MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments

 

Seventy-First Session

February 9, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, February 9, 2001.  Chairman Bob Price presided in Room 3161 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.                     Bob Price, Chairman

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     John Oceguera

Mr.                     David Parks

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Robert Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst

Linda Lee Nary, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Janine Hansen, Nevada Families Eagle Forum

Assemblyman Price gave some opening remarks and talked briefly about the scheduled time of the meetings.  The first order of business was the adoption of standing committee rules.  Mr. Price introduced Bob Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, who gave a short presentation.

 

Mr. Erickson stated that during the interim period there was a joint effort by Kim Morgan, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Jackie Sneddon, Chief Clerk for the Assembly, and him, to standardize committee rules for all committees.  All of the committee members present received the Rules for Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Seventieth Session (Exhibit C), the proposed Rules for Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Seventy-First Session (Exhibit D), and the boilerplate rules that Speaker Perkins recommended that all committees adopt (Exhibit E).  At the suggestion of Mr. Price, Mr. Erickson reviewed the 1999 session’s rules to determine if some additional items might be appropriate for inclusion into the boilerplate rules.  He found a few items which were not covered in either the standing rules or rules of the Assembly.  Those were shown in italics in the proposed rules for the 2001 session.  They included:

• Rule 2a:  Responsibility of the Chair to notify members of the meeting to be held;
• Rule 2d:  Responsibility of the Chair to call the meeting to order, and to preside over the meeting;
• Rule 6:  More complete description of the committee secretary’s duty of calling the attendance roll;
• Rule 13:  All definite actions of the committee would require roll call votes;
• Rule 16b:  All questions from witnesses would be directed through the Chairman; and
• Rule 16c:  Final action shall not be accomplished until all witnesses had spoken and were dismissed.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF THE             PROPOSED RULES FOR THE SEVENTY-FIRST SESSION.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

Assemblyman Price asked if there would be any objection to holding the meetings after the Friday morning session, due to the fact that there would be more work than in the 1999 session and a standard time would be needed.

 

Assemblyman Brower felt that was a good idea if it could not be done on any other day.  Assemblyman Price stated that they had explored other times but found that other committee meetings conflicted and Friday was the only possibility.  There were no objections, so the Chair stated the change would be made.

 

Mr. Erickson, assisted by Kim Carrubba, UNR graduate student and LCB Research Analyst, presented a Committee Brief on Constitutional Amendments (Exhibit F).  The 1999 legislative session was the first that utilized a standing committee on Constitutional Amendments.  The committee held 12 formal public hearings and reviewed 19 separate measures:  17 joint resolutions and 2 bills.  Seven proposed constitutional amendments were approved and referred back to the current session for a second approval.  A.J.R. 5 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, a proposal to amend the Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions, was approved in 1997, amended in 1999 and was back again under the same title.

 

By way of summary, the topics returned for the session were S.J.R. 11 of the Seventieth Session that dealt with the abatement of property taxes for certain owners of single-family residences, and S.J.R. 20 of the Seventieth Session which provided requirements for the enactment of property and sales tax exemptions.  The first considered by the Constitutional Amendments Committee was A.J.R. 4 of the Seventieth Session which would repeal the constitutional rule against perpetuities; A.J.R. 13 of the Seventieth Session which would revise the term of office for justices of the Supreme Court or the judge of the district court who was appointed to fill a vacancy; and A.J.R. 22 of the Seventieth Session which proposed to create an intermediate appellate court and revised the terms of persons appointed to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.  A letter was received from Karen Kavanau, State Court Administrator of the Supreme Court of Nevada (Exhibit G) that respectfully asked that the legislature not process the bill.  Therefore, A.J.R. 22 of the Seventieth Session would not be processed by the committee at the request of the courts.

 

Mr. Erickson continued that A.J.R. 26 of the Seventieth Session which exempted state contracts for improvement, acquisition and construction of facilities for schools from the state debt limit, and A.J.R. 5 of the Sixty-Ninth Session which provided for limited legislative sessions with 120 days in odd-numbered years and a 45-day session in even-numbered years, were the last of those returning to the committee this session.

 

Kim Carrubba, LCB Research Analyst, drafted from the BDR list a list of bills (Exhibit H) that would be considered by this committee.  She found only five but stated there may be more:  C-28, C-254, C-523, C-785, and C-1009.  Assemblyman Price added he had spoken with a couple of legislators who have subjects which would be coming up in the BDR.

 

Mr. Erickson finished by explaining how the Nevada Constitution may be amended.  There were two basic methods.  The first was through items generated by the legislature in the form of a joint resolution, approved in identical form by two successive sessions and sent to one vote of the people.  The second option was the amendment of the constitution by an initiative petition that must have a required number of signatures and must go to the public vote on two separate general elections.

 

The committee members and the audience were given the opportunity to ask questions or make comments though none stepped forward. 

 

Assemblyman Price explained that the committee was entitled to ten Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).  He invited Janine Hansen of the Nevada Families Eagle Forum to present a background on a BDR that the committee might consider.

 

Ms. Hansen had not brought materials because she had not anticipated speaking but she reviewed what she had discussed with Assemblyman Price previously.  She expressed concern regarding the issue of individual and family privacy that was a growing problem across the nation.  The problem was addressed in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in the Nevada State Constitution as the right to be secure in our persons, property, etc.  Increasing electronic profiling, database collection, and monitoring by government and corporations without an individual’s knowledge or consent was a growing problem, as was identity theft.  The key to the collection of all this information was the social security number.  In January 2001, the Secretary of State in Michigan filed suit against the federal government to stop the requirement of social security numbers on their drivers’ licenses.  In Texas, the collection of data had also been challenged.  A lawsuit in Nevada was filed regarding the requirement of the social security number for obtaining a marriage license.

 

Ms. Hansen provided a copy of the sample resolution to Assemblyman Price. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the bill only referred to social security numbers or a broader area of privacy.  

 

Ms. Hansen said it did not address only the social security number because it was a broader issue than that:  the entire right to be secure, the actual collection of data, and some of the means by which it happened.  This resolution identified the problem and proposed solutions.  Much of the problem was the interaction between the federal government and state governments and mandates received from the federal government.  Nevada might be able to legislate privacy protection in Nevada.  The greater problem was the imposition of mandates from the federal government. 

 

Ms. Hansen apologized that she was not prepared today but said she would provide some handouts which would give some background regarding the right to be secure. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson said he had seen a BDR about a privacy issue but thought it had to do with social security numbers.  Ms. Hansen said she believed that was a bill, not a resolution.  This resolution would focus on the interactions of state government as well as the federal government.  Another problem was the corporate issue; e.g., banks that captured the financial information of their clients and sold it to other companies without an individual’s knowledge, and thereby provided the company private financial information.  This needed to be addressed in the state as well as nationally.  A resolution would help raise public awareness and perhaps raise the awareness of what could legally be done in Nevada to protect its citizenry.  The problem was multiplying incredibly, she concluded.

 

Assemblyman Price apologized for calling upon Ms. Hansen to speak with such short notice.  She stated she appreciated the opportunity. 

 

Assemblyman Price asked if there was any objection to such a resolution.  There was none so he stated they would work on that. 

 

There being no further business, the first meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

 

 

DATE: