The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 5:18 p.m., on Thursday, April 29, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Culbert, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 12.

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4, stated A.J.R. 12 urges the federal government to fix the social security system by saving excess payroll withholdings, and he drew attention to a prepared spreadsheet (Exhibit C). He indicated the first highlighted line of Exhibit C reflects the outgo in 1998 for both federal social security and the state Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). The next highlighted line on the spreadsheet (Exhibit C), he pointed out, reflects the assets at the end of the year for both of the systems as well as a ratio comparing the liquidity of federal social security to PERS. He recognized PERS far outperforms social security. He stated the federal retirement plan has 1.56 compared to PERS’s has 35.7 times its annual outgo in the bank. The progress of PERS, he noted, is what one would expect for an annuity-based retirement system. He expressed the belief that the failure of the social security system could erode the American way of life when a large percentage of the population receives social security from a smaller group of working people.

Chairman O’Connell stated she had read a statistic which indicated it takes 2 to 3 people to support 1 retired person. Assemblyman Beers indicated he believed this to be the correct statistic. Requesting support of the legislation, he indicated A.J.R. 12 had passed out of both the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and the full Assembly unanimously.

With no further testimony before the committee, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 12 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 200.

Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County Assembly District No. 42, read to the committee from his prepared statement (Exhibit D). He recognized the potential for bias when one entity writes both sides of the argument for a ballot question. He indicated he had based A.B. 200 on legislation from the State of Washington which requires two separate committees to write ballot question arguments. He noted the bill would be permissive in counties and cities with population under 50,000. He commented suggestions heard in the Assembly had been taken into consideration for amending the proposal. He called the committee’s attention to an insignificant fiscal note relating to a fine for noncompliance. He stated there should be no actual cost to the process.

Chairman O’Connell recognized committees have written ballot questions in the past, and she questioned whether the intent of A.B. 200 could be accomplished without the statutory requirement.

Assemblyman Mortenson indicated the bill would only apply to counties and municipalities.

Chairman O’Connell inquired as to who would select the committees. Assemblyman Mortenson indicated the commissioners or councilmen would appoint the committees. He explained if they did not participate in the selection process, the responsibility would fall upon the city clerk.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether it was the intent that people would volunteer for these committees. Assemblyman Mortenson stated he hoped this to be the case, noting many organizations are active in political affairs and would surely have members who would volunteer. He cited the League of Women Voters as an example of an organization interested in ballot questions.

Senator Neal requested an example be given to show the committee the reason the proposal is necessary.

Assemblyman Mortenson responded:

Senator Care questioned the reason the voter’s guides and the media coverage on issues would not be a sufficient means of providing information

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, expressed support for A.B. 200. She indicated the bill applies only to cities and counties, but noted she would support the expansion of the issue as well. She recognized the need for fairness and cited a situation in which language was written on both sides of a ballot question by a party with vested interest in the question’s passage. She maintained the media may have their own particular bias, stating the information provided would not necessarily be fair.

Ms. Hansen contended voters depend upon the information distributed in the sample ballot to be fair. She indicated the most popular information in voter guides concerns the ballot questions as people find the issues difficult to understand. She suggested this difficulty comes from the way in which explanations are currently written on the sample ballots.

Ms. Hansen restated her support for expanding the legislation, noting issues conducted by initiative petition are written by the secretary of state’s office and allow no input from supporters and opponents. She cited a situation from 1990 in which a ballot question was written unfairly, resulting in a legal battle with the secretary of state. She indicated they were forced to petition the Nevada Supreme Court in order to get the language changed. In 1996, she noted, the current Secretary of State, Dean Heller solicited a lot of information from different groups around the state regarding their concerns on either side of this particular issue. However, she expressed disappointment in the ballot questions information as she did not believe the real issues were addressed. She expressed concern regarding the lack of checks and balances in terms of ballot question information. Ms. Hansen stressed A.B. 200 provides some balance at the county and the city level, and she requested committee consideration of the measure.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of A.B. 200. As a way to illustrate the necessity of the proposal, she cited a situation at a Clark County School District board meeting regarding a vote on biased ballot language material. She indicated proper materials were not provided until the course of the meeting, which did not allow for fair representation of opposing issues. She expressed concern that all arguments were not presented, and said the arguments for and against the issue were written by the same people without the presentation of any other options. She stated had the people had accurate positions before them, they would have had the ability to vote on the issues in a more knowledgeable manner. She expressed support for expanding the legislation to include entities such as school boards.

Ms. Jensen encouraged fair representation on the appointed committees, noting in California, the names of groups are included to provide more information as to the philosophies behind issues. She requested those who have been appointed and have contributed to the writing of the ballot question information be made public.

Senator Care questioned whether studies have been conducted to find the percentage of voters who make their determination based solely on the language set forth in the sample ballot question information. He suggested voters pay attention to different forms of media and speak with people they respect in making their decisions rather than just rely on the language included in the sample ballot.

Ms. Jensen agreed, noting many people seek their organization out for their positions on issues. She referenced the aforementioned situation regarding the school board and indicated there was a lot of money raised privately to promote one side of the issue. She indicated this was difficult to compete with and stated there was not a level playing field. She restated her suggestion of identifying those individuals involved in drafting the ballot question language as the represented philosophical backgrounds may lend to a greater understanding of the issue.

Senator Neal stated it would go against the grain of the democratic process to allow a person in favor or in opposition of an issue to write both sides of the ballot question information provided to the voters. He recognized the ability to add to the discussion of an issue by having the proponents write the arguments for an issue and the opponents against.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, responded to Senator Care’s question, stating she did not know of any studies conducted regarding the percentage of voters making their decisions based upon the arguments listed in the sample ballot. She noted the explanations provided are the only information some have in which to make their decisions, as there is not always media coverage of all of the issues. She, too, expressed support for allowing debate on both sides of the issue. Ms. Lusk stated, "Having served on the school board, I know whereof it is spoken about the school board writing both sides of the question, and I know that when staff writes it, they purposely write it for the purpose of being a veiled argument for, and that is an unfortunate thing."

Richard R. Ziser, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, told the committee of California’s policy of including the names of the people writing for or against the issues, which, he noted, is in itself, informative. He expressed support for extending the measure to the school board level. He stressed A.B. 200 serves to provide information to the people while providing an equal opportunity for arguments to be expressed.

Senator Raggio questioned the reason the measure was only permissive in smaller counties. Assemblyman Mortenson indicated lobbyists from smaller counties argued there may not be three people who were for or against an issue in the county.

Senator Raggio questioned whether the three people have to be voters in that particular district in which the question is applicable. Assemblyman Mortenson indicated the commissioners have the discretion to specify the details of the process.

Senator Raggio questioned who Assemblyman Mortenson envisioned as the person who would decide whether a statement or explanation would qualify for inclusion in the sample ballot. He pointed out the provision provides for rejection of a submission that is ‘factually inaccurate or otherwise unacceptable.’

Senator Raggio stated this language could be problematic as someone would have to make the decision of acceptability in the case language is not agreed upon.

Assemblyman Mortenson pointed out, "It does say that the commissioners will set the rules in this, and the commissioners will essentially set that up ahead of time …." Senator Raggio suggested, "I think there is a problem here." Assemblyman Mortenson indicated, "This is not a perfect bill, there are all kinds of things that can go wrong, if the intent of the people who run the election is such that they should want to bias, and hopefully that would never happen, they can appoint people that are not truly for or against the bill as they wish. It is not a perfect bill, there are holes, there are problems, but I think it is a step in the right direction."

Senator Neal stated the bill gives the county commissioners or the city council the authority to adopt regulations necessary to carry out the provisions in A.B. 200. Consequently, he noted, the measure allows the commissioners or the council to set up procedures by which they could reject argument for inclusion on the sample ballot. He remarked county and city officials will be appointing individuals to draft language, noting these officials can adopt the regulations for their particular county or city.

Assemblyman Mortenson indicated he did not want to micromanage the process, but to allow the commissioners and the councilmen to set up regulations specific to their county or city.

With no further testimony on A.B. 200, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing. Next, the committee addressed A.B. 298.

John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, explained that A.B. 298 is the extension of a piece of legislation adopted in the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session which allowed the State Public Works Board and other awarding agencies to prequalify bidders on public works projects. Due to a number of problems and due to time constraints, the previous bill was made applicable only to the State Public Works Board. In A.B. 298, he noted, local governments would be allowed the same provisions to prequalify bidders. He indicated since the time the current bill was heard in the Assembly, the City of Henderson had expressed a concern regarding the qualifications. He explained the bill listed the qualifications and then included language to allow the inclusion of any other qualifications that the local government deemed desirable. The City of Henderson, he noted, expressed the concern that if they added a provision that was not specifically authorized, they may have legal problems with unqualified bidders. As a result, the criteria has been limited, and the provision has been made permissive on the part of local governments.

Mr. Jeffery indicated the intent of the legislation is to address questions as to the definition of a responsible contract. He indicated the prequalification procedure set forth in A.B. 298 was taken from the Oregon law. While the bill has been made permissive, he expressed concern regarding the designation of responsibility, stating, "When there is more than one person responsible, nobody is at fault."

Mr. Jeffery explained that due to the drafting deadline, some details in the amendment have been overlooked. He drew attention to the definition of eligible bidder in section 6, subsection 2 of the bill. He indicated the provision needs clarification so that if a local body chooses to use the prequalification process, then those previously listed criteria need to be met. Otherwise, he pointed out, it would still go to the definition of a responsible contractor. He said this change needs to be made throughout the bill.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the language set forth in S.B. 437 would assist in this issue.

Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Las Vegas Chapter, indicated S.B. 437 contains bidding definitions, though he did not know it addressed the issue of concern. Chairman O’Connell requested Mr. Jeffery review the measure as to whether it addressed his concerns.

Mr. Jeffery stated there have been problems concerning definitions over the years. He pointed out when the Legislative Building was rebuilt in 1996-97, the low bidder had the proper licensing, but was not otherwise qualified and had to be replaced. Eliminating these situations, he stressed, is the intent of A.B. 298.

Mr. Jeffery stated section 2, subsection 4 of the bill provides an exception to the criteria for bidder qualification. If the contractor has an unlimited license in either general engineering or in general building, is able to bond through the process, and employs a person determined by the State Contractors’ Board to be qualified to supervise the classification of construction being built, then he or she would be exempt from this criteria. He agreed with the Associated General Contractors’ (AGC) argument that if a person was able to fully bond the job, the bonding company would have to approve the qualifications.

Mr. Milliken stated the AGC has worked with Mr. Jeffery over the interim to help draft the proposed legislation. He stressed the two key items in A.B. 298 are the criteria set forth in section 2 of the bill and the language requested by the counties to make the provision permissive. He indicated in the previous legislative session a measure was passed requiring the State Public Works Board to establish criteria. He indicated the intent was to provide an outline of the criteria to the cities and counties during the interim and review whether the process worked and whether the entities were interested in using the proposed method. He pointed out this had not been done and therefore there had not been an opportunity to review the successfulness of the criteria. He maintained by making the language permissive the counties and cities would have the process available to them.

Mr. Milliken proposed an amendment to section 4, subsection 5 of the bill in which the language would read, "Financial information and other data pertaining to the financial ability of the applicant to perform the contract." He indicated this amendment would reference section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (a). He stated the AGC agrees with the other changes previously suggested by Mr. Jeffery.

Chairman O’Connell requested Mr. Milliken review S.B. 437 as to the necessity of the recommendations prior to further committee consideration of the amendments.

With no further testimony on A.B. 298, the chairman closed the hearing and requested the committee address A.B. 445.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified A.B. 445 is a housekeeping measure, which provides a similar clause incorporated into Senate Bill (S.B.) 341.

Mr. Spinello indicated A.B. 445 had originally been held to favor the passage of S.B. 341. He explained the senate bill has been amended in such a way as to jeopardize its success, and requested the committee’s favorable consideration of A.B. 445 to retain the original intent of the proposal. He explained the purpose of the bill is to clarify the existing competitive bidding exemption for computer software. The bill, he said, does not change existing bidding practices, but instead addresses some ambiguous areas which have been the cause of some legal concern. He stated Clark County would continue to bid computer equipment.

Senator Titus asked for further clarification of the bill. Mr. Spinello explained the dilemma with computers regarding the issue of compatibility, noting computer companies often declare things to be compatible when they are not. He noted software is specifically exempt from competitive bidding because if employees are trained to use one software package, buying a different software package at a lower rate will not be less expensive due to retraining considerations and incompatible system complications. He stated the value of the hardware increasingly built into the programming, noting in networking environments "so-called" compatible hardware is not. He pointed out a great deal of personnel time is spent in making systems work together that otherwise are not compatible. Mr. Spinello explained A.B. 445 would clarify purchasing could still bid, but only on the basis of the total cost of ownership. He commented if there was a standing inventory of one type of computers, the compatible parts would be stocked.

Senator Neal questioned the amount of money being addressed. Mr. Spinello stated Clark County has a substantial group of personnel dedicated to the maintenance and the setup of the equipment. He indicated he would provide the committee with cost estimates as to the additional costs regarding nonroutine setups.

Senator Neal questioned the reason there are no specifications established in the purchasing contract submitted for bidding if much money is dedicated to the maintenance of computers. Mr. Spinello explained A.B. 445 would clarify brands could be specified. He stated the measure would require bids not be accepted for brands known not to be compatible.

Senator Neal stated the purpose of specification was to define needs. Mr. Spinello stressed the difficulty of dealing with a product line in an industry that changes monthly. With the technology and the new product introductions, he explained, the changes happen frequently. He contended most larger organizations, both private and public, are only purchasing brands or groups of products known to be compatible.

Senator Neal pointed out often computers are purchased with the intent to upgrade rather buying a new computer for every new improvement. He reiterated his question regarding the specifications being redrawn to meet the needs of the county concerning computer hardware and software. Mr. Spinello indicated the bill was generated from the computer resources department of Clark County.

Senator O’Donnell maintained upgrading a computer is often a "hit and a miss" situation, and he cited a technical situation in which adding parts purchased by one vendor may cause a system to crash while parts bought from another vendor may be compatible. He emphasized the importance of committing to one vender with which a system works well, although a less compatible system may provide the parts at a lower rate. The bill, he explained, would allow the purchasing departments flexibility in obtaining the equipment necessary to make the entire system work.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified in support of the proposed legislation.

John L. Balentine, Lobbyist, Public Purchasing Study Commission, distributed a written explanation for A.B. 445 (Exhibit E) and expressed support for the legislation. He stated a computer system is made up of three individual components: the hardware; the firmware, which is programmed into the hardware; and the software. He pointed out when networking 2,500 systems together, they have to work smoothly. He stated when bidding under the current state regulations, the language "or equal" must be used in the bidding contracts. Mr. Balentine indicated any manufacturer can claim to be equal without detailed specifications, and stressed the importance of purchasing specific brands as a result.

Senator Neal questioned whether these brands would be provided for in the bid specifications. Mr. Balentine stated, "The answer is yes, as far as we possibly can go." Senator Neal questioned the meaning of this statement.

Mr. Balentine clarified:

Senator Neal pointed out the request was to have a law which would allow purchasing agencies to reject those items that are not compatible when bidding. Mr. Balentine agreed this was the purpose of the legislation.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 445 and opened the hearing on A.B. 639.

Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson City; Douglas County; Lyon County, explained A.B. 639 is the result of much work by the Nevada Press Association, the Nevada Taxpayers Association, and the local governments. She noted the bill increases the competitive bid requirements for any local government located within counties having populations of less than 100,000 and whose total local government appropriated expenditures exceed $1 million. Currently, she noted, Clark and Washoe counties have bid requirements of $25,000 or more, explaining the rural local governments would like to have this same flexibility.

Ms. Walker testified A.B. 639 provides for more government efficiency, noting for currently bid upon items between $10,000 and $25,000, the local governments have to follow a formal bid procedure which takes approximately 6 weeks. She indicated the bidding process costs an estimated $1,100 which includes providing contracts. She noted an informal bid takes approximately 3 to 4 hours with a cost of $80. Ms. Walker pointed out in Carson City, the offices are being recarpeted with the estimated cost of $13,000. Under current law, she noted, this general maintenance would have taken 6 weeks and an estimated 52 hours of staff time to complete the formal bid process. She commented the carpeting project took 2 days to complete, and pointed out if the law was changed to allow for a less formal process, it would have only taken 5 hours to complete the informal bid process in the carpeting project.

Ms. Walker stressed A.B. 639 is a good government efficiency bill and would save taxpayers’ money. She noted the bill would eliminate a lot of red tape which is often the source of taxpayers’ complaints, explaining the formal bidding process impedes efficiency. Ms. Walker requested a more efficient process be put into place for smaller projects to allow the time to be spent on larger projects thereby expediting them as well.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the $1,100 cost to the bid is made up entirely of labor. Ms. Walker indicated most of the cost is labor, but, she noted, there are also printing and advertising costs involved.

Ms. Walker explained in the smaller rural areas, the local governments deal with many "mom and pop shops" who do not like to go through the formal bidding requirements, and because they must submit bid documents, they often do not bid on the projects at all. She stated if the local governments have a more efficient process, there would be more "mom and pops" willing to bid projects. She pointed out when there is a cumbersome bidding process, the bidder usually tacks additional money on to the request because of the time it takes to formally bid on a project. Ms. Walker restated the bill to be a positive government efficiency bill and requested the smaller counties have the same consideration as Clark and Washoe counties with a requirement of $25,000 for a formal bidding process.

Ms. Walker told the committee there had been concerns brought forth by the Nevada Press Association (NPA) regarding the accountability issue and the decrease in revenues to the rural newspapers. She indicated the NPA had requested continued advertising for the smaller projects, to which she expressed no opposition. She pointed out the problem for the local governments is not the advertising but the 6 weeks it takes to complete the bidding process on a project. She indicated A.B. 639 would require rural entities to advertise prior to letting the bid out thereby maintaining accountability without a loss in revenue to the rural newspapers. Ms. Walker concluded the bill had been heard in the Assembly without opposition. She drew the committee’s attention to a proposed amendment (Exhibit F) which contained cleanup language. She indicated the amendment was proposed by the Nevada Press Association with local government concurrence.

Chairman O’Connell questioned the reason the amendment had not been presented in the Assembly. Ms. Walker said the intent was still the same, but the original bill did not have the references to the correct paragraphs. She indicated they did not "catch" these incorrect references in the Assembly.

John L. Balentine, Lobbyist, Public Purchasing Study Commission, submitted a prepared testimony (Exhibit G) to the committee members and indicated he was also the Washoe County Purchasing and Contracts Administrator. He expressed support for A.B. 639, pointing out the bill would create a standard level for all of the suppliers and vendors so they would be working under the same law for all of the counties in the state.

James E. Keenan, Lobbyist, Public Purchasing Study Commission, indicated he was also representing Douglas County as the Purchasing and Contracts Administrator. He said, "I am just here to state for the record, as the Douglas County Purchasing Manager, that I worked with Mary Walker, furnished a number of the examples that she used and could furnish others whereby it does cost more time, more money and it does discourage bidders. And I personally had those experiences in Douglas County, as well."

Senator Neal questioned section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (c) of the bill and how the availability of the two or more persons submitting the bid would be determined. Mr. Keenan indicated there are a number ways to ascertain at least two suppliers submit bids including maintaining a bidder’s list, reviewing previous purchases, utilizing the Yellow Pages, consulting maintained lists of previous suppliers, or by calling another purchasing office to request sources.

Senator Neal asked whether there would be public notice. Ms. Walker directed the committee’s attention to section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (4) of the bill. She explained this provision would allow any licensed contractor who missed a particular bid the ability to be placed on a future purchasing list for bids. Senator Neal questioned the way in which a contractor could be placed on this list. Ms. Walker indicated the local governments would publish a number to call for placement on the list in the newspaper. She indicated the list would most likely be maintained by the local government public purchasing department. Prompted by Senator Neal, Ms. Walker confirmed published notice was a requirement of the bill as set forth in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill.

Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association, drew attention to the previously discussed amendment (Exhibit F), stating he noticed language problems in the bill after it had passed through the Assembly. He indicated the problems should be clarified to improve the bill, noting the bill previously could be considered confusing.

With no further testimony, Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 639 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 13.

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, introduced Lynda Dill, Management Assistant, Office of Court Administrator, noting together they staff the Commission on Judicial Selection and would be representing the commission on A.J.R. 13. She called attention to Article 6, section 20 of Nevada’s Constitution which defines the judicial selection process that must be followed whenever a district court of supreme court judicial vacancy occurs. Currently, she noted, the Nevada Constitution requires the judge who is appointed to fill a vacancy to run in the first general election following the appointment. The purpose of A.J.R. 13, she explained, is to give the appointed judge a minimum of 12 months in office prior to running for office.

Ms. Kavanau stated the Commission on Judicial Selection has witnessed a serious decline in the number of qualified candidates when a vacancy occurs shortly before a general election. She cited February 1998 as an example of a time in which two vacancies occurred prior to a general election. The selection process was conducted in April, she noted, and the next general election was in November 1998. They received many calls from prospective candidates for both of these vacancies indicating if they were required to run in the November election upon appointment by the commission, then they would skip the judicial selection process. The callers, she pointed out, knew much time would be required to participate in the judicial selection process as well as to run a viable campaign and, therefore, decided not to apply for appointment. As a result, she commented, only 3 people applied for the vacancy in the Second Judicial District and 8 for the vacancy in the Eighth Judicial District. She emphasized the turnout was lower than in situations when more time existed between the appointment and the election.

Ms. Kavanau indicated the bill was intended to address the problem created when a vacancy occurs after the filing deadline but before the next general election. She indicated this happened last year, noting since candidates were unable to file for the election prior to the deadline, they were each required to collect signatures on a petition in order to get their names on the ballots. She stressed many potential candidates passed up the judicial selection process to devote their time to the petition and campaign.

Ms. Kavanau maintained A.J.R 13 could preclude the situation in which a newly appointed judge has to choose between waging a campaign and performing his or her judicial responsibilities. She cited a circumstance in which a district, where the judge had been appointed, was falling behind in its ability to keep up with case load. As a result, the appointee decided to process cases at the expense of campaigning, and even though the appointed judge’s judicial performance was touted by many, he lost the election because of his decision to place work before campaigning.

Ms. Kavanau drew attention to the requirement that prior to taking office, an appointed judge must close down his or her existing employment. She pointed out to quit existing employment, to assume the newly appointed position, and to enter a campaign all at the same time can be a daunting experience. She recognized to follow the details of the process with the prospect of not being elected after just a month or two in office can be very discouraging.

Ms. Kavanau pointed out the consideration of cost to both the judicial candidate and the government. She explained there are certain activities a newly appointed judge must perform including attending required education and training. The return on investment when the judge is only in office for a short time before losing an election, she declared, is compromised. Ms. Kavanau stressed the proposal will optimize the judicial selection process and field of candidates forwarded to the Governor for each judicial vacancy, afford the public enough time to become acquainted with the appointed judge for voting determination, and allow the appointee to acclimate to the new job before campaigning. She explained other states have initiated similar measures to include a minimum term prior to the requirement for an appointed judge to campaign.

Ms. Kavanau drew attention to an amendment offered for purposes of clarification and consistency (Exhibit H). She pointed out Article 17, section 22 of Nevada’s Constitution references the way in which vacancies in certain state offices are filled. Specifically, she explained, the vacancy may be filled by appointment by the Governor until the next general election when the position, shall be filled by election for the residue of the unexpired term. This clarifies, she said, the person elected to fill the vacancy may only serve for the remainder of the term not served by the person who vacated the position. To be consistent with that language, the recommendation is to add the phrase, ‘when it shall be filled by election for the residue of the unexpired term’ to section 20, subsection 2 of the bill, immediately following the words, ’12 months.’

Senator Neal questioned whether a judge would be permitted to serve 12 months if the appointment was made 9 months prior to the expiration of the term. Ms. Kavanau confirmed the bill would guarantee a 12-month minimum service in all cases.

Senator Neal clarified

Chairman O’Connell indicated the next term of office would be 6 years. Senator Neal concurred.

Senator Neal pointed out, "Under our constitution, what is stated, is stated. No alternative is allowed." Ms. Dill said, "I understand. I believe that … the question you have raised, obviously we have not crossed that bridge yet, so I do not know what the answer is."

Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated:

Senator Care requested further explanation of the situation in which one judge filed for Congress 5 minutes before the close of filing, thereby precluding anyone to file for his position on the bench. He indicated Mark Denton, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District, campaigned and circulated a petition for placement on the ballot. He quested whether Judge Denton was running for the unexpired term or for a 6-year term.

Ms. Kavanau replied that Judge Denton was running for the unexpired term. She indicated he spent a great deal of time in following the process, noting the requirement of obtaining 1 percent of the jurisdiction’s signatures on a petition prior to campaigning.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Ms. Dill explained that Judge Denton was appointed through the commission process. She indicated that including Judge Denton, there were 4 people on the ballot due to the petition process.

Senator Neal called attention to in Article 6, section 20 of the Nevada Constitution, which bars a judge from running if he is appointed. He questioned the reason it was necessary for Judge Denton to obtain signatures on the petition for ballot placement.

Ms. Kavanau noted Judge Denton had missed the filing deadline as the prior judge gave notice that he was vacating the office at 5 p.m.; the filing deadline for ballot placement. She pointed out the candidates, therefore, were unable to file and were mandated to obtain signatures on a petition for ballot placement, as a result.

Senator Neal indicated the proposed legislation would not cure the situation in which an office was vacated in such a time as to necessitate the petitioning process. Chairman O’Connell and Ms. Kavanau concurred the measure would not address the petition issue.

Ms. Dill explained, "What would happen is that if this bill were in place, then Mr. [Judge] Denton … would not have had to gather signatures because he would not have had to run in the November race because he would not have served 12 months prior."

Senator Neal suggested in a situation in which a petition process is presently necessary, the appointed person should automatically be a candidate in election. He noted this would solve the problem concerning the 12-months term.

Ms. Dill explained the senator’s suggestion would only eliminate the petitioning process, noting the appointee would still be required to campaign for office. Senator Neal pointed out this is the accepted process. Ms. Dill replied the judicial selection process is diminished when the timing is close to a general election, noting some choose just not to follow the appointment process because of the shortened term.

Senator Neal questioned the point in time in which the 12-month extension for an appointment of a judge will become effective. Ms. Dill stated a specific time is not set forth in the proposal.

Senator Porter questioned the reason a judicial office is different than other elected positions in terms of appointment.

Ms. Kavanau stated the issue had not been a consideration. She explained the Commission on Judicial Selection has focused on optimizing the process with which they had been presented over the past 12 to 18 months. She indicated 2 or 3 situations arose in which there was a decline in the number of applicants coming forward to follow the process. She stated, "If we are going to go to the trouble of having this in the constitution and we want the applicants, the appointees, to go through the process, we need to make sure that we haven’t [have not] programmed failure for the process."

Senator Porter questioned whether there were problems prior to the past 12 to 18 months. Ms. Kavanau stated some members of the judicial selection commission have been involved in the process for 20 years and they see the trend quickly becoming serious.

Senator Porter pointed out the appointments for filling non-expired terms are very similar for each.

Ms. Kavanau indicated they would further review language to address the questions brought forth by the committee members.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 13. She recessed the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

Chairman O’Connell reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m., requesting the committee review the work session document (Exhibit I). The chairman pointed out that the amendment on A.B. 95 has been withdrawn.

Prompted by Senator Neal, Chairman O’Connell indicated the amendment was from the City of Sparks with the request that lighting be added to the definition of a street beautification project.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 95.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, indicated it is not unusual to include street lighting in a special improvement district (SID), though, he noted it is not usual to charge for the maintenance of the lighting on an annual basis. The power that goes into street lighting is normally a service provided through the tax structure.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out lighting was currently included in the definition of a street project. Mr. Leavitt indicated this would refer to construction rather than the annual charge. Prompted by the chairman, Mr. Leavitt indicated the reference was in regards to the permanent fixture, but it did not include the maintenance, noting this was provided for by local governments as a part of their service to the citizens rather than as part of a charging structure.

*****

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 169.

Chairman O’Connell pointed out Senator Care had a concern regarding the digits chosen in lieu of requiring the last four digits from one’s Social Security number for voter identification. Senator Care recalled his concern that by using the suggested formulation, it would not be inconceivable to have two voters with identical identification numbers. He indicated Senator O’Donnell had suggested the word "unique" be added to the language to ensure that two people would not have the same identification number.

Ms. Guinasso confirmed adding the word "unique" would address the concern. She pointed out there had been some discussion as to requiring a social security number to be provided in order to register to vote. She explained this requirement was not permissible pursuant to federal law. Although the statute currently requires the form to have a place for the social security number, a voter’s ability to register does not require disclosure of this number.

Senator Neal questioned whether the proposed amendment (Exhibit I) would alleviate the problem. Ms. Guinasso concurred that it would.

Discussion ensued as to the necessity of the measure. Ms. Guinasso pointed out the issue had been raised due to an incident in which a person had not been allowed to register to vote because the lack of information provided.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to A.B. 203.

Reading from Exhibit I, Chairman O’Connell indicated the purpose of the proposal was to align Nevada’s law with federal law and to help correct compliance issues raised in 1997 during federal site monitoring of Nevada’s vocational rehabilitation program.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 203.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Next, the committee reviewed S.B. 254.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 254.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Prompted by Senator Raggio, Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, indicated the bill would not affect either Clark County or Washoe County. He pointed out the measure was intended for the rural counties, noting the density requirements would not apply to counties with a population under 100,000.

Senator Raggio questioned how the measure would make it easier for a place like Fernley to incorporate. Mr. Grady stated the bill would allow Fernley to take a portion of the township for their boundaries for incorporation rather than the entire township. He pointed out, in the case of Fernley, the entire township would constitute almost one-third of the county. Mr. Grady told the committee that the bill would not require Fernley to meet the 4 persons per acre density requirement.

The chairman drew the committee’s attention to A.B. 260.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 260.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO.)

*****

Next, the committee addressed A.B. 461.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 461.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested review of A.B. 518.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 518.

Chairman O’Connell drew attention to an amendment (Exhibit I) presented by Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, which would raise the de minimis exemption to a $10 limit for reporting purposes.

Senator Raggio agreed to include the amendment in the motion if it was the committee’s request.

Ms. Guinasso pointed out the statute does not currently reference the de minimis standard. She indicated a suggestion by the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be to include a provision which would permit the setting of this standard by the Legislative Commission for a more proper proceeding.

Senator Neal questioned the reason reporting takes place if standards are not currently set. Ms. Guinasso said the standard is not specifically set forth in statute, noting granting the authority to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be the preferable way to raise the de minimis standard.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Ms. Vilardo indicated when she spoke with the director about setting the de minimis exemption at $2, it was found this standard could be changed by Legislative Commission. She suggested $10 was a more practical number, noting the director had indicated that setting the standard to a number more than a nominal amount would require legislative authority.

Prompted by Senator O’Donnell’s request for further information, Chairman O’Connell pointed out the intended change of the bill was to waive lobbyist reporting requirements of functions to which every legislator is invited. The amendment, she noted, would affect the same statute but is separate from the intent of the measure.

Ms. Vilardo stated she would agree to the request by the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to allow the Legislative Commission set the de minimis exemption. She pointed out she had proposed the amendment because the Nevada Taxpayers Association creates publications that carry a specific price. She noted the publications do not take a position, but are intended for informational purposes. She indicated these are given to legislators to provide

Senator Titus questioned the way in which the $2 standard was set. Ms. Vilardo indicated this was set by the Legislative Commission, though there is nothing in statute that allows for the de minimis exemption.

Senator Care drew attention to section 1, subsection 4 of A.B. 518, which states, "A report filed pursuant to this section must not itemize …." He suggested the language be changed to "A report filed pursuant to this section may itemize …." He expressed concern regarding the possible perception that this information has been made confidential.

Senator Raggio and Senator O’Donnell agreed this would defeat the purpose of the bill.

Ms. Vilardo stated Senator Care’s suggestion was raised in the Assembly hearing, noting many legislators choose to pay for or choose not to attend functions. She pointed out if the lobbyists were to be responsible for itemizing, rather than reporting the aggregate amount of the total function, some legislators would be reported who would otherwise prefer paying for or not attending the event. She indicated by not providing an absolute distinction, confusion would be created.

Referring to his previous motion, Senator Raggio stated, "Well, I am not anxious to fool around with it because if we put $10 in, somebody is going to posture on the floor and say well you can get $10 a day and that adds up to a lot of money. And I am not going to get myself into that situation."

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 518.

SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Connell requested the committee review A.B. 588.

The chairman pointed out there was a conflict amendment to the bill. Ms. Guinasso stated the amendment would be a one-word change. She pointed out the conflict was with Senate Bill (S.B.) 533.

Ms. Guinasso indicated the change would be in section 9, subsection 6 of the bill to read, "… may authorize its clerk or his designee to approve contracts …." She pointed out the amendment would be pursuant to the change made by S.B. 533 which has already passed both houses.

Bill Moell, Chief, Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, indicated this change was agreeable.

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 588.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.)

*****

Next, the committee considered A.B. 611.

Senator Titus indicated there had been a question at the initial hearing regarding disclosure of each member of one’s household who is 18 years or older.

Senator Raggio noted the bill exempted public officers who did not receive compensation from the filing requirements.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Senator Care stated the explanation for disclosing household members over 18 years of age was to put Nevada statute in compliance with other states’ ethics laws. He said Nevada had rated low in a comparative study because it did not include this provision. He stated he did not see the necessity of the addition.

Senator Care pointed out the Assembly committee had discussed requiring the reporting of one’s clients, noting because of the rights of proprietary and confidential information, the language had not been approved.

Senator Raggio drew the committee’s attention to section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (b) of the bill, noting this provision would require the listing of the source of income for any member of the official’s household. He suggested adding language to only apply to those over 18 years of age in order to avoid disclosure of things such as newspaper routes. He recommended the change to read, "Each source of his income, or that of any member of his household over 18 years of age."

Senator Neal indicated he would add this recommendation to the motion while retaining the deletion of section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (h) of the bill.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

At the direction of the chairman, the committee reviewed A.B. 612.

Chairman O’Connell indicated this measure had been requested by the Legislative Commission.

At the request of the chairman, Ms. Guinasso explained the bill eliminates the existing language which states, "If the agency refuses to revise a regulation to which the legislative commission has objected, the commission may suspend the filing of the regulation until the 30^th day of the next regular session." She indicated the measure would change the requirement to the "… final day of the next regular session .…" She pointed out this change was made in response to the new 120-day session limitation.

SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 612.

SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.)

*****

The committee reviewed A.B. 626.

Frank Siracusa, Chief, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, distributed a proposed amendment to A.B. 626 (Exhibit J). He stated:

Senator O’Donnell pointed out the amendment would also add the types of disasters to which can be responded. Mr. Siracusa said they have made the attempt to bring the terminology in chapter 414 of NRS up to date regarding natural and man-made technological emergencies. He indicated the amendment clarified, modernized, and simplified the bill. Prompted by Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Siracusa indicated the amendment referenced man-made disasters such as hazardous material spills and dam failures.

Chairman O’Connell questioned whether the Division of Emergency Management would be involved in an incident such as that which recently occurred in Littleton, Colorado. Mr. Siracusa indicated they would be involved in the consequences of terrorism. He noted this would include stabilizing the economy and the infrastructure, although, he pointed out, the division is not involved in the response to such an emergency.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 626.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

The committee considered A.B. 640.

SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 640.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman O’Connell drew the committee’s attention to the second work session document (Exhibit K) and requested review of A.B. 12.

Senator Care drew attention to section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill, and suggested requiring the general application of a policy be in the form of written opinions, internal memos, or letters.

Ms. Vilardo stated she believed it appropriate to add the word "written" to section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill as suggested by Senator Care. She pointed out in section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (m), the word "general" would be removed because the language provides for "actual notice."

Chairman O’Connell clarified the provision could not be uniform because there could be a special circumstance for a company. Ms. Vilardo concurred.

Chairman O’Connell recognized Senator Care’s proposed addition of the word, "written." Senator Care confirmed there should be a tangible document, to avoid a situation in which, upon questioning by a citizen, an agency only offers past practice as a way of explanation for current procedures. He indicated this should not be sufficient.

Ms. Guinasso clarified the word "written" would be added to section 2, subsection 1, paragraph (d) of the bill to read "the general application by an agency of a written policy, interpretation, process or procedure." It was indicated Ms. Guinasso’s summation was correct.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

*****

Chairman O’Connell called attention to A.B. 130.

The chairman indicated the committee had raised concerns regarding A.B. 130 and had requested compromise language be offered for consideration at a later time.

As directed by Chairman O’Connell, the committee addressed A.B. 142.

Chairman O’Connell recognized that Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builder’s Association, has suggested that if action were to be taken, the proposal should be limited to apply only to rural unincorporated towns.

Ms. Guinasso told the committee of a constitutional problem in limiting the measure to rural unincorporated towns. She indicated this could only be accomplished by a population break. She offered to review the population breaks of the unincorporated towns in Clark County.

Prompted by Chairman O’Connell, Senator Porter acknowledged the bill would affect his district, noting he would support the measure with the proposed amendments to limit the scope.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the bill could be limited with a population break. Ms. Guinasso stated she needed direction from the committee on how these areas should be broken by population.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, noted most of the rural towns are outside of the urban valley, noting this may be a delineation to which the committee could refer. She suggested this method would be easier than referring to the rapidly changing population breaks.

Senator Porter recommended the committee hold the measure to allow proper review of Ms. Fretwell’s suggestion.

Chairman O’Connell agreed to Senator Porter’s request and referred the committee to A.B. 465.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the bill would authorize redistricting, though noted it had not been decided as to whether it would be done by a head count or by an estimate.

SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 465.

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Next, the committee reviewed A.B. 520.

Chairman O’Connell indicated the bill changed filing dates thereby requiring all candidates to file at the same time.

Senator Titus indicated she agreed with filing date proposal, but she expressed concerns regarding lowering the requirements for minor parties to be included on the ballot. She recognized the problem regarding an influx of people gaining ballot access because of reduced requirements.

Senator Raggio recommended the committee hold the proposal for further discussion.

Chairman O’Connell concurred with this recommendation. The chairman called attention to A.B. 614.

Senator Raggio stated he had some concerns regarding mailing of absent ballot request forms to 500 voters.

Senator Titus stated candidates mail a form to registered voters in which they would be able to obtain absentee ballots. She suggested notifying the county clerk of such a mailing was necessary because if all of the requests are returned, it would greatly affect the election departments.

Senator Raggio indicated he also had a concern regarding the definition of residence. He suggested the committee hold the bill.

Chairman O’Connell agreed to delay action on the measure. The committee considered A.B. 615.

Senator Raggio expressed concerns regarding conducting special elections by mail. It was agreed that this measure would be held until a later work session.

With no further business before the committee, the Chairman adjourned the hearing at 9:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Angela Culbert,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

DATE: