The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:21 a.m., on Monday, April 19, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. 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:

Senator Bob Coffin, District 3

Senator Joe Neal, District 4

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, testified the bill allowed criminal investigators employed by the secretary of state to have peace officer powers. He stated he had passed out two handouts, one was a prepared statement giving background information (Exhibit C) and the other was a summary of criminal enforcement actions between 1994 and 1999 (Exhibit D). He added the securities division had been successful in capturing over $40 million in restitution in the 4 years he had served as secretary of state. He felt the securities act had been a successful program as far as consumers were concerned. He pointed out the case of the Sterling Group and Eric Stein was an ongoing investigation involving $20 to $60 million bilked from investors throughout the United States, including Nevada residents. State securities investigators had been on the case for several years trying to bring it to culmination. Finally through the securities division and the Attorney General’s Office the investigators went to Chula Vista in California and identified the defendant, and the entire case was aired on the program "America’s Most Wanted." It was evident white collar crime was becoming more violent in the fact that his office was now doing investigations ending up on television. It also indicated the need for more protection for investigators. When the identification of Eric Stein was made in Chula Vista, the securities investigator was the only 1 out of about 15 to make a positive identification. He was also the only one not having personal protection with a firearm.

Mr. Heller stated any violation of the Nevada Uniform Securities Act was a class C felony with his office making the investigation. Any evidence obtained was then submitted to the Attorney General’s Office or appropriate district attorney’s office for prosecution. There were currently over 20 criminal investigations in progress and 16 pending in various stages in the court system. There were six reasons for requesting peace officer status for the investigators. He read the first 4 reasons from (Exhibit C). He felt the last two items were the most important. Classifying the criminal investigators as peace officers and obtaining post certification training for the employees. Also the securities division was the only agency in Nevada government that had both the statutory authority and the expertise necessary to conduct criminal investigations concerning violations of the Nevada Uniform Securities Act.

His office was requesting peace officer status for three individuals, two in Las Vegas and one in Washoe county. There was no fiscal note attached to the bill as the costs could be covered under their current budget.

Mr. Mortensen questioned how many other states had individuals in the Secretary of State’s Office with peace officer status. Mr. Heller replied as far as securities divisions were concerned there were 10 states housing it in the Office of the Secretary of State. About half the states had their own securities independent divisions with another 10 or 15 that were under the jurisdiction of the Office of Attorney General. He knew of no other state that did not allow peace officer training for their securities investigators.

Ms. Parnell asked if additional training was necessary. Mr. Heller responded they would be required to receive Peace Officer Standards Training (POST).

Ms. Segerblom wondered who bought unsecured securities. Mr. Heller indicated when an investment was advertised at 12 or 14 percent return most people jumped on it, especially when a person was on a fixed income. Unfortunately, more and more people observed those excessive rates and decided it would be an opportunity to get ahead, and there had been some devastating effects.

Mr. Lee wanted specifics as to where his investigators had been threatened or hurt. It seemed most white-collar crimes did not involve violence and in fact most of the time they went into hiding. Mr. Heller stated there were many times they would not serve a warrant or address certain individuals they were investigating because of the possibility of violence. Presently, if investigators felt there was a threatening position they would go to the District Attorneys office or Clark County Sheriff’s office and had one of their officers accompany the investigator. That was part of the problem as they only sent someone when they had time to assist in approaching a suspect. There were many occasions when there were potential problems with approaching some of these individuals.

Chairman Bache indicated the bill specified category II peace officers and that would be consistent with other investigators within the state.

Senator Joe Neal, Senate District 4, testified his district encompassed both the city of North Las Vegas and parts of Las Vegas. The bill dealt with creating wards for the city of Las Vegas. During the 1997 session there was a bill that would have mandated the addition of two seats, but the city said they could accomplish that by ordinance and did not want a mandate. It came to light during the 1999 session that nothing had been put in place, only an advisory question to be placed on the ballot for a vote by the people in June of 1999. It was obvious the city had no plans to create the wards so the bill took the advisory vote and made it mandatory. He pointed out the city was saying it would be an astronomical cost to create those additional wards. The city of Las Vegas was one of few cities of its size that had four council seats and a mayor. He did not feel it was not a fair representation for all the citizens, most of whom indicated in polls that they wanted the two additional seats with the expansion of the wards.

Ms. Gibbons asked if his population was represented on the city council. Senator Neal replied it was all white if he understood the question correctly. To expand further the wards were changed approximately 4 years ago, putting most of the black and Hispanic communities into the same ward. Both of those groups represented the older portion of the city so the infrastructure needs were greater in that one area while there was only one member of the council representing those two particular communities. What happened was with only one vote it left those groups in trouble with their infrastructure needs. He felt if the council was expanded then one of the other two groups could be elected, and they could deal with those needs. When the structure of the council was changed it had been requested that the predominate black section not be placed in with the Hispanics but split them into different wards so there would be influence on more than just one council member. The bill would make it a more equitable representation on the council for those groups.

Ms. Gibbons asked what percent in Las Vegas were Latino and African-American. Senator Neal replied he did not have actual figures on hand; however, in the Las Vegas area he thought it was approximately 12 or 13 percent for the black community and about 15 percent for the Hispanic community. Ms. Gibbons thought it must be more because it was over 20 percent in Northern Nevada. Senator Neal stated he was making a guess, because the black community was split up between North Las Vegas and Las Vegas.

Ms. Segerblom questioned if there was a difference in the makeup of the population in the wards. Senator Neal said the only difference was in Ward 3, and was basically the Latino and the black community.

Mr. Lee wondered if the service provided to the community by their councilman was adequate and if the city services were what they expected. Senator Neal replied although he represented parts of Las Vegas he actually lived in North Las Vegas. He pointed out that Senator Coffin the only Hispanic in the legislature was also a co-sponsor of the bill. From what he had heard from his constituents there was a problem with representation. At one time the community had a councilman named Frank Hawkins, who had done a good job of representing the people for 4 years and turned the area around economically. The veteran’s hospital was brought into the area as well as the new post office that was close to completion. The community wanted the wards expanded so there could be equal representation and a united community rather than having the two communities pitted against each other.

Mr. Lee asked if the Senator was saying in essence, the sphere of influence was lessened and he would like to see that increased. Senator Neal responded expanding representation was the idea. In the past the service was equitable, and he hoped that level could again be reached. The mayor indicated she was in support of the bill as she had always tried to help the older communities.

Mr. Lee questioned if the referendum question was approved to increase the wards would those be immediately implemented. Senator Neal replied the advisory vote was only set after his community protested, and because it was only an advisory question it meant if it passed, it would have to go back to the council who could accept or reject the vote. The bill was amended to make the advisory question mandatory. The enabling legislation was passed in 1997 and over 19 months later nothing had happened, so he was not encouraged anything would come about with the council on the issue, and that was why he felt the legislation was badly needed.

Mr. Lee wondered if the vote passed, would the two people be appointed or would the wards be split up, and how did he see the continuation of guaranteeing the sphere of influence. Senator Neal stated if the vote was affirmative by the people in wanting the additional wards, then it would be up to the council to create that system. Thereby the council would run in staggered terms as they did now. If the vote was in the affirmative, the bill would just mandate the creation of the two wards, and if it was defeated, they would abide by what the voters wanted.

Chairman Bache indicted he was one of the legislators working to make it mandatory. As he recalled when reapportionment was done in 1995 he thought that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and one of Hispanic groups were ready to file suit against the city, and to avoid that the city agreed to divide up into six wards. Senator Neal responded there was no authority to change wards. All of the class A cities throughout the state had the authority to go up to eight seats. However, the city of Las Vegas did not have that authority so the statute had to be changed to permit them to do that. If the legislature changed the statute enabling the city to increase the wards, they would do that. But when the legislation was approved, they did nothing.

Senator Bob Coffin, Senate District 3, testified he represented a district that was almost entirely within the city of Las Vegas. He lived in the heart of downtown Las Vegas about 200 yards from the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd. and Charleston Blvd. Councilman Reese was his councilman but only 100 yards to the west councilman MacDonald’s district started. He felt members of the council were colorblind, but the intent of the bill was to increase the chances of people of color being elected. It was not really about race but the size of the district and how impossible it had become to campaign, and also to govern such a large area. That was one of the reasons why the fiscal note attached to the ballot question appeared to be so large because city staff was quite large for each councilman. There were some problems with the wording on the ballot question, but he did want to lend his support to the bill as the Hispanic population in the city was close to 18 percent. He pointed out that Ms. Giunchigliani was a co-sponsor of the bill and also lived in the heart of downtown Las Vegas, and where he had lived since 1951.

Councilman Larry Brown, city of Las Vegas, Ward 4, testified he was there to speak in support of the bill as amended, answer any questions, and clarify some of the issues brought out in previous testimony. He had no prepared testimony but would be happy to respond to any questions particularly regarding wards and their structure, the makeup of some of the demographics in the city, the direction the population was moving within the city, and what an expanded council would do.

Mr. Lee stated growing up in North Las Vegas he understood the demographics were westward. He asked if there was a way to have two councilmen in the downtown corridor without taking into consideration the direction of growth in the community. Mr. Brown replied it was hard to estimate until actual numbers were available. In 1990 close to 90 percent of the city was east of Rainbow, and 8 years later some of the downtown population was lost while new growth was west of Summerlin where the population was projected to increase by 50,000 to 100,000 over the next few years. When heading north, residential areas extended toward Floyd Lamb State Park as well to the west of U.S. 95 almost to the Mount Charleston turnoff. If the seats were increased to six, he was not sure how that would affect the other wards. If the council seats were expanded immediately to 6, there would still be approximately 80,000 people per ward, so there would not be much change. The other point was there was a tremendous assimilation of all races throughout the valley but no large concentration of demographics. There were some small pockets of concentration, but about 80 percent of the African-American population lived outside of the 5 precincts that were encompassed in the downtown area. In conversations with Assemblyman Williams in structuring the language placed in the ballot, they were very careful not to mislead voters into thinking that by expanding the council it was a guarantee that certain areas of town would be represented.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, testified in support of the bill. Her entire district was in the downtown area and by increasing the size of the council there was an opportunity for minority representation. She added due to the projected growth in the valley perhaps there should be an amendment to line 6 add the words "at least" so more could be added in the future. With the forthcoming census it would allow the flexibility to change in mid-term, and she did not feel the council should have their hands tied when working with growth. She hoped, with the encouragement of "in-fill" legislation passed during the session, that it would also lend itself to increased numbers in the wards in the downtown area. The idea of redevelopment was to encourage new housing in those areas as well.

Steve Houchens, representing the city of Las Vegas, stated the process started with the new city manager in the summer of 1998 with the creation of a blue ribbon committee. The recommendation of the committee was to expand the ward seats, subject to a vote of the people. It was an advisory question but there was comfort within the city to make it mandatory, allowing expansion as quickly as possible.

Senator Neal asked if Mr. Brown agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s suggestion to change the language of the bill to read "at least six wards." Mr. Brown responded the language was welcomed. The intent was that if by chance the ballot question was defeated, it still gave the city still the ability to expand the wards.

Myron Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas, commented that the bill in its current form would allow exactly what was being discussed. What it stated in the bill, "six wards upon the approval of the voters. Thereafter, the wards may be increased: (a) By the city council if it determines that an increase was necessary." If the voters approved, the council could be increased to any level. When six wards was discussed, it could be done under the language of the current bill.

As there was no further testimony, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Virginia Letts,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: