The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, April 2, 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.

Simultaneous videoconferencing of the meeting was provided to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Pete Backstadt, a private citizen

Mike Grossi, a private citizen

Dan Musgrove, representing Office of Intergovernmental Relations and

John Rhodes, City Councilman, city of North Las Vegas

Stephanie Smith, City Councilwoman, city of North Las Vegas

William E. Robinson, City Councilman, city of North Las Vegas

Paula Brown, City Councilwoman, city of North Las Vegas

David Peacock, a private citizen

Paul L. Moffat, a private citizen

Dorothy Walker, a private citizen

Robert Eliason, a private citizen

Mary A. Dutchover, a private citizen

Linda Hinson, a private citizen

Joanna Wesley, a private citizen

Chairman Bache informed the committee he received a letter from Assemblyman Bernie Anderson (Exhibit C). In his letter, Mr. Anderson advised he had spoken with the parties involved with A.B. 277. Those parties were unable to reach a consensus of opinion regarding the bill and recommended it be withdrawn.

Chairman Bache announced he would accept a motion to accept withdrawal of A.B. 277.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Assembly District 40, testified. She informed the committee A.B. 539 amended Carson City’s city charter in three respects. She pointed out page 1 of A.B. 539 discussed the nomination, appointment, terms, qualifications, and compensation (of members of the city’s charter committee). The bill also addressed the mayor’s salary and whether city officials would be allowed to engage in any other business or occupation, which they would not be permitted to do without approval of the board of supervisors.

Ray Masayko, Mayor, Carson City, Nevada, testified. He explained prior to the beginning of each legislative session, Carson City impaneled a charter review committee to review the city charter and recommend any changes it believed should be made to the city’s board of supervisors. In 1998, the charter review committee submitted recommendations to Carson City’s board of supervisors. Those recommendations were discussed and debated at a public meeting, and the will of the board of supervisors was reflected in A.B. 539.

John Berkich, City Manager, Carson City, Nevada, indicated he had nothing to add to previous testimony; however, he would answer any questions the committee might wish to ask.

Shelly N. Aldean, Vice Chairwoman, Carson City Charter Review Committee, indicated she, too, had nothing to add to previous testimony but was available to answer questions.

There were no questions of either Mr. Berkich or Ms. Aldean.

Pete Backstadt, a private citizen, testified, saying only that he supported A.B. 539, specifically the provisions of section 2.

Mike Grossi, a private citizen, testified. He stated section 5.060 of Carson City’s city charter read: "An ordinance of charter amendment to be voted on in Carson City shall be presented for voting by ballot title. The ballot title of a measure may differ from its legal title and should be a clear, concise statement describing the substance of the measure without argument or prejudice. Below the ballot title shall appear the following question, ‘Shall the above-described ordinance, amendment, be adopted.’ The ballot or voting machine or device shall be so marked as to indicate clearly in what manner the voter may cast his vote either for or against the ordinance or amendment."

Mr. Grossi asserted the charter changes proposed through A.B. 539 were neither brought to the attention of the public nor placed on a ballot. He declared he did not oppose formation of the committee discussed in the bill, and he did not oppose the mayor’s salary being increased. However, he did object to permitting elected officials to hold additional jobs. He contended A.B. 539 opened the door for elected officials to work at any job they chose while collecting a salary from the public.

Mr. Grossi stated he was also concerned about election procedures which subjected individuals who ran for nonpartisan offices to elimination. He maintained the names of individuals who ran for nonpartisan offices should appear on the general election ballot rather than the primary election ballot. Because a general election ballot was designed for political parties, individuals running for nonpartisan offices should not run in a primary election but be allowed to run in the general election. Allowing such individuals to run in the general election would provide voters a broader choice of candidates.

Mr. Grossi provided the committee with copies of Carson City’s city charter (Exhibit D).

Mr. Berkich testified in response to Mr. Grossi’s testimony. He said both the city and the district attorney’s office interpreted the city charter provision Mr. Grossi cited as optional. That provision did not mandate all changes to the city charter must be approved by the voters, which was the reason Carson City approached the legislature for changes to its city charter, as did every other city in Nevada.

Assemblyman Mortenson said Mr. Grossi objected to the fact elections to partisan offices were not held in the general election and asked whether Mr. Berkich could address Mr. Grossi’s objections. Mr. Berkich replied in Carson City, as in most other communities, the offices of members of the board of supervisors and those of other elected officials were nonpartisan offices. Mr. Grossi objected to the fact candidates for nonpartisan offices competed in the primary election, which was the way the election process was established. He explained in a nonpartisan race, candidates competed in the primary election, and those two candidates for an office who received the most votes went on to compete in the general election. However, if one candidate received more than a plurality of the total votes in a primary election, the election process was over because all of the candidates were nonpartisan.

Ms. Aldean testified. She said public notice of the meetings of the charter review committee was given, and the committee encouraged and solicited input from members of the general public. The committee’s members represented a fairly broad cross-section of the community, and she believed they all did a commendable job. If additional issues required consideration, the charter review committee would be happy to consider those in 2 years.

Mr. Berkich interjected the election issue was hotly debated at meetings of the charter review committee; however, no changes to the city charter with respect to the election procedure were proposed and approved by Carson City’s board of supervisors.

Assemblywoman Segerblom referred to section 2 of A.B. 539 and asked whether Carson City’s pound sold animals for medical purposes. Mr. Berkich replied it did not.

Assemblywoman Gibbons said there was testimony the charter review committee held public hearings and requested input from the general public regarding the fact a candidate in a nonpartisan race who received more 50 percent of the vote in a primary election won the election at that point. She asked whether her understanding of the testimony was correct.

Ms. Aldean replied for several years, some residents of Carson City had been proponents of holding primary elections in individual wards, rather than throughout the community. If that was done, a process of elimination would occur, at ward level, during a primary election, and those candidates who survived the primary would move forward as candidates in the general election. Initiating such an election process was discussed, at the level of the charter review committee, and the issue was presented to the board of supervisors. The issue was hotly debated, testimony was offered both in support of and opposition to such an election process, and the board of supervisors elected not to change the current process.

Mayor Masayko gave further testimony. He said, "If we had elections out of the wards, that would mean that only the voters in that ward would choose those candidates. It would not be at-large election so that all of the electorate in Carson City could not vote." He asserted holding elections by wards would preclude any candidate in a primary election from receiving more than 50 percent of the vote and, thereby, being elected in the primary. It would ensure no fewer than two candidates would have to run in the general election. However, because Carson City lacked either large geographical areas or large demographic differences, it was felt the process of at-large election was satisfactory, at least until the demographic results of the 2000 census were obtained.

Ms. Aldean offered a correction to her previous testimony. She said she referred to a process of "election by ward;" instead, the process to which she referred would entail nomination by ward and election in a general election.

Mr. Grossi gave further testimony. He said he believed the discussion of wards was somewhat distorted. He pointed out in reference to applicability of state election laws, section 5.030 of Carson City’s city charter said all elections held under the charter were governed by the state’s election laws, insofar as those laws could be made applicable and were not inconsistent with the city charter. He contended that language said the city charter superceded state law.

Mr. Grossi said one individual who ran in a Carson City primary election received 5,648 votes, which equated to 38.4 percent of the votes cast by registered voters who voted in the general election. Therefore, 6.6 percent of Carson City’s voters were disenfranchised.

Mr. Grossi stated everyone wanted to say they believed the proposed amendment to the city charter reflected what both the charter review board and the board of supervisors wanted. He had observed some of "their" meetings. Their position was firmly established, and they did not listen to the public. He asserted the proposed charter amendment should be submitted to a public vote.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 539.

Dan Musgrove, Office of Intergovernmental Relations and Policy Research, city of Las Vegas, testified. He stated A.B. 637 was the result of an affirmative vote by Las Vegas’ city council and mayor to make various changes to Las Vegas’ city charter. Section 1 of the bill merely affected a simple change in statutory language. Section 2 contained the actual proposed changes to the city charter. Essentially, the request being made was to remove the position of city auditor from the authority of the city manager and place that position under the authority of the city council. Section 2, subsection 2, established the city auditor would report directly to either the city council or a committee designated by the city council. It was believed that provision would provide the city auditor with independence. It would remove him from the control of the city manager and cause him to report directly to elected officials of the city.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether the mayor would appoint the city auditor. Mr. Musgrove replied the mayor and city council, jointly, would appoint the city auditor.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 637.

John Rhodes, City Councilman, city of North Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 590. He said currently, North Las Vegas utilized an election process he referred to as "the incumbent protection act." That process had been utilized since North Las Vegas first received its city charter, in 1946, at which time the city had a population of approximately 2,300. What A.B. 590 would accomplish with respect to the city’s electoral process was provide incumbents and challengers an equal opportunity to compete for election to seats on the city council. The bill would also establish consistency in the election process, with regard to the process through which the mayor was elected, and lessen confusion for voters.

Councilman Rhodes stated A.B. 590 would eliminate the 2-person/2-vote system, which provided a voter the opportunity to vote for two people. That system sometimes resulted in what was referred to as "the single-shot process," in which groups of voters conspired to empower their votes by voting for only one person; that occurred frequently in North Las Vegas. The existing election process gave a voter the opportunity to skew the vote by voting for only one individual and, thereby, invest his vote with more power.

Councilman Rhodes referred the length of incumbency of some of North Las Vegas’ city officials and pointed out the last mayor served for 22 consecutive years. Two city council members served more than 20 years on the city council, and one current city council member had, thus far, served 16 years.

Councilman Rhodes said he wished to discuss why North Las Vegas did not utilize an election process based on districts. He said three of his colleagues on the city council lived in close proximity, within approximately 3 blocks, to one another, which raised the issue of voter representation.

Councilman Rhodes submitted a document entitled "Legislative Commission Staff Study of City Charters in Nevada," which he referred to as a "model" (Exhibit E). He said the model discussed the differences between an at-large system, a single-member district, and a mixed system (election method).

Councilman Rhodes submitted a one-page document entitled "Elected and Appointed Officers in Nevada’s Charter Cities" (Exhibit F). He said no city in Nevada with a population of more than 100,000 utilized an at-large voting system. He pointed out the population of North Las Vegas had reached 100,000.

Councilman Rhodes said the model (Exhibit E) essentially stated an at-large election method was generally viewed as allowing citizens to chose those council members best qualified to represent their city as a whole. Although, technically, that currently occurred in North Las Vegas, the city was arriving at a point where certain parts of the community were very under-represented. He pointed out the model (Exhibit E) discussed voting districts and what they accomplished and discussed the fact voting districts provided citizens the ability to feel close to their elected representatives, whom they could hold accountable for what occurred in a particular area. He asserted his colleagues on the city council would not support the establishment of districts because of the close proximity of their residences.

Councilman Rhodes explained the election system called the "mixed system" was a combination of the at-large and district systems. Currently, two municipalities utilized the mixed system.

Councilman Rhodes declared the goal of A.B. 590 was to establish consistency. Under its provisions, council members were not required to run against one another, which would create accountability and provide incumbents a more equitable opportunity to compete with other incumbents for reelection.

Councilman Rhodes submitted a document he described as a verbatim transcript of remarks made by some of his colleagues on the city council during a debate held about changing North Las Vegas election process (Exhibit G). He quoted Councilman Robinson as having said, "Although this system may be a bit skewed, I don’t think that it’s totally broke and don’t need to be fixed the way you and my counterparts want to fix it." He quoted Councilwoman Smith as having said, "When you’re the incumbent, yes people attack you, and you have a whole slate of people." He paraphrased the remainder of Councilwoman Smith’s remark as follows: "I’m running against the other person, and of course you’re all in the same pile so you can’t prove it, but I know within this system, and way it is with this two votes is a little confusing, but at least it forces us to stay with the issues." He quoted Councilwoman Brown as having said, "I partly agree with Councilman Rhodes, but I think that it would confuse the constituency because there would be too many people in a race running for just one vote process as opposed to other cities."

Councilman Rhodes stated, "When we ran in the 1997 election process, there was one open seat because at that time Councilwoman Mary Kincaid had won the commission seat so that means that we had to have a special election. The two seats, which were my seat and Councilman Goins’ seat, were up for election, which in account we had to have the special election. There were three different council seats, one for the 2-year seat, and then two for the 4-year seat. Well, Councilwoman Brown, who was vying for the 2-way seat won with 60 percent of the vote, and I won, and Councilwoman Smith won with the percentage of the vote, with the majority vote." His point was the council members’ constituencies were comprised of intelligent people, whom the council members did not take for granted with respect to their ability to distinguish among council seats and among candidates when determining for whom they wished to vote.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether it was Councilman Rhodes’ testimony a voter in a North Las Vegas’s election could not vote for only one candidate. Councilman Rhodes replied a voter could vote for only one candidate. By doing so, a voter made his vote " . . . worth more than just a one-man or one-woman vote."

Ms. Segerblom remarked based on Councilman Rhodes’ initial testimony, it appeared A.B. 590 would change North Las Vegas’ election process in such a way that a voter’s ballot would not count if he voted for only one candidate. Councilman Rhodes responded A.B. 590 would change the election process to allow a voter to vote for one, and only one, candidate, as opposed to providing a voter the opportunity to vote for two candidates but allowing him to elect to vote for only one. Currently, North Las Vegas’ voters could vote for two candidates but frequently voted for only one. A.B. 590 would establish a system in which a voter could vote for one candidate, and only one, in a race for one council seat and could also vote for one candidate, and only one, in the race for a different council seat.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether all voters would be able to vote for candidates for each open seat on the city council. Councilman Rhodes responded, "What it does is it splits the two incumbents so, that way, they’re not running against one another. So, when I’m a voter, I can vote for this person over here, and I can vote for this person over there. Currently, they’re combined, and I have the opportunity to check two people on the same ballot. So, what this does is it alleviates that."

Ms. Gibbons asked whether the composition of North Las Vegas’ city council reflected the community. Councilman Rhodes replied ethnically, it did. He explained the election process A.B. 590 established created greater accountability, while continuing to allow members of minority groups an opportunity to win elections in North Las Vegas. He contended it was a much more equitable process than the one currently utilized.

Mr. Lee pointed out presenting a bill to the legislature opened the section of law addressed by that bill to legislative action, and the legislature could then make changes to that section of law which proponents of the bill might not like. He asserted Councilman Rhodes’ testimony that three of North Las Vegas’ city councilmen lived in close proximity to one another came close to establishing a case for creation of a ward system. He said in the near future, the population of North Las Vegas would reach 150,000, and there might a better solution for the city’s future than that proposed through A.B. 590. Councilman Rhodes responded he had no problem with the creation of wards in North Las Vegas.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether she was correct that pursuant to Councilman Rhodes’ testimony, if she was a voter in North Las Vegas, and there was a full slate of perhaps 13 or 15 candidates for 2 open seats on the city council, she would be able to cast 2 votes. Councilman Rhodes replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany observed, "Yet, there’s two incumbents on there." She said it appeared to her that situation eliminated any opportunity for challengers. Councilman Rhodes concurred.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether she was correct the race for the office of mayor differed from the race for office of city councilman. Councilman Rhodes replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany asked what constituted the difference between the two races. Councilman Rhodes replied there might be 10 or 12 candidates for the office of mayor, and a voter could vote for only 1 of those candidates in the primary. The two candidates who received the most votes then competed in the general election. A.B. 590 would establish an identical process for election of city council members.

Ms. Tiffany indicated the procedure utilized to elect a mayor in North Las Vegas was similar to the process utilized in the city of Henderson. In Henderson, unless one candidate received at least 51 percent of the vote in the primary, the two candidates who received the most votes proceeded to compete in the general election. She asked whether she was correct the race for mayor of North Las Vegas employed that procedure, but the race for seats on the city council did not. Councilman Rhodes replied affirmatively.

Ms. Tiffany said she perceived three compelling arguments in support of the election procedure established by A.B. 590. That procedure gave challengers greater opportunity to win election than they now had. It made the election process more consistent by causing the race for mayor and the race for councilman to be conducted in like manner. In addition, she said, " . . . when you’ve got three incumbents sitting within a couple blocks from each other, that gives me a lot of pause too."

Ms. Gibbons said she made a notation the city of North Las Vegas was opposed to A.B. 590 but could not recall why she made that notation. She asked if Councilman Rhodes could explain why the city opposed the bill. Councilman Rhodes replied the city council voted against the measure contained in A.B. 590 by a vote of 3 to 2.

Mr. Williams said one portion of Councilman Rhodes’ testimony was unclear to him and asked for confirmation with respect to a race for a seat on North Las Vegas’ city council, a voter could use his ballot to vote for two candidates. Councilman Rhodes replied affirmatively.

Mr. Williams said he assumed some people in North Las Vegas were unaware they could vote for two candidates and, therefore, might vote for only one. He asked whether there was any record of that happening. Mr. Rhodes replied although it could not be documented, that did happen.

Mr. Williams asked whether it was common knowledge that occurred. Mr. Rhodes replied it was, and that circumstance was referred to as the "single-shot process." He said it occurred frequently, both intentionally and unintentionally.

Mr. Williams observed from what he had heard thus far, A.B. 590 would institute progress toward establishing an election system which provided a challenger a more equal footing with an incumbent than he currently had. Councilman Rhodes responded Mr. Williams’ observation was correct.

Mr. Williams asked whether citizens of North Las Vegas presented anything to the city council which indicated they supported the proposal represented by A.B. 590. Councilman Rhodes replied, "I have had the ballot going around. Also, 4 years ago, there was a ballot issue for districts, which narrowly lost in regards to the districting perspective. This has been a modification of the districting in order to allow equity among challengers." Mr. Rhodes indicated there was a great difference between being a challenger and being an incumbent with respect to the amount of money received in campaign contributions.

Mr. Williams commented the committee was often told it should stay out of local government’s business. However, the situation addressed by A.B. 590 was an indication of why Nevada had a committee such as the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs to deal with the business of local government. It appeared to him that situation constituted one of those instances in which the committee should ignore the suggestion it refrain from interfering with the business of local government and deal the issue before it. He believed the proposal Councilman Rhodes presented through A.B. 590 tended to provide equity for citizens of North Las Vegas, and the committee should work toward resolving the issue addressed by the bill during the current legislative session.

Mr. Neighbors pointed out the proposal represented by A.B. 590 was debated before North Las Vegas’ city council in December 1998 and was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2, with the mayor and two councilman voting against it. The manner in which the council dealt with the proposal represented the democratic process at work, and he was reluctant to override that process. He stated the issue addressed by A.B. 590 appeared to be a very important one. He asked Councilman Rhodes why he did not place that issue before the voters of North Las Vegas as a ballot question and allow the voters to decide the matter. Councilman Rhodes responded the mayor voted to support the proposal and was one of the two council members who voted in favor of the proposal, rather than one of the three who voted against it.

Mr. Neighbors restated his question, asking whether Councilman Rhodes would oppose placing the proposal on the ballot in the form of an advisory question. Councilman Rhodes replied he supposed that could be done; however, " . . . we couldn’t get it on the ballot in time, at this particular point, for it to be positioned – or to take a position by the population . . .."

Ms. Von Tobel stated there appeared to be some confusion. The committee had before it a letter (Exhibit H) which said, "We, the mayor and members of the North Las Vegas City Council, wish to express our opposition to the passage of A.B. 590," and that letter was signed by the mayor. Therefore, the committee assumed the mayor opposed A.B. 590.

Ms. Von Tobel said she believed the handout submitted by Councilman Rhodes (Exhibit F) supported Mr. Lee’s suggestion about creating wards. She observed the city of Sparks had a population of 51,660, and its councilmen were elected by ward. She pointed out North Las Vegas had twice the population of Sparks and asked whether Councilman Rhodes had any opinion about how long it would be before North Las Vegas converted to an election process based on individual wards and whether he had considered that process as an option.

Councilman Rhodes replied that option was considered. He asserted there were two compelling arguments against establishing wards in North Las Vegas at the present time. One was " . . . technically, the residences of my three incumbents in regards to where they reside. The second one is, at this point, even though the population is over 100,000 population, there’s only 32,000, which means at this point, for every council member, we’d only be representing about 8,000 people, which I think – you know, the city of Las Vegas, which has 450,000, their districts are approximately 130,000 to 150,000 people . . . so, technically, on an equal basis, the city of Las Vegas is still bigger – I mean by ward system – than ours."

Ms. Von Tobel suggested Councilman Rhodes might wish to confer with representatives of the city of Sparks. She pointed out Sparks had five councilmen, who were elected by ward, and its population was 51,660.

Ms. Tiffany asked whether Chairman Bache or any member of the committee who had been a member for a long period of time had seen the legislature reconfigure a voting system, rather than allow voters or a city council to decide whether to reconfigure that system. She asked how such reconfiguration was traditionally accomplished if, in fact, it was accomplished.

Chairman Bache said he could respond only with respect to his five terms as an assemblyman, but he did not believe the legislature ever changed configuration of a voting system absent some form of request by a council to do so. However, in the past, he and Mr. Williams supported a proposal to increase the number of seats on the Las Vegas City Council from four to six, which was similar to, although not precisely the same thing, as reconfiguring a voting system. Las Vegas City Council did not support that proposal; however, Mr. Williams and he believed citizens of Las Vegas were not receiving adequate representation.

Ms. Tiffany referred to Councilman Rhodes’ statement if North Las Vegas was divided into wards, each councilman would represent only 8,000 people. She pointed out Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, as a state legislator, represented only 6,500 people. She said she believed a city council was the governing body intended to be closest to citizens and believed it compelling to consider creating wards in North Las Vegas.

Ms. Tiffany stated she believed a situation in which three council members lived in close proximity to one another created a vested interest in protecting incumbency as opposed to providing representation for citizens. She was uncertain whether it was appropriate to submit the question of whether a voting system should or should not be reconfigured to a vote of the people. That question had been placed before the legislature, and the legislature must determine whether reconfiguration was appropriate and, if so, should be accomplished by the legislature. She said she did not believe it could be accomplished by a city council.

Ms. Von Tobel said she wished to clarify something. She pointed out if a ward system was established in North Las Vegas, the mayor would continue to run for election at-large, and based on the city’s population of 100,000, each of its five city council members would represent 20,000 constituents, not 8,000.

Councilman Rhodes explained because the mayor ran at-large, he would not figure into the calculation of how many constituents each councilman represented. North Las Vegas’ population of 100,000 would be divided among the remaining four council members.

Ms. Von Tobel said in that case, each of the four remaining council members would represent 25,000 constituents rather than 8,000. Councilman Rhodes replied his calculation was based on the number of registered voters in North Las Vegas.

Ms. Von Tobel asserted each of the four remaining council members would represent 25,000 residents. Councilman Rhodes concurred.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, testified. He stated he supported A.B. 590 as one means to bring progress to the city of North Las Vegas. He reiterated Councilman Rhodes’ testimony wards would not be appropriate at the present time because three of the city’s current council members lived in close proximity to one another. However, based on the city’s rate of growth, wards were something the city should consider.

Mr. Collins asked the committee members to consider what it would be like to run for their assembly seats statewide, at-large, when most residents of Nevada lived in Clark County; that situation was similar to what presently occurred in North Las Vegas.

Mr. Collins maintained the public did not challenge good incumbents. The problem in North Las Vegas arose from the fact there were " . . . two people running or two seats that are open that are at the common vote." Therefore, in the case of councilman Rhodes, when he ran for reelection with another incumbent councilman, a challenger had no opportunity to specifically challenge one or the other of the incumbent candidates. A lot of "one-shot" voting occurred, which resulted in many votes in support of a single candidate at the sacrifice of remaining candidates. He suggested "one-shot" voting tended to protect incumbents.

Mr. Collins stated the purpose of A.B. 590 was to allow citizens of North Las Vegas to chose to vote for the best person for each city council seat. The city’s population exceeded 100,000, and its citizens needed to decide who would represent them. To facilitate their ability to do that, candidates for seats on the city council should be allowed to choose for which seat they wished to run so voters could elect to leave good incumbents in office and challenge weaker incumbents with candidates who, if elected, would do a better job.

Mr. Lee cited several areas of North Las Vegas, one of which was the area behind the community college, and expressed doubt that any member of North Las Vegas City Council lived in any of the areas he cited. However, he pointed out, three members of the council traveled the same road to go to and from their homes. Unless they drove through the entire city on a regular basis, no one was looking out for the interests of the city as a whole. He reiterated his belief it was time to establish a ward system in North Las Vegas.

Mr. Collins concurred with Mr. Lee. He said much of the development occurring in North Las Vegas was removed from the old part of the city. Most people chose to move to the new area of the city thereby, " . . . shifting their representation." The city needed to address the issue of establishing a ward system. Through the election process established by A.B. 590, an attempt was being made to make a start in that direction. If people were elected to the city council who were not overly protective of their incumbency, those people might be persuaded to establish the question of whether or not wards should be as a ballot question and, subsequently, request the legislature to grant a change to the city’s charter.

Mr. Lee suggested it might be premature for the legislature to pass A.B. 590. He proposed it might be more appropriate to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the city of North Las Vegas under which the city would establish a better election process and report back to the legislature during the next legislative session.

Mr. Collins responded A.B. 590 was not premature. He said it would be more than 2 years before the bill would affect an election. However, " . . . it takes this legislative body, every other year session, to help us get the ball rolling." Therefore, A.B. 590 was late, not premature.

Chairman Bache said he thought when Mr. Lee discussed where in the city of North Las Vegas city council members resided, Councilman Rhodes indicated a desire to inform the committee where he resided. Councilman Rhodes responded he lived 1 block from the intersection of Belmont and Las Vegas Boulevard, just around the corner from the community college.

Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Collins what his opinion was of the committee adding language to A.B. 590 which would require North Las Vegas’ city council to develop a plan for reapportionment, based on the upcoming census, and present that plan to the legislature during the next legislative session. Mr. Collins said it would be fine if the committee gave the city that direction in some form; however, he did not believe A.B. 590 should be used as a vehicle for that purpose.

Ms. Tiffany asserted it was too late for the legislature to do as she suggested using any vehicle other than A.B. 590. Mr. Collins disagreed. He proposed what Ms. Tiffany suggested could be accomplished through a letter from the legislature to the city of North Las Vegas expressing the legislature’s concern.

Ms. Tiffany asked Mr. Collins whether he believed if the legislature took the approach he suggested and issued a letter of suggestion, the legislature’s suggestion could be unilaterally ignored until it was time for the next legislative session to convene. Mr. Collins responded the legislature still had time, during the current legislative session, to address the issue by means of a resolution.

Mr. Williams said he tended to concur with Mr. Lee’s argument for establishing wards in North Las Vegas. He believed the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was created to address such issues, and he believed the committee should take steps to amend A.B. 590 to cause it to create a ward system.

Mr. Collins suggested the committee might amend A.B. 590 to include language which permitted, but did not mandate, the city of North Las Vegas to establish a ward system, and said he thought Councilman Rhodes would agree to the committee taking that action.

Mr. Williams stated he believed Mr. Collin’s suggestion would not only address the existing problem but would allow the citizens of North Las Vegas to choose whether or not they wanted a ward system established. He believed the legislature had a responsibility to put something in place which would allow the citizens of North Las Vegas to make that choice, and if the legislature failed to do that, it would fail to fulfill its responsibilities.

Councilman Rhodes maintained in 2002, based on the population the city would then have, the city could establish some type of ward system. In the meantime, A.B. 590 would bring consistency to North Las Vegas’ election process.

Stephanie Smith, Councilwoman, city of North Las Vegas, testified. She read aloud a letter to the committee from the mayor and certain council members of the city of North Las Vegas (Exhibit H) expressing opposition to A.B. 590. She said the mayor opposed A.B. 590 because he believed in majority rule and because the citizens of North Las Vegas had not thus far been involved (in the consideration of the proposal represented by the bill).

Councilwoman Smith said there appeared to be an idea the citizens of North Las Vegas lacked broad-based representation. Currently, 13 candidates were running for election to two seats on the city council. Of those 13 candidates, 4 were African-Americans, 2 were Hispanic, and 6 were women. Currently, the city council had two members who were African-Americans and only one member who was a male Caucasian. Therefore, she believed the city was reaching out to a variety of citizen groups.

Councilwoman Smith said Ms. Tiffany mentioned " . . . you would have only two incumbents at the top for their two seats." She maintained Ms. Tiffany’s comment was inaccurate because there would be " . . . four people at the top for two seats," the same situation encountered after a primary election. She asserted challengers had plenty of opportunity to compete in North Las Vegas’ election process. When she, as a challenger, ran for election under the current election process, she spent $35,000, compared to the $140,000 spent by Councilman Rhodes, and she came in first in the election. She maintained a challenger did have an opportunity to be elected even without the extensive financial backing Councilman Rhodes had.

Councilwoman Smith observed Councilman Rhodes was concerned about the "single-shot" issue. She acknowledged there were people who voted for only one candidate (when they could vote for two) but pointed out there were people who voted for a candidate for president but did not vote in the race for assembly seats. In some elections, voters had the option of voting for "none of the above" and elected that option. The election process A.B. 590 established would not eliminate the option voters always had of either casting their votes or refraining from doing so.

Councilwoman Smith advised every ballot (in a North Las Vegas election of city council members) clearly stated "vote for two." Therefore, the issue of voters voting for only one candidate did not arise because the voters were neither beguiled nor misinformed. She believed the notion "single-shotting" was a strong means of weighting an election was no longer true. The population of North Las Vegas currently exceeded 100,000. When the city’s population was 2,600, a candidate’s friends might have been able to contrive to weight an election; however, such contrivance no longer had a measurable effect nor the same impact it might have had at the time Councilman Rhodes was first elected.

Councilwoman Smith indicated she ran for election in partisan races in the past and was familiar with that election process. She also had the experience of running for election in North Las Vegas and thoroughly enjoyed that experience. When she ran for a seat on the city council, her platform was based on her beliefs and what she wanted to accomplish for the city; it had nothing to do with why an opponent should not be in office. She believed North Las Vegas was set apart by the fact candidates for city office ran on issues rather than against people.

Councilwoman Smith asserted the contention the city council was not in favor of A.B. 590 because incumbent members of the council lived near one another was both absurd and inaccurate. She said only two city council members lived in a vicinity of one another, and those members lived at least half a mile and closer to 1 mile apart. At one time, Councilman Rhodes was one of the council members who lived close to one another. He moved, and thereafter, the issue of council members living close to on another was raised.

Councilwoman Smith referred to the testimony of Carson City’s representatives regarding the city’s charter review committee and the posted meetings and discussions held before the city approached the legislature with a recommendation for a change to its charter. She pointed out North Las Vegas had done none of the things Carson City did. The recommendation A.B. 590 constituted was the recommendation of only one person, and North Las Vegas’ city council felt strongly that recommendation should be submitted to the voters to ascertain their wishes before it was brought before the legislature. Once the city council determined what the citizens of North Las Vegas wanted, it could then request the legislature’s help in codifying the community’s wishes.

Councilwoman Smith said she and the remaining council members respectfully requested the legislature not pass A.B. 590 and allow the council to do its homework.

Mr. Lee asked in which part of North Las Vegas the three council members who resided close to one another lived. Councilwoman Smith replied there were only two council members who lived close to on another, not three, and those council members lived in the same development but at opposite ends of the development.

Mr. Lee asked whether the mayor also lived in that area. Councilwoman Smith replied the mayor lived approximately 4 miles south of her and the other council member who resided in the same development as she.

Mr. Lee asked whether that development was near the center of North Las Vegas or was part of the new development created over the preceding 6 years. Councilwoman Smith replied, "No, but it’s – both the streets I drive through every day to work those are the streets I walk, do all my business in. I mean to say that we only live in our house. I mean I probably spend less time in my area than I do in the older areas of North Las Vegas because that’s where I have to be in my daily life."

Councilwoman Smith contended it was easy for an elected official who represented a district to say, "Well, look, I’m supporting you. You know I voted with you, and it’s just these guys over here that voted against you." She maintained under the election process currently utilized by North Las Vegas, there was no citizen whom an elected official could look in the eye and deny his responsibility to that citizen.

Mr. Lee asked whether Councilwoman Smith would perceive enabling legislation as positive or, instead, as negative. Councilwoman Smith replied North Las Vegas’ city council had no problem with enabling legislation because enabling legislation would allow the council to seek voter opinion. The council could hold workshops, consider different proposals, and place the issue on the ballot. It could then come before the legislature with a proposal reflecting the desire of North Las Vegas’ citizens. Those citizens were entitled to have the form of government they wanted and had not been asked what it was they did want, which was unfair.

Mr. Williams asked whether the city council held workshops (regarding the proposal reflected by A.B. 590) before it held its meetings on November 18, 1998, and December 7, 1998. Councilwoman Smith replied workshops were not held because the proposal was not generated by the city council as a whole, rather it was generated by one particular council member. The council discussed the proposal in a "pre-council meeting," and debated it in public, and the proposal was defeated. Several council members wanted to hold workshops on the proposal.

Councilwoman Smith asserted A.B. 590 represented one person’s view of the best way to solve the problem addressed by the bill, and there were many points of view on how to solve that problem. The city council wanted to address the problem and planned to do so.

Mr. Williams asked in what manner a citizen of North Las Vegas who resided in one of the areas Mr. Lee mentioned and needed the assistance of a city council member would approach the city council. Councilwoman Smith replied generally, the council was contacted through telephone calls. All five members of the council would receive a given call, and all five were responsible to the caller to ensure the issue he raised was resolved.

William E. Robinson, City Councilman, city of North Las Vegas, testified in opposition to A.B. 590. He said he believed North Las Vegas had arrived at the point where there was a need to consider establishing an election process based on districts or wards. However, he contended, A.B. 590 set the stage for much game playing.

Councilman Robinson said mention was made of city council members’ tenure in office. He believed if a council member was responsive to citizens in his community, he would remain a council member for a number of years.

Councilman Robinson suggested as to any issue raised in North Las Vegas, adherence should be given to the rule the majority wins. If discontent resulted from the city council’s decision on a given issue, that issue should then be presented to the city’s voters.

Councilman Robinson referred to a previous comment the mature part of North Las Vegas was not being adequately represented. He said he had a problem with that comment because the northwestern portion of the city would not exist if residents of the mature part of the city had not agreed to a bond issue to commence development in the northwestern portion. He asserted the mature part of the city was a focal point because it had not been maintained as well as it should have been; however, that issue was being addressed through redevelopment and revitalization measures.

Councilman Robinson declared, "I personally think that if we’re going to go with the system, then let’s go with wards or districts of something, and let that put this to bed henceforth and forever more."

Chairman Bache asked, " Would you, had the situation arrived, like this to apply to your particular election this time?" He suggested neither Councilman Robinson nor his fellow councilwoman who was up for reelection would want to be required to " . . . carry each other’s baggage." Councilman Robinson replied he was uncertain what Chairman Bache meant by "baggage;" however, he did not believe his detractors’ feelings about him would reflect on his colleague’s race for a seat on the city council.

Paula Brown, City Councilwoman, city of North Las Vegas, testified in opposition to A.B. 590. She stated the city council voted against the proposal set forth in the bill, and she believed there might be other ways of changing the election process in North Las Vegas. Changing that process should be explored, and citizens’ input should be acquired, whether through workshops or through some other means. A proposal to change the city’s charter with respect to the city’s election process should be put to a vote of the people.

Councilwoman Brown urged the committee to vote against A.B. 590.

David Peacock, a private citizen, testified. He informed the committee he lived in an area of North Las Vegas in which houses were sinking. He contended effort should be applied to problems such as that rather than to A.B. 590. He indicated North Las Vegas election process had worked well for many years and maintained if something was not broken, no attempt should be made to fix it. He declared his opposition to A.B. 590 and contended North Las Vegas’ voters should be allowed to decide whether they wanted their election process changed. He suggested the legislature should not interfere in North Las Vegas’ business.

Paul L. Moffat, a private citizen, testified. He expressed appreciation for the fact facilities were available which allowed citizens of North Las Vegas to express their opinions to the committee. He said he was exposed to the issue addressed by A.B. 590 approximately 2 months earlier and immediately spoke with Councilman Rhodes. He also discussed the issue with Councilwoman Brown and members of the community. He declared he opposed A.B. 590 because it was a "back room deal." If an issue resulted in conflict among the majority of the city council’s members, that issue should be placed before the citizens.

Mr. Moffat contended A.B. 590 made mudslinging possible. Currently, "ballots" candidates for office in North Las Vegas sent to citizens discussed issues, and he did not want the city’s election process to evolve into one in which candidates discussed what other candidates had done in the past rather than discussing issues.

Mr. Moffat requested citizens of North Las Vegas be allowed to form a committee and conduct neighborhood hearings to elicit citizen input on the issue addressed by A.B. 590. He said, "Then we’ll come back to you in 2 years and say ‘this is what we found,’ not ‘I’m going to jump on a plane – everybody else is going to be in Vegas – and allow me to take you guys out to dinner, and let me tell you why my issue should be passed.’"

Mr. Moffat said recently, a developer came to his neighborhood. Residents of his neighborhood wanted information about what was going on and had to approach every member of the city council. He contended the situation he described did not constitute fair representation, and it would have been nice to be able to speak with a single member of the city council who represented his neighborhood.

Mr. Moffat declared he opposed A.B. 590.

Assemblyman Humke informed Mr. Moffat the tone of his remarks tended to cause committee members to believe they, as state legislators, were merely potted plants and had no right to be involved in issues which concerned the city of North Las Vegas. He believed A.B. 590 was an appropriate bill, which had the potential of becoming a law, and it was the legislators’ duty to " . . . carry this out for any city or county that comes to this committee or comes to this legislature.

Mr. Moffat acknowledged he had belittled the committee members.

Mr. Humke told Mr. Moffat the effect of Mr. Moffat’s remarks was to gain many votes in support of A.B. 590.

Chairman Bache stated Councilman Rhodes approached him, as Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, and asked him to request the drafting of A.B. 590, which he did. He said any citizen had the right to approach him and request a bill. He declared he resented Mr. Moffat’s implication that he, Chairman Bache, was involved in a "back room deal" to get A.B. 590 passed. He informed Mr. Moffat the committee was assembled to hold an open hearing. If the committee looked to accomplish a "back room deal," it would not cause its meeting to be teleconferenced to Las Vegas and accept testimony from any and all citizens of North Las Vegas who wished to testify on A.B. 590.

Dorothy Walker, a private citizen, testified. She said she opposed A.B. 590 because it would allow opponents in an election to engage in manipulation. She said candidates would be " . . . digging in your closet to get those skeletons out, to tell the public about it so that it would give them an advantage." She contended the current election process worked well and maintained wards were what North Las Vegas’ citizens needed. She asserted the proposal represented by A.B. 590 should be submitted to the citizens of North Las Vegas, who should be allowed to decide what they wanted.

Robert Eliason, a private citizen, testified. He informed the committee he was a resident of the more mature part of North Las Vegas and had been for 36 years. He said he believed the issue raised by A.B. 590 was dealt with by the city council, and it was inappropriate to circumvent a voter and taxpayer of North Las Vegas by seeking from the legislature a change to the city charter previously voted down by the city council. As a resident of North Las Vegas, he was offended by the fact that was done to him.

Mr. Eliason said he was one of the people attempting to have districts and voting at-large implemented in North Las Vegas, as they were in the city of Henderson. He suggested it would be a step in the right direction if he, as a resident of the mature part of Las Vegas, did not have to call four city council members to resolve an issue but, instead, could call a single member who represented his area.

Mr. Eliason contended A.B. 590 would create no geographical representation for citizens of North Las Vegas; therefore, the current system would remain unchanged. The bill would accomplish nothing other than "incumbency." He did not believe A.B. 590 would provide equal and fair representation for all citizens of North Las Vegas.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Eliason if he was a candidate during the last election held in North Las Vegas. Mr. Eliason replied he was.

Mary A. Dutchover, a private citizen, testified. She declared she opposed A.B. 590, and she believed Councilman Rhodes should return to North Las Vegas where there were many issues to be addressed other than voting issues. She said she did not believe in "single-shot" voting but suggested a voter should be allowed to vote as he chose.

Linda Hinson, a private citizen, testified. She informed the committee she had been a resident of North Las Vegas for 19 years and was the city manager for 4 years. She said she was very surprised when she received phone calls from people who heard A.B. 590 was to be introduced in the legislature, and she questioned how that could be when a majority of North Las Vegas’ city council had voted against the proposal contained in the bill.

Ms. Hinson maintained a change would occur in North Las Vegas election process, and it appeared that change would be to establish districts at-large, which she supported. She reiterated previous testimony citizens of North Las Vegas should be given an opportunity to provide input on the issue raised by A.B. 590, and that issue should be resolved at the local level if possible.

Joanna Wesley, a private citizen, testified. She advised the committee she resided near the community college in North Las Vegas. She expressed concern about citizens lacking a voice in things done by the city council.

Ms. Wesley said a petition was circulated in her neighborhood which said only that the signatories wanted A.B. 590 passed to make city council members accountable. The petition was misleading because it did not set forth complete information about what the bill entailed. She perceived no way in which A.B. 590 would increase city council members’ accountability and did not understand what gave rise to the bill.

Ms. Wesley contended A.B. 590 constituted a "one-person show." Some things in which she was involved, over the previous 6 months, led her to feel citizens of North Las Vegas were residing in something akin to a communist camp. When registered voters attended city council meetings, no one wanted to hear what those voters had to say. City council members voted as they chose to vote, irrespective of citizens’ feelings.

Ms. Wesley declared she had a problem with "this one-man show," which could be dangerous. She suggested when citizens had five elected representatives, they had to trust those representatives to decide what was best for them. She did not think it was good for an elected official to pout because he did not get his way.

Ms. Wesley contended people who paid taxes in North Las Vegas and who had homes and businesses in the city had rights, whether or not they were registered voters. In reference to Councilman Rhodes’ testimony if North Las Vegas was divided into wards, each of its city councilmen would represent only 8,000 people, she said she resented the fact representation was broken down to 8,000 registered voters rather than 25,000 citizens. She suggested if wards were established in North Las Vegas, those 8,000 registered voters might increase to 25,000.

Ms. Wesley maintained at some point, there was a need to "regroup" and give people a reason to register to vote and go to the polls. Many people were becoming dismayed and wanted nothing to do with the political process. If wards were established, candidates for office would have to convince voters those candidates were qualified to hold office; otherwise, the voters would not wish to hear anything those candidates had to say.

Ms. Wesley said the mayor and most members of the city council lived in the new, northwestern area of North Las Vegas. Therefore, a previous comment that citizens of the inner-city were represented was inaccurate. However, A.B. 590 would not provide those citizens with representation; it would merely give an incumbent an advantage over his challengers when he ran for election. Citizens of North Las Vegas wanted peaceful elections and wanted people to be given a reason to go to the polls.

Ms. Wesley apologized to the committee on behalf of Mr. Moffat and other previous witnesses. She explained people were very angry because Councilman Rhodes took it upon himself to present A.B. 590 to the legislature without first consulting them and allowing them to express their opinions. Many people were angry because there were people who bragged about " . . . how they can go to Carson City and who they have in their back pocket and what they can get to do for them."

Ms. Wesley maintained North Las Vegas’ citizens could deal with the issue raised by A.B. 590 if given the opportunity. Many of those citizens were attempting to have wards established the city in order to gain appropriate representation. If any issue should be before the committee, it should be as a result of North Las Vegas’s city council having voted to establish wards. Any other issue should first be dealt with on the local level and then brought to the legislature.

Ms. Von Tobel commented the only thing the committee had given Councilman Rhodes was a doughnut. The committee did not promise him anything.

Mr. Moffat apologized to the committee members for offending them. He said he appreciated the time, effort, and concern they expended on state government. He was somewhat angry because more time was not put into A.B. 590 because it truly affected North Las Vegas. He had been a resident of the city for 45 years and was concerned A.B. 590 did not constitute the right approach for helping North Las Vegas grow.

Mr. Moffat again apologized to the committee.

Mr. Williams said he wished to make a comment in response to certain remarks. He stated in the past, North Las Vegas had problems it was unable to resolve, and the legislature assisted the city with those problems. After hearing testimony the legislature should refrain from interfering in North Las Vegas’ business and that Councilman Rhodes should return to Las Vegas, he felt perhaps all lobbyists from North Las Vegas should be sent home. Based on some of the testimony presented, he no longer felt comfortable about talking to any lobbyists from North Las Vegas about any issue concerning the city.

Mr. Williams stated in the past, North Las Vegas presented problems to the legislature with which the legislature provided its help. With respect to those problems, no one said the citizens of North Las Vegas should express their opinions before the legislature became involved. He contended the citizens of North Las Vegas could not have it both ways. Whether the bill proposed by Councilman Rhodes was or was not an appropriate bill, it required initiative on the part of Councilman Rhodes to present that bill.

Mr. Williams stated the legislature had an obligation to help the city of North Las Vegas whenever possible. However, based on the attitude he heard expressed during the meeting, he would not feel comfortable about voting or taking any action on any issue pertaining to North Las Vegas.

Ms. Walker gave further testimony. She discussed some problems she perceived in North Las Vegas which were unrelated to A.B. 590.

Councilman Rhodes gave additional testimony. He asserted citizens, of whom he was one, had the right to come before the legislature and discuss the process addressed by A.B. 590. He reiterated he had no problem with wards being established in North Las Vegas. A.B. 590 was perceived as a precursor to the establishment of wards; however, he had no objection to wards being established immediately.

Mr. Lee said when appropriate, he would move to amend A.B. 590 in its entirety to require a question be placed on the ballot, in the 2001 general election, in North Las Vegas to determine whether the city’s voters approved of a process for electing city councilmen based on wards. Further, if voters approved that ballot question, then election by wards would commence with the 2003 election.

Chairman Bache pointed out the ballot question Mr. Lee proposed could also be placed on the ballot for the general election in 2000. Mr. Lee indicated if it would speed the process, he would utilize the year 2000 in his motion.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 590.

Chairman Bache announced the hearing on A.B. 640 would be rescheduled.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: