The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 24, 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

Mrs. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau,

Becky Moody, Chief, Financial Management, Training and Controls,

Department of Administration, State of Nevada

Douglas N. Bierman, representing Lander County

Leon Aberasturi, Deputy District Attorney, Lander County

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, testified. She explained current statute appeared to require a cooperative association to utilize a licensed broker to procure medical services. Essentially, A.B. 227 made it clear when a cooperative association purchased insurance, it must do so through a licensed broker; however, when it procured or contracted for medical services it was " . . . doing that individually but using the group as a way to obtain the best rates."

Tom Marshall, Risk Manager, Washoe County School District, testified. He said he was president of Nevada Health Care Coalition. He stated approximately 6 years previously, five or six employers who were self-funded for health insurance began to discuss their various health insurance programs and rising health care costs. Those employers contracted, individually, for per diem hospital rates and decided if they joined together, they might be able to competitively market their members and programs with hospitals in northern Nevada. They did so and generated significant cost savings. Because the effort was so successful and the rates obtained were so good, other employers joined the organization. Currently the organization had 18 members, all self-funded for medical insurance.

Mr. Marshall explained the employers formed a nonprofit organization, Nevada Health Care Coalition, and expanded the organization’s programs. Nevada Health Care Coalition currently contracted for outpatient surgical services, which resulted in cost reductions. In addition, the coalition worked to promote various community wellness programs and establish communication with physicians’ groups and health care providers for the purpose of both ascertaining their concerns and ideas for improving community health and attempting to minimize health care costs.

Larry Harvey, representing John Ascuaga’s Nugget, testified. He stated he was vice president of Nevada Health Care Coalition of which John Ascuaga’s Nugget was a founding member. He explained the coalition was comprised of a diverse group of employers, including all governmental entities in the area. Members of the coalition found belonging to the coalition provided them not only with purchasing benefits but also " . . . collective brain power . . .." Not all employers had good benefits offices and staff, and members of the coalition were able to: discuss with one another what constituted the best practices; jointly seek services; and engage in joint activities to cut costs and increase quality of health care services. He asserted by helping to create a healthy community, the coalition’s members were helping themselves.

Mr. Harvey stated A.B. 227 would help clarify the process begun by the coalition. He said when the bill was first drafted, it appeared somewhat limiting with respect to health care insurance. However, the coalition dealt less with insurance than with services. The coalition held regular meetings with physicians to discuss health care and how those physicians and the coalition could best serve one another. A.B. 227 would enable public and private entities to work together more effectively.

Jonnie Pullman, Deputy City Manager, city of Sparks, testified. She asserted Nevada Health Care Coalition constituted a unique, cooperative effort. The coalition was comprised of self-insured employers and constituted a public-private partnership in which those involved worked closely with one another and learned from one another.

Ms. Pullman explained Sparks was a smaller employer than other employers in Nevada Health Care Coalition. By itself, Sparks did not always have the ability to negotiate with health care providers and obtain the things necessary to ensure a good health care plan for its employees. Sparks benefited from membership in the coalition and, because of rates negotiated through cooperative efforts of the coalition’s members, was able both to save taxpayers approximately $100,000 and to maintain or improve health care services for its employees.

Ms. Pullman said A.B. 227 supported the effort to develop and expand health management programs. She stated asthma and diabetes were growing concerns for Spark’s employees. Those illnesses were long-term illnesses and, if not managed aggressively, could lead to continuing deterioration of health. From Spark’s employees’ point of view, that was not a good situation because it impacted both their quality of life and their ability to be part of the community and support the city’s efforts to provide services to its citizens. Neither was the situation good from Spark’s point of view as an employer and a public entity accountable to taxpayers, because it led, over time, to increased health care costs. Nevada Health Care Coalition’s members discussed their ability to work together to contract for disease management programs, provide health education for their employees, and work with doctors to establish the best health care practices. A.B. 227 provided a unique opportunity to do those things.

Mr. Harvey said John Ascuaga’s Nugget was able to add many benefits to its health care plan because of things it did while a member of Nevada Health Care Coalition. It’s plan now provided for physicals, health education, and 100 percent payment for mammograms. John Ascuaga’s Nugget was also able to establish an employee assistance program and reduce its employees’ co-payments for health care services. John Ascuaga’s Nugget could not have made those additions and enhancements if it acted individually; they were the result of working with the coalition’s other members.

Assemblywoman Segerblom pointed out A.B. 227 referred only to public entities and not to private companies. Mr. Harvey responded private companies did not need enabling legislation to do the things discussed in A.B. 227; they had always been able to do them. The bill enabled public entities to do those things and private companies to work with those public entities.

Chairman Bache pointed out A.B. 227 provided for a public-private partnership. He asked whether the bill addressed the appropriate statute. Eileen O’Grady, committee counsel, responded affirmatively.

Assemblywoman Tiffany asked Ms. Shipman whether proponents of A.B. 227 worked on the bill with the " . . . association for self-insureds." Ms. Shipman deferred to other witnesses to answer Ms. Tiffany’s question. Mr. Harvey replied Nevada Health Care Coalition was the only group that worked on A.B. 227.

Ms. Tiffany suggested the association to which she referred should have an opportunity to review A.B. 227. Ms. Pullman responded Nevada Self-Insured Association, the association to which Ms. Tiffany referred, was comprised of private business sector employers who did not need enabling legislation.

Ms. Tiffany said she would like to know whether A.B. 227 was good for Nevada as a whole and whether Nevada Self-Insured Association’s president had any comment on the bill.

Assemblywoman Freeman maintained A.B. 227’s intent was unclear. Although she understood what the bill’s proponents wanted to accomplish, she believed the bill needed clarification.

Chairman Bache asked to what services the words "administrative and educational services," employed in A.B. 227, referred. Ms. Pullman cited services of a third party administrator as an example of an administrative service. She explained A.B. 227 would allow Sparks to acquire specific services related to health care benefits, such as a third party administrator, wellness programs, and programs for disease management through public education.

Mr. Harvey discussed the difference between self-insurance and traditional insurance. He explained when a small employer purchased insurance, the company from whom he purchased it handled " . . . all the little details . . ." for the employer; whereas, a self-insured employer handled those details itself. A self-insured employer hired someone to administer its insurance program, hired someone to purchase the program’s components, and might decide to self-insure some aspect of the program. Much of what a self-insured employer did with respect to its insurance program was administrative.

Chairman Bache suggested A.B. 227 should be amended to clarify its reference to educational services pertained to health education services for a group insurance program.

Ms. Tiffany reiterated she would like a statement from the president of Nevada Self-Insured Association as to his position on A.B. 227.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 227.

Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). He said A.B. 254 would assist rural communities in Nevada that wanted to incorporate to do so. The bill was drafted to have no effect on counties with populations in excess of 100,000.

Mr. Grady said the requirements established by section 1, subsections 1 and 2, of A.B. 254 applied to all Nevada’s cities. The requirements set forth in section 1, subsection 3, remained unchanged with respect to Clark County and Washoe County; however, rural areas would neither be required to meet the 4-person-per-acre density requirement nor comply with the 7-mile rule.

Mr. Grady explained section 1, subsection 6, pertained to inclusion of an entire township within the boundaries of a proposed new city. He cited the township of Fernley as an example and explained if Fernley incorporated its existing township, the incorporated area would include the area between the county lines of Washoe County, Storey County, and Churchill County and approximately 1/3 of Lyon County. Section 1, subsection 6, would allow Fernley to " . . . incorporate into a smaller area, which is the town of Fernley."

Mr. Grady said section 2 of A.B. 254 addressed county commissioners’ involvement in incorporation. The section affected no change with respect to Washoe County and Clark County; it merely addressed the population density of Nevada’s rural areas.

Mr. Grady said representatives of Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities worked on the language of A.B. 254 with Marvin Leavitt, representative of the city of Las Vegas, and Mr. Leavitt agreed the bill’s language was appropriate.

Chairman Bache asked how A.B. 254 would affect the town of Pahrump. Mr. Grady replied during a previous legislative session, Pahrump approached the legislature for permission to incorporate as a special charter city; however, based on a vote of its citizens, Pahrump decided not to incorporate at that time. Pahrump had since hired a town manager who was doing an excellent job of assisting the town to become organized, and it was anticipated sometime in the next 2 years Pahrump would again consider incorporating. When Pahrump previously requested permission to incorporate, it wanted to incorporate the entire southern portion of Nye County. A.B. 254 would assist Pahrump in incorporating a more workable area.

Ms. Segerblom asked what Fernley’s population was. Mr. Grady replied Fernley’s population, officially, was 9,000; however, Fernley claimed to have between 12,000 and 14,000 residents.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Segerblom how much greater Boulder City’s population was than Fernley’s and whether Fernley’s population was approaching that of Boulder City. Ms. Segerblom replied if Fernley incorporated, it might well be larger than Boulder City. Boulder City’s population was nearly 15,000.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 254.

Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, testified. He explained A.B. 255 resulted from an audit of the State of Nevada’s internal control reporting process. In December 1998, the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) issued a report to the Legislative Commission’s Audit Subcommittee identifying serious problems in state government’s internal controls. Mr. Crews provided a handout discussing some of the findings contained in that report (Exhibit D).

Mr. Crews stated in 1995, the legislature passed Senate Bill 460 of the 68^th session, which attempted to strengthen internal controls of state agencies. However, there were still serious problems with those controls. LCB audit reports identified problems with internal controls related to the state’s group insurance program, the Department of Prison’s inmate medical program, the Department of Administration’s Risk Management Division, and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Division of Wildlife. In addition, Mr. Crews said, a problem related to the state’s accounts receivable process was identified, and approximately $50 million owed the state would never be collected. Problems identified pertained primarily to breakdowns in management and accounting controls.

Mr. Crews explained Senate Bill 460 of the 68^th Session required state agencies to evaluate their internal controls and report their findings to the Department of Administration’s director. When LCB conducted its audit, it discovered many state agencies did not evaluate their internal controls and many others were untimely in reporting their findings. As a result of state agencies’ lack of strong internal controls, the state lost millions of dollars.

Mr. Crews said A.B. 255 required the director of the Department of Administration to report to the legislature, the governor, and the legislative auditor, prior to each legislative session, which state agencies had not evaluated their internal controls and which agencies had poor internal controls. LCB believed that requirement constituted a positive step toward strengthening state agencies’ internal controls and requiring state agencies to accept some measure of accountability. Mr. Crews contended the legislature was in the precarious position of approving billions of dollars in appropriations to state agencies with little assurance the money appropriated was properly spent. A.B. 255 provided a tool the legislature’s money committees could use in evaluating and approving budgets.

Mrs. Freeman said she read LCB’s audit reports, over the years, and was stunned there was not greater compliance with the legislative auditor’s recommendations. She asked whether state agencies had internal auditors to keep track of how they spent their money. Mr. Crews replied most state agencies did not have internal auditors. He said during either the 1991 or 1993 legislative session, an internal audit unit was formed in the Department of Administration. After that unit was discontinued, an office of Management, Training, and Controls was created to help train state agencies to evaluate their internal systems. Mr. Crews explained LCB’s Audit Division performed primary audit functions for state agencies, and although the office of Management, Training, and Controls provided state agencies with training, problems still existed. One problem was many administrators of state programs did not place a high priority on internal controls.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether money was appropriated in the governor’s budget to address " . . . this issue." Mr. Crews replied he did not believe money was provided in the governor’s budget specifically for that purpose. He maintained all state agencies should have the ability to establish internal controls for themselves; however, low priority was placed on internal controls. He believed A.B. 255 would catch state agencies’ attention.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether it was Mr. Crews’ testimony people with other responsibilities were taught to be auditors; however, some state agencies had no professional auditors. Mr. Crews replied only a few state agencies had auditors. However, he did not believe an agency needed an auditor to have internal controls. Personnel in other job classifications within state agencies should be able to establish such controls. He maintained internal controls were not necessarily an audit function.

Mrs. Freeman suggested state agencies needed someone with audit skills to provide oversight. She pointed out state agencies used public funds. She questioned whether A.B. 255 would provide the necessary oversight. She contended the legislature should send a very strong message that, although it had its own auditor, the legislature perceived audit of state agencies to be one of the Department of Administration’s functions and wanted that department to take more responsibility for that function.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked whether the legislature could do something about agencies that failed to evaluate their internal controls and report their findings, such as appoint a group of legislators to review those agencies. She questioned whether the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had sufficient time, prior to commencement of a legislative session, to determine how well state agencies performed.

Mr. Crews explained both legislative money committees created subcommittees that met periodically and required agencies that had problems complying with LCB’s audit recommendations to appear before them. Currently, LCB’s audit division conferred with those subcommittees only about agencies it audited within, approximately, the preceding 2-year period; those agencies constituted only a fraction of all state agencies. Mr. Crews maintained A.B. 255 would provide an overview of all state agencies and provide the money committees with a tool they did not currently have.

Mr. Crews explained a follow-up procedure was established by statute. Several months after LCB’s audit division issued an audit report, any agency which failed to implement recommendations contained in that report was required to appear before the Legislative Commission’s Audit Subcommittee to explain why it had not done so.

Ms. Gibbons observed state government had become so large, and some of its departments employed so many people, it was not possible to identify who was to blame when something went wrong. She said she would like the legislature to be able to do more than it now did when problems occurred. Mr. Crews responded LCB’s Audit Division held discussions with the legislative counsel about what the legislature could do, and the legislative counsel’s opinion was " . . . you have a fine line there, a separation of powers." He pointed out statute allowed the Department of Administration’s director to withhold funds from an agency which failed to take corrective action based on LCB’s Audit Division’s recommendations. He believed the reason statute confined that action to the Department of Administration was the need for separation of powers.

Ms. Gibbons reiterated her desire the legislature be provided the ability to do more to control runaway spending in state government. Mr. Crews responded he believed recommendations resulting from the reports A.B. 255 required would go far to enhance state agencies’ operations. He explained one problem agencies had was staffing and suggested some employees might not have the educational background necessary to perform some of their duties. He said the State of Nevada’s Department of Personnel was engaged in attempts to upgrade qualification requirements and testing procedures for financial management positions.

Assemblyman Lee said his review of Mr. Crew’s handout (Exhibit D) raised a question. He pointed out LCB’s Audit Division attempted to monitor state agencies’ resources and reduce waste, fraud and abuse; however, the handout (Exhibit D) did not reflect the Audit Division concerned itself with boards or commissions. He asked whether there was some reason it did not do so. Mr. Crews replied there was a reason. He explained all professional licensing boards, such as the State Contractors’ Board, underwent audits, on either an annual or biannual basis, and were required by statute to contract for those audits with a firm of certified public accountants outside state government. However, LCB’s audit division did audit agencies such as the Gaming Control Board.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel said she wanted to be certain A.B. 255 addressed a problem she observed when she served on the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She explained at that time, some state agencies did not reconcile their accounts with respect to insurance benefits and continued to pay insurance premiums for employees for as long as 2 years after those employees ceased their employment. She asked whether A.B. 255 would bring that situation to light. The last she knew, neither the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) nor the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) had reconciled their insurance premium accounts. Mr. Crews replied theoretically, under A.B. 255, if an agency properly evaluated its internal controls, the problem Ms. Von Tobel cited would be identified and reported to the director of the Department of Administration, who would then forward the information to the legislature’s money committees.

Assemblyman Mortenson expressed concern about agencies being able to choose which auditor to hire. He suggested if an agency was dissatisfied with the audit provided by one auditor, it could proceed to hire a different auditor each year until it found one who audited it in a manner it liked. He asked whether the scenario he suggested reflected an actual problem. Mr. Crews responded he believed the certified public accountant (CPA) profession was fairly well regulated. CPAs were required to meet certain professional standards and were subject to a quality control review every 3 years. They were hired, primarily, to render opinions for financial statements and did a good job in that respect. However, they did not address areas addressed by LCB’s Audit Division, which over the past few years, had become more involved in auditing performance than in auditing financial matters. However, CPAs did a good job of ascertaining whether an entity was solvent and in good financial condition.

Chairman Bache said during both the 1993 and 1995 legislative sessions, he requested an audit of the Committee on Benefits. Immediately prior to the 1995 legislative session, the Committee on Benefits contracted for a private audit. He did not believe that audit covered everything necessary; however, that failure may have resulted from the manner in which the request for proposal was written rather than a failure on the auditor’s part. Chairman Bache said he believed the legislative auditor was very thorough with respect to both program issues and fiscal issues.

Ms. Tiffany pointed out internal controls were not the same as financial controls. She explained examination of internal controls entailed examining programs and the success of those programs and the processes utilized to effect them. She contended if Mr. Crews brought a bill before the legislature, he first gave complete thought to the bill and brought it only as a last resort. She commended Mr. Crews and said she believed, through A.B. 255, he chose a very reasonable approach through which to provide the most leverage without being punitive.

Ms. Tiffany observed millions of dollars were lost to the state because of state agencies’ internal controls. She maintained the problem was not one of employees, training, or processes; rather, the problem was " . . . an ignoring problem." She contended A.B. 255 was a means to say the legislature did not want to be ignored any longer.

Mr. Crews maintained although problems existed, there had been improvement. During the past biennium, LCB’s Audit Division identified agencies that implemented its recommendations, and $17 million was saved because those recommendations were implemented.

Mr. Mortenson pointed out a public entity in southern Nevada, which he declined to identify, received a great deal of publicity because it refused to make public the results of an audit conducted by an auditor it hired. He asked whether a public entity had the right to refuse public access to results of an audit of the entity. Mr. Crews replied he believed if an audit was financed with public funds, the written results would be a public document.

Chairman Bache asked Eileen O’Grady, committee counsel, to respond to Mr. Mortenson's question. Ms. O’Grady said she assumed the written results of such an audit would be a public record; however, she could research the matter further if Mr. Mortenson desired. Mr. Mortenson indicated he would appreciate an answer to his question.

Chairman Bache asked whether one reason some agencies had difficulty following LCB’s Audit Division’s recommendations was because of high turnover in their administrators and other personnel and new personnel’s lack of knowledge and training regarding those recommendations. Mr. Crews replied he believed high turnover in personnel probably contributed to the difficulty, and that highlighted the importance of having internal controls, in the form of written policies and procedures.

Becky Moody, Chief, Financial Management, Training and Controls, Department of Administration, State of Nevada, testified. She stated the Department of Administration’s director had no objection to A.B. 255. In response to one of Ms. Von Tobel’s questions, Ms. Moody said certain agencies, boards, and commissions, including UCCSN, PERS, and the State Industrial Insurance System, were excluded from " . . . this requirement . . .."

Ms. Von Tobel asked why the agencies, boards, and commissions Ms. Moody enumerated were excluded. Ms. Moody replied they were exempted by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353A.020, and she believed, as Mr. Crews said, they were exempted because they obtained independent audits from CPA firms outside state government.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 255.

Doug Bierman, representing Lander County, introduced Leon Aberasturi, Deputy District Attorney, Lander County, who testified in favor of A.B. 261. Mr. Aberasturi said A.B. 261’s main purpose was clarification, and the bill had extreme importance for someone like him. He explained the first thing an attorney normally did, in a lawsuit to prevent a county from taking certain action, was look for a violation of the Open Meeting Law or some other violation of law.

Mr. Aberasturi said the last time the statute affected by A.B. 261 was amended, language was added to section 1, subsection 6, which said a county’s board of commissioners could not take action on zoning or planning issues during a meeting held outside the county seat. That language raised questions of statutory construction. It was unclear whether it meant only zoning and planning matters could not be acted upon outside the county seat or whether there were additional matters which could not be acted upon outside the county seat. The change effected to section 1, subsection 6, by A.B. 261 clarified if a county’s board of commissioners complied with the Open Meeting Law and had an appropriate agenda, it could take final action on any matter other than zoning or planning during a meeting held outside the county seat.

Mr. Aberasturi explained some of Nevada’s counties interpreted current statutory language as allowing their commission to take action on any matter during a meeting held outside the county seat, while others interpreted it to mean their commission could take no final action when it met outside the county seat.

Ms. Gibbons asked what cities were located in Lander County and how much area the county encompassed. Mr. Aberasturi replied Battle Mountain was located in northern Lander County, and Austin, the next largest population center, was located approximately 90 miles south of Battle Mountain. He indicated citizens of rural counties asked their county commissioners to hold meetings outside county seats on important issues, such as county budgets, and A.B. 261 would facilitate compliance with such requests.

Ms. Gibbons said she was concerned about county commissioners voting on an issue concerning one city during a meeting held in another city. She asked Mr. Aberasturi to address her concern.

Mr. Aberasturi said during the 1993 legislative session, the legislature recognized games could be played on matters such a planning and zoning. He posed a hypothetical situation in which Lander County’s commission chose to meet in Austin to consider a zoning issue pertaining to Battle Mountain in the belief no one from Battle Mountain would travel to Austin to attend the meeting. He pointed out such situations were currently addressed by statute. He maintained it was when a matter affecting a particular area of a county was before that county’s commission that citizens of the affected area wanted the board of commissioners to meet in that area so they could provide input and see, in person, how the board voted. A.B. 261 clarified a county’s board of commissioners could do that; however, planning and zoning matters were still excluded from action by a county commission at a meeting held outside the county seat.

Ms. Gibbons asked whether a county commission could use A.B. 261 to its benefit if it did not want citizens of a particular area present when it voted on a particular issue. Mr. Aberasturi pointed out NRS 244.085 placed restrictions on meetings held outside a county seat and imposed notice requirements in addition to those imposed by the Open Meeting Law. He explained notice of a meeting to be held outside a county seat must be published for a period of 3 weeks. He maintained notice requirements precluded a county commission from "sandbagging" people. A.B. 261 attempted to allow a county’s commission to take action on matters in a place other than the county seat, in the presence of citizens who wanted the meeting held in that place.

Mr. Aberasturi explained in Lander County, both Austin and Battle Mountain had landfills. He posed a hypothetical situation in which Austin’s residents wanted Lander County’s board of commissioners to take action on Austin’s landfill. However, because the board was given conservative legal advice, it held a meeting in Austin to take public opinion but returned to Battle Mountain, the county seat, to vote on the issue, and Austin’s residents were unhappy.

Assemblyman Neighbors said, "This language was initially proposed by Nye County." He explained not long in the past, all meetings of a county’s commission were required be held within 10 miles of the county courthouse. Nye County was successful in having that requirement changed. He pointed out Pahrump had as many as 50,000 or 60,000 lots, and Nye County did not want its commission to meet 300 miles from Pahrump to make decisions affecting Pahrump.

Mr. Neighbors said he had no objection to the clarification A.B. 261 effected. He stated Nye County’s board of commissioners, historically, took the position it could meet and make decisions outside the county seat, with the exception of decisions on planning, unless that planning affected the area in which the commission met.

Mr. Neighbors clarified a county commission was required to publish notice of a meeting to be held outside the county seat only once if the county had more than one newspaper. However, if the county had only one newspaper, notice must be published three times. Mr. Aberasturi said his testimony regarding publication of notice pertained to section 1, subsection 4, of A.B. 261. He explained if a county commission planned to change the day and place of its regular meetings, it must publish notice of its intention for 3 consecutive weeks.

Mr. Aberasturi reiterated what A.B. 261 attempted to clarify.

Ms. Segerblom expressed approval of the fact A.B. 261 applied to all Nevada’s counties. She pointed out the city of Laughlin was far from Clark County’s county seat and asserted it was a good thing for county’s commissioners to be able to meet in Laughlin and make decisions. She maintained that ability was also good for Mesquite. She asked what opinion counties, other than Clark County, had about that situation. Mr. Aberasturi responded sometimes county commissioners were glad of an excuse not to meet " . . . in a hotbed . . .;" however, under A.B. 261, they would have no excuse.

Ms. Gibbons asked why counties’ boards of commissioners did not utilize teleconferencing for their meetings. Mr. Aberasturi replied teleconferencing was utilized in Lander County. However, when a county commission considered major issues affecting a particular area, citizens of that area wanted to be able to confront the commission face-to-face.

Ms. Gibbons said she was uncomfortable about voting to pass A.B. 261. She contended although it was appropriate for county commissioners to conduct a hearing outside their county’s county seat, they should conduct their voting at the county seat, the place people expected voting to occur. Mr. Aberasturi said from a policy standpoint, a tension existed between bringing government to the people and ensuring government entities did not engage in game playing.

Chairman Bache pointed out it was unclear from A.B. 261’s language whether a county commission could hold a meeting outside its county. He suggested the bill’s language should, perhaps, be amended to reflect a county commission could hold a meeting outside the county seat but not outside the county. Mr. Aberasturi said based on his knowledge of both NRS 244 and the Open Meeting Law, he did not believe there were any restrictions against a county’s board of commissioners meeting outside the county. He pointed out section 1, subsection 7, of A.B. 261, said a county commission could meet with the governing body of another government entity at any location. Therefore, as he interpreted the language of section 1, subsection 7, if Lander County’s board of commissioners wanted to meet in Humboldt County with Humboldt County’s board of commissioners, it could do so.

Chairman Bache said he was aware a county’s board of commissioners could meet outside the county. He was concerned about a county’s board of commissioners taking final action on any matter while meeting outside the county. He asked whether there was statute which dealt with that concern. Mr. Aberasturi called attention to lines 19 and 20 on page 2 of A.B. 261, which he believed addressed Chairman Bache’s concern.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 261.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: