afternoon because there was a reference made yesterday to a fiscal note written by a doctor or whatever. Senator O’Connell’s office nor her secretary, Ricka, have received anything in the way of a fiscal note and couldn’t understand why they would have received it if it applied to A.B. 12 when it should have come to the chairman. So, for the record."

Chairman Bache announced he would entertain a motion on A.B. 12.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: