The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:12 a.m., on Thursday, March 11, 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. Bache, Chairman

Mr. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Berman

Mrs. Freeman

Ms. Gibbons

Mr. Humke

Mr. Mortenson

Mr. Neighbors

Ms. Parnell

Ms. Segerblom

Mr. Thomas

Ms. Tiffany

Ms. Von Tobel

Mr. Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer stated A.B. 374 was recommended for passage by the Committee on Government Affairs in the 69^th Session, but was presented late in the session and it became apparent an amendment was needed. The present bill included an amendment, which had the full endorsement of the Cultural Affairs Commission. It would realign language in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which previously encumbered the commission in its ability to work within the boundaries of the law. The law stated the commission could request a maximum of $2 million in bond sales for use by the commission for cultural affairs such as rehabilitation of historic buildings or it could be used to establish cultural centers. In addition the interest generated from the sale of bonds was available and would accumulate, but there was no mechanism triggering use of those funds for grants. He went on to say a little over $500,000 in interest would be available for the grants, and could be a problem because the state could be fined due to arbitrage rules and the accumulation of excess money.

Ms. Parnell questioned if funding for heating and air conditioning at the children’s museum was included. Mr. James replied among the meritorious requests was one for the children’s museum because they had been unable to purchase an adequate system and if the law did not pass, the museum would be unable to acquire their system.

Rene Ashelman, Chairman of the Cultural Affairs Commission stated the money would go to the museum if the bill passed. Obviously the commission did not want to pay arbitrage fines in the magnitude of $60,000. Additionally the way money was parceled out delay was extremely expensive for the recipient. Should the project be delayed, it would cost the state more to accomplish the same task.

Bob Ostrovsky a member of the Commission for Cultural Affairs stated he supported the legislation. The only comment he had was those agencies and groups receiving the additional $500,000 were much in need of the funding. The commission was very careful in its selection process enabling the decrease in funding from $7 million in requests down to the $2.5 million. He wanted to assure the committee all the money would be used for restoration of historic buildings and to further the use of those buildings for cultural affairs around the state. It was a very valuable service to the citizens and children of the state and long after everyone in the room had retired it would be a legacy for the children.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if the museums could receive money from the cultural affairs funding used for the hotels. Mr. James responded in 1991 when legislation passed creating the Commission for Cultural Affairs there was language saying bonds could be sold for the rehabilitation of historic structures and for programmatic uses of those buildings. It was ultimately challenged by bond council and taken to the Supreme Court who sided with bond council, so the concept of using bonds for programmatic purposes was thrown out. Their interpretation was things could be bought such as permanent display cases; however, no one could be hired to put items into the display cases because that was programmatic. The philosophy was future Nevadans should not be burdened with current programs. There was a need for programmatic funding for all grant recipients to get the buildings up and running, but subsidies for programs within the Arts Council, the Nevada Communities Committee and several other organizations tried to fill those needs.

Suzie Meenan, Executive Director of the children’s museum stated the museum was in full support of the bill. The children suffered from the cold in the winter and heat in the summer. She added the historic civic auditorium had been completely renovated so all floors could be used and the handicapped accessible elevator was operational. With the help of the Commission for Cultural Affairs the entire lower level was being renovated so programs could be held and the museum could become totally self-sustaining.

President of the Museum Board of Directors Jenna Link and one of the members of the board Lisa Marie Lightfoot were also in support of the bill.

Ms. Parnell wanted to publicly thank all of people at the museum, as she knew it was a challenge. The children’s museum had some past low points but everyone involved with the museum fought to keep it open and should be congratulated.

Mary Walker testified she was representing Carson City, Lyon, and Douglas counties all supported the bill. The cultural affairs funding, had been extremely important and often times the only renovation funding available and without it the state would have lost some of its very valuable assets. She stressed the entire redevelopment of the downtown area of Carson City was based on the historic renovation of Carson City.

Kay Bennett, Carson City Supervisor, just wanted to echo Ms. Parnell’s remarks as to the tenacity of the people dedicated to the children’s museum and historic preservation throughout the state. In talking with many visitors to Carson City the one item that was stated over and over was how much historic preservation was appreciated throughout the state.

Michael Hillerby, Arts and Cultural Manager with the city of Reno, said the city strongly supported A.B. 374. Reno was in the process of refurbishing the 90 year old McKinley Park School, which was to become the city’s arts and cultural community center. His office would be staffing the center with a programming budget of approximately $700,000. He pointed out the city was in favor of expedience in passing the bill. Reno was in a unique position as the contractor, Kenneth Raymond, donated over $30,000 in construction and time. The additional funding would allow the city to keep the contractor on the job so the building could be fully operational and occupied by the first of July.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if there was a list of who was receiving the $500,000. Mr. Hillerby replied there was, and he would leave a copy of the breakdown on who was funded from the $2 million and those funded from the $500,000 with the secretary to copy and distribute to the members (Exhibit C).

Mrs. Freeman pointed out for those not familiar with the downtown area of Reno the McKinley school was down by the river in the area of the Lear Theater and the old Christian Science Church which were also being refurbished. She felt it was another step closer to revitalization of the downtown area with the addition of the center.

Chairman Bache asked if a timeline was needed for the school project. Mr. Hillerby responded the issue was on the city council agenda for March 23, 1999, and hopefully the $350,000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be approved. The project was also approved for a $135,928 grant from the Commission for Cultural Affairs which when pooled with other funding would allow completion of the job.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 374.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Al Kramer, Carson City Treasurer stated he was on the Legislative Committee for the County Fiscal Officers Association and the bill resulted from meetings with city treasurers throughout the state. He pointed out it was basically a house cleaning bill, but one important item was the ability to deposit funds into banks and savings and loan institutions in the same manner as the state treasurer. Basically the language in NRS was copied by the counties and when reviewed by the state treasurer it was determined the language was archaic. The counties also decided they were not comfortable with bank accounts being collateralized by first mortgages and first deeds of trust and submitted an amendment to fix the problem (Exhibit D).

Mr. Kramer added the first section of the bill dealt with collateralization of deposits in savings and loan institutions. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) covered the first $100,000 of the deposit and other federal insurance may cover another $150,000, but if more was on deposit, should the bank fail any additional money on deposit was lost. Most treasurers asked for collatoralization of any amount over $250,000 which was the main thrust of the first section of the bill. Section 3 was the requested deletion dealing with first deeds of trust and mortgages. The next several sections addressed the action of allowing counties to deposit money into credit unions. There was a bill S.B. 39 coming from the Senate allowing counties and cities to invest in credit unions, so he wanted the committee to be aware those sections in the bill may become a moot point.

Mr. Kramer went on to say, there were several places requested in the bill, changing "quarterly installments" to "installments." Many times a person came into the office stating taxes were paid in August and were due again in October. Taxes were not collected quarterly but on the third Monday in August, the first Monday of October, January and March with the next tax bill not due again until the following August. He pointed out the change in section 18 was due to the fact they were required to take a certificate on a property when it became delinquent after the fourth quarter. Some counties filed each certificate against a parcel, some counties filed a certificate having information on all the parcels, while some counties did not file a certificate but notified title companies in other ways. The change was requested to standardize the certificates. It should greatly reduce the work for the treasurers, recorders, and title companies so when a property was recorded a lien against a property was not discovered which could delay completion of a sale. There would not be any fiscal impact but would provide protection and clarification allowing investment in credit unions. He added, many times a credit union was the only financial institution in a rural county.

Chairman Bache indicated a short break would be taken in order to look over documents passed out for the work session. He indicated there was also an amendment for A.B. 227, dealing with group health insurance. Mrs. Shipmen with the City of Reno worked with Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, in correcting technical difficulties, and if there were no objections he would take it to the floor.

Chairman Bache said the committee would take a short break while the information for the work session was distributed. The committee broke at 8:45 a.m. and reconvened at 9:03 a.m.

Chairman Bache stated the first bill under consideration was A.B. 26 Mr. Neighbors’ bill and an amendment was proposed as indicated in the work session handout (Exhibit E).

Mr. Neighbors said Nye County, because of tremendous growth in Pahrump requested the legislation. As indicated in Exhibit E, almost $500,000 was dedicated to the school district for modular buildings. Also allocated was $170,440 for school buses and a school bond passed allocating $4 million for a new school. The issue with the bill was the percentage going to the schools. He felt the amendment took care of concerns voiced by Ms. Vilardo (Nevada Taxpayers Association), Marvin Leavitt (City of Las Vegas) and John Swendseid, (a partner in Swendseid & Stern) during previous testimony.

Ms. Tiffany questioned if the bill passed and funding went directly to the county, would it go into the general fund to be built into the base budget, or would it be looked at as income to the county as she was concerned about funding being built into base budgets. Mr. Neighbors replied the county’s portion would have to be used and distributed as indicated in section 2 and also comply with federal law. Section 3 specified the funds must be used for construction and maintenance of roads, other public facilities, public services, and planning. Mr. Neighbors stressed the intent of the bill was to use funding for construction and maintenance, not salaries.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 26.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Bache questioned if Mr. Neighbors wanted to include referring it to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Neighbors responded he wished to present the bill to the full Assembly without referring it, as he felt the county should have been receiving the money all along.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

***********

Chairman Bache noted proposed amendments were submitted by Warren Hardy, representing North Las Vegas and Carole Vilardo with the Nevada Taxpayers Association and included in the work session handout (Exhibit F, section A).

Martin Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas said the city had worked with Ms. Vilardo in the preparation of the amendment and urged adoption of the amendment proposed by the Taxpayers Association.

Ms. Parnell questioned if the buy-in was still 50 percent as she did not see where it was addressed in the amendment. Mr. Leavitt said the general assessment district law, which became a part of the general provision was more stringent than federal law. The requirement of 50 percent of residents would still apply under the general provision so the minority could not dictate to the majority.

Ms. Parnell said she lived in an older neighborhood where there were no street- lights. If she understood correctly, if a group of people got together and decided they wanted to do some improvements in the neighborhood, if 50 percent of the people agreed to the improvements then everyone would be assessed for the beautification projects. Mr. Leavitt replied there was a hardship clause in the amendment proposed by Ms. Vilardo.

Ms. Parnell was concerned, because in the older neighborhoods needing some revitalization or beautification, it was likely the majority of residents were elderly and living on fixed incomes. She added, if she voted against the bill it would be for that reason.

Mrs. Freeman stated she had the same concern as Ms. Parnell as she too lived in an area where there were a number of senior citizens living in older homes and because of her district, she would be hesitant to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. Lee pointed out in Las Vegas many areas were without curbs or gutters but the street beautification project was not targeting that type project. The beautification project was directed at business routes, not residential streets. Previous testimony indicated it was where businesses wanted to upgrade their corridors. The curb and gutter issue was already in the statutes and asked Mr. Leavitt to clarify the bill. Mr. Leavitt stated the intent was to allow business owners who wanted to spruce up an area to do so. The improvement district would not go into residential areas encouraging beautification and Mr. Lee was correct in stating the curb and gutter issue was already in statute. Mr. Lee pointed out the bill was not asking for special assessments from homeowners

Mrs. Freeman thanked Mr. Leavitt and Mr. Lee for clarifying the program. Several years ago a tax assessment for upgrading sidewalks was made by the city of Reno of which no one was aware until a bill was received and that was her concern.

Mr. Mortensen asked if the bill expressly forbade applying it to residential areas. Mr. Leavitt replied it did not expressly forbid it, but residential neighborhoods would not be considered unless there was unanimous support. The intent of the bill was to extend cities the same provisions in the law since 1960 as counties and had been used by Clark County to beautify the Las Vegas strip area. It was not intended for use in an area without full agreement of property owners.

Ms. Parnell declared she had no problem with the commercial areas, she would feel more comfortable if the legislation specified commercial property rather than leaving it open.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Leavitt if there was a problem in adding "non-residential" on section 2 line 4 after "any street." Mr. Leavitt replied he had no problem as it was the intent however, he did not know how it would affect counties because that language was already in the law.

Ms. Von Tobel related many residential areas had street beautification paid by assessments to residents and questioned if it would prohibit developers from putting in street beautification around developments. Mr. Leavitt mentioned there had been situations where street beautification in new developments was paid in various ways, which did not seem to be available in some of the older areas. He felt if the program was limited to commercial areas, it might curtail the ability of beautification to older neighborhoods.

Ms. Von Tobel said she understood potential programs were placed before a city council and at that time a petition by residents could be submitted if there was a great deal of opposition. Mr. Leavitt pointed out there were always extensive hearings held for changes in special assessment districts, so property owners had sufficient opportunity to object.

Mr. Humke asked if there were 10 parcels on a street, one of which was residential and a beautification project was completed in front of the one residential property, would the other 9 parcels be assessed. Mr. Leavitt responded if there was a mix between residential and commercial it would have to be done that way and added the intent was not to amend the statute to preclude residential assessments.

Mr. Humke clarified his question, by stating if the residential lot was ensconced among 9 nine commercial properties it would be a nonconforming use, and the residence might even be zoned commercial. He felt the property owner would benefit because his property could be sold as commercial property, and would benefit from the beautification project on the street in front of his property. Mr. Leavitt pointed out the foundation of the special assessment district act was to benefit those properties in direct contact with the improvements in the district. It was not appropriate to levy a citywide property tax, which benefited only one neighborhood.

Mr. Mortensen asked if there were occasions when a city or county looked at a poor neighborhood where curbs and sidewalks were crumbling and used tax money for improvements or refused to correct the condition unless the neighbors agreed to an assessment. Mr. Leavitt replied an allocation could be made from the general fund for street, gutter, and street light projects in older neighborhoods where most residents did not have the ability to pay for them. Beautification projects went beyond ordinary street improvements or maintenance.

Chairman Bache questioned if the beautification projects on Eastern Avenue and Las Vegas Blvd. were being funded with state or local money, or TEA-21 (transportation) funds. Mr. Leavitt replied the Las Vegas Blvd. project was being done by a special levy from transportation money allocated for resort corridor improvements leading into a downtown area, connecting downtown to the Las Vegas strip. He was not certain what funding was being used for the Eastern Avenue project.

**********

Chairman Bache stated there were concerns voiced by the press association. He had spoken with Kent Lauer with the Nevada Press Association and because the bill stated meetings must be held in accordance with the open meeting law it allayed his concerns and he asked Ms. O’Grady to address the issue.

Ms. O’Grady stated NRS 244.085 stated "the board of county commissioners must meet at least once each calendar month at the county seat", but there were certain exceptions in subsection 5 stating additional meetings could be held in any place within the boundaries of the county. The clarification in subsection 6 stated if meetings were held outside the county seat but within the boundaries of the county, final action could be taken on all items except certain zoning and planning matters. Subsections 7 and 8 designated when the board could meet outside of the county.

Ms. Gibbons questioned if that meant taxes could be considered outside the county seat. Ms. O’Grady replied it was designated in statute "any matter except zoning or planning matters that relate to a different geographical area."

Mr. Neighbors pointed out most of the bill was already in current law. Meetings Nye County were held in Pahrumph, Beatty, Gabbs or anywhere in the county. The only inability was holding a meeting in Pahrumph and talking about a planning issue in Tonopah. He added school boards had been able to travel around the counties making decisions for many years.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 261.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS VOTED NO.

Karen Kavanaugh, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) testified the bill was submitted to clean up language as three justices who were in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) were added to the AOC payroll and it was the first time any justice contributed to the PERS system. As district judges the AOC paid their salaries and PERS contributions. Now that they were Supreme Court Justices, AOC believed the legislature wanted the practice continued, and the AOC was funded to continue to do so.

Ms. Von Tobel had asked for a legal opinion and had been informed it was constitutional because of the language in the bill "stating contributions made on or after January 1, 1999" so there would be no mid-term increase. She added she would be voting yes on the bill but felt because it was a budgetary issue perhaps it should be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. Kavanaugh pointed out when the 2 judges were added funding was already in the 1999 and was proposed in the budget for the next biennium.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN PARNELL MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 269.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Ms. Tiffany wanted to go on record, although she voted for the bill, state employees were not receiving raises and yet elected officials were getting more retirement. She felt the issue should be raised with Mr. Arberry, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to insure his committee was aware of the AOC budget.

Sgt. Keith Carter, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) stated he was representing both Metro and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, and stressed checking backgrounds of prospective law enforcement officers could not be overstated. He felt it was a very important process giving law enforcement the means to require employers to provide pertinent information when checking an individual’s background.

Deputy Chief Niles Carson with the Reno Police Department said his department fully supported the bill and stressed the importance of conducting thorough background investigations into prospective police office applicants. The bill allowed employers to provide information with some semblance of protection to the provider and did not mandate additional records be kept

Chairman Bache indicated there was an amendment on page 1, line 4 where the words "if available" would be added after the word "information." The intent was to notify employers they would not be required to keep new information not normally kept.

Ms. Von Tobel stated she would be voting yes on A.B. 297 but questioned if Mr. Williams’ companion bill would be considered at the same time.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 297.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Williams stated he had a hard time coming to a decision. He would prefer the bill be held, until his companion bill (A.B. 213) was considered, as he felt they were so closely related.

Mr. Humke pointed out both bills arrived separately and as A.B. 297 was on the agenda a vote should be taken. He thought the bills should be handled separately and saw no linkage of one to the other.

Mr. Williams agreed the bills arrived separately however, his bill arrived first and the agenda did list a work session on items previously considered, so any bill could be considered. He opined the one arriving first should be considered first or at least together.

Mr. Humke felt it was a discussion preferably held behind closed doors and did not need to take place in the committee meeting.

Mr. Williams replied in no way would he even consider discussing the bill except in full committee and resented the implication of even negotiating behind closed doors when it was always stressed the public should be made aware of everything happening at the legislature. He added the public’s right to know was the very reason his bill was drafted in the first place.

Mr. Humke called for the question. Mr. Williams stated that was not an appropriate motion at a committee hearing.

Chairman Bache interjected after hearing A.B. 309 if there was time, and Mr. Williams agreed, A.B. 213 could be brought up for discussion. Mr. Williams stated he was just making his feelings known to the chair, but it was the chair’s decision.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS ABSTAINING.

**********

Chairman Bache pointed out the proposed amendment was in the work session handout in section B and questioned if Ms. McKenzie would like to address the bill.

Barbara McKenzie, representing the city of Reno stated the bill was requested by the mayor and city council to clear up antiquated language in the statutes as well as issues relating to residency. In section 1 of the bill it was requested "registered voters" be changed to "population." It was brought to the city’s attention there could be a constitutional challenge in just counting registered voters rather than the entire population of a ward. Page 2 dealt with changing ward boundaries, as population information could sometimes be 6 months old. The amendment submitted by Patricia Lynch, Office of City Attorney, city of Reno had a typo, so Ms. O’Grady, Committee Counsel, submitted an additional amendment to clear up the typo in the original memo.

Another issue dealt with residency requirements. Currently the law stated the person must be a resident 6 months immediately prior to their election which meant they could move into the ward on May 3 and file for candidacy on May 4. The city wanted to parallel state requirements which was 30 days before the close of filing which meant the candidate must be a resident 30 days prior to May 18. She pointed out in the last section the language requiring a judge to be a qualified elector had somehow been changed over the years and required the person only be a resident and that language was being reinserted.

The city was also requesting repeal of two sections. As there were no meetings held within 6 hours due to the new open meeting laws the provision should be removed. The other section dealt with removing license plates by police officers when someone was arrested. It was not only antiquated but unconstitutional.

Mrs. Freeman advised she would be voting against the bill. She did not like the way general elections involving the entire city rather than by ward was addressed, or the 30 day residency requirement. Mr. Humke said with the amendments he would vote for the bill and reminded his colleague elections were held by ward in the primary and citywide in the general election and were brought about by an initiative petition passed by Reno residents.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if 30 days was sufficient time to establish residency in a ward, often times people waited to see who filed and then jumped around moving into a ward to qualify. Ms. McKenzie replied it was her understanding from the clerk’s office, the proposal was to align county and city requirements to be consistent with state residency requirements.

Mrs. Segerblom pointed out other cities had longer than 30 days. Ms. McKenzie replied some cities had as long as 2-years, the cities of Las Vegas and Sparks had 30 days, North Las Vegas had 6 months, so charter cities were anywhere from 30 days to 2 years, depending on the desire of a particular city.

Ms. Parnell pondered how the 30-day requirement actually had them living in an area longer than the six-month period. Ms. McKenzie responded the present charter stated a person must be a resident 6-months immediately preceding an election, consequently a candidate would need to be a resident 6 months prior to November 3 or starting residency on May 3. Filing for election opened up statewide on May 4 and the timeline for the state was followed by the city which meant a person could move into a district on May 3 and file for office on May 4 for the November election. Ms. Parnell interjected the 30 days would then be prior to actually filing. Ms. McKenzie said that was correct.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 309.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED, ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN VOTED NO.

**********

Mr. Williams requested the chairman to take discussion and consideration of A.B. 213.

Mr. Williams said since in the previous vote on disclosure, nondisclosure and the right of the public to know had received a favorable vote, he felt it was time to consider A.B. 213. He was tired of the largest newspaper located in his district calling him to find out when votes were going to be taken and wished to have the matter settled, so he would make a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 213.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Williams stated he would like to remind committee members of his remarks during the previous hearing on the bill, which was as a public employee himself he believed his medical records and those of his family should be private as well as evaluations in his personnel records. But if a public employee was involved in an action affecting safety of employees in a public setting, he thought the public had a right to know.

Ms. Segerblom asked if an investigation showed there was no cause for disciplinary action would there still be a record. Mr. Williams replied if an employee was involved in an investigation and it was proven no wrong was committed, he felt the employee would be the first one to want it known the original charges were dropped.

Ms. Segerblom said she was thinking more on the lines if the original investigation was not public to begin with and no one was aware it was even occurring. Mr. Williams pointed out if the public was not aware of the investigation in the beginning any determination made in conjunction with a hearing, would never become public anyway.

Ms. Berman questioned if someone was being investigated and the investigation proved non-fruitful would someone have the ability to pull up and publish such information in a newspaper. Mr. Williams responded the record would only involve the particular incident under investigation.

Ms. Berman queried if it was possible to amend the bill so if a person was found not guilty their records would not be open for public viewing.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Berman if she was amending the main motion of "do pass?"

Ms. Berman said she would not be able to support the bill, because if someone was not guilty there should never be a public record where there was exposure to having it printed in the newspaper.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Williams why it was targeting employees in the executive branch of government and not a municipality, as Mr. Williams was employed by a municipality. Mr. Williams replied, it was his understanding the bill drafter would place language in the bill covering municipal employees. Since that had not occurred, as sponsor of the bill if the committee wanted other municipalities included he had no problem.

Mr. Humke stated he had a potential conflict because he worked for the University System of Nevada and he was not sure how he would be affected, but as he believed he would not be affected one way or the other he would vote on the bill. He added he did not believe the amendment suggested by Ms. Berman was workable because in a personnel action where there was an investigation, rarely or never did a supervisor make a finding of "not guilty." As he recalled from testimony the highway patrol association representing state employees who would be covered by the bill said it was rather unworkable for law enforcement personnel. Personnel investigations often spilled over into other law enforcement investigations and vice versa. Obviously people involved in law enforcement investigations needed to be able to work behind the scenes to a certain point until a case was determined to have probable cause. He thought A.B. 213 would have a tendency to open such law enforcement investigations to public scrutiny because it would open personnel records after an officer’s investigation was concluded.

Mr. Williams responded he remembered Mr. Wolff’s (NHP) testimony precisely, as it dealt with the issue and his concern about ongoing inquiries. In A.B. 213 on line 10, subsection 2 it stated, "Upon completion." The language prohibited personnel matters from becoming public information because the bill only addressed the investigation part.

Mr. Humke stated, subsection 2 clearly referred to subsection 1 which dealt with "Information that is obtained during the course of an internal investigation of the conduct of an officer or employee …" That language did not mean a law enforcement investigation was finished whereas the personnel investigation of the officer could be finished. He added Mr. Wolff also suggested the bill could jeopardized some law enforcement investigations, because when a personnel investigation was concluded on an NHP officer, a newspaper could run anything even the entire contents of the file.

Mr. Williams said it was possible, but only in the case of a law enforcement officer, which gave credence to why a type of review board was needed in police investigations. That would only occur if the NHP was investigating one of their own and then the investigation would be conducted differently. The reason subsection 2 came after subsection 1, and made referral to section 1 was to clearly explain it would only occur after completion. Law enforcement had no obligation by law to include private personnel matters into the result of an investigation. He stated he was the last one to say privacy rights should be invaded, but in cases where information protecting the public was available, the public good must be considered first.

Mr. Humke said in bringing up police review boards there was an implication of civilian police review boards, and he would be happy to discuss the concept either before the Committee on Government Affairs, or another committee. However, he felt the issue was extraneous to the present discussion as past legislatures had not seen fit to mandate civilian review boards of state law enforcement.

Mr. Williams stressed review boards had been mandated where necessary and appropriate. He recalled the NHP never said they did not need the bill. When officers did something affecting public safety the incident should be made available to the public assuring no future damage occurred regarding safety to the public. He concluded by saying the legislation was requested for the public good and those falsely accused.

Chairman Bache pointed out the original genesis of the bill was an unfortunate situation at the University of Nevada Las Vegas regarding the athletic director and his conduct. While he felt it was mishandled he did not believe the proposed legislation was an appropriate response. The proposed legislation would differentiate public employees from private sector employees. When a private employee was investigated, by his employer for something there was no public record available whereas it would be for state employees, creating two classes of employees.

Mr. Williams said to clarify the record, he at no time referred to any particular incident. The incident, he believed was brought up by Mr. Lowery with the press association. He stressed it came up in later conversations but he never wanted the bill to be attached to a particular incident.

Chairman Bache stated he apologized if he had misunderstood previous testimony.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: