MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments

 

Seventy-First Session

March 13, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments was called to order at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 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:

 

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens

 

 Assembly Joint Resolution 5 of the 69th Session, as amended by the 70th Session:  Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-308)

 

The Chair called the meeting to order and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Mortenson to open the hearing on A.J.R. 5 of the Sixty-Ninth Session.

 

Assemblyman Bob Price introduced the bill and said he had been a long-time proponent of annual sessions.  By way of background, he explained that Nevada did have an annual session at one time but some businesses and industries did not like it and lobbied successfully to have it repealed.  There were only six other states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas—that held biennial sessions.  Texas adjourned or recessed a session until the following year, then returned to handle budget items and things of that nature for a few days.  Some of the other states had held special sessions. 

 

Mr. Price further stated that even a business could not accurately project a budget two-and-one-half years.  The rate of growth in Nevada made this very difficult.  Referring to the data in his handout (Exhibit C), public opinion polls showed the majority of citizens believed the legislature should meet annually.  Many people who moved to Nevada came from states where the government met annually and did not understand how Nevada could meet biennially. 

 

One concern Mr. Price expressed was whereas the Legislature acted as a “board” elected to represent a constituency to review and act on problems, just like the board of a large corporation, if it was not seated, the “bureaucrats,” the staff in agencies, made the decisions rather than the elected officials.  The founding fathers laid out three equal branches of government decision-making.  All three needed to work together at all times. 

 

Assemblywoman Berman mentioned that she had received an e-mail that asked how the bill handled interim committee meetings that occurred during the 45-day session.  The interim committees, Mr. Price responded, were still a function of the legislature and needed to continue between the sessions to have reports, etc., ready.  One activity which had never been challenged legally was that of the Interim Finance Committee where there was no “one person, one vote” representation.  This was felt to be unconstitutional.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired what it would cost to hold annual sessions.  Mr. Price believed the actual per day cost would not be more expensive.  Committees and speakers would not have changed during the two-year period. Mr. Gustavson said an additional 45 days would cost up to 50 percent of what the 120 days cost.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera stated one argument for biennial session was that Nevada’s was a citizen-based legislature.  How would Mr. Price argue that this would not change?  Mr. Price felt this was a legitimate concern.  He liked the concept and thought it could still be accomplished.

 

Assemblywoman McClain affirmed annual sessions were long overdue.  There were too many important issues in the state to meet just every other year.  She totally agreed with the concept and felt that the Interim Finance Committee was unconstitutional. 

 

Lucille Lusk, testifying on behalf of Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated that her main concern was for the loss of the valued citizen legislature.  She wished to make the point that legislators’ pay would be increased by 275 percent because it went from 60 days to 165 days.  And, although the summary said the 45 days provided for limited annual sessions, there appeared to be no “actual” in it, except for the number of days.  The bill did not specify only budgets would be dealt with.  This was how she heard it discussed. 

 

Assemblywoman McClain retorted that the 275 percent could not become a campaign issue because this went to a vote of the people.  The 45-day session would not be a budget hearing but rather an extension of the 120-day session to hear rolled-over bills and address interim committee recommendations in a timely manner.

 

Ms. Lusk admitted that she might have missed something.  It was not her intention to have said the 275 percent would be a campaign issue, but it was a significant change. 

 

Vice Chairman Mortenson interjected data for the average number of interim meetings attended by legislators who received a salary:  24 for the Assembly and 35 in the Senate.  Those salaries paid out might be mitigated by annual sessions.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 5 OF THE 69TH SESSION.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED.

 

In the discussion prior to the vote, Assemblyman Parks noted that the bill referenced a compensation to be fixed by law.  It removed the 60 days and established compensation for each day of service but it did not say what the compensation would be.  Assemblyman Gustavson commented that while a candidate for office, his constituency opposed annual sessions.  Texas was much larger and they met biennially.  Nevada’s business got done in 120 days; there was no need for more.

 

Ms. McClain expostulated that her constituency in southern Nevada felt the opposite and believed not all work could be done in 120 days.  That was why there were so many interim committees.  The session was too short, and too few people were able to testify.

 

Mr. Oceguera maintained his concern for the citizen legislature and opposed the bill.  He said it took three to five years to effect change, and if the policy changed every year it was not effective.  Furthermore, under a time constraint things got done.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON AND ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA VOTING AGAINST IT.  ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

 Assembly Joint Resolution 26 of the 70th Session:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to exempt state contracts for improvement, acquisition and construction of facilities for schools from state debt limit. (BDR C-1753)

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 26 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED.

 

In discussion prior to the vote, Mr. Mortenson said he had heard contradictory testimony [February 23, 2001 hearing] regarding the cap increase.  Bob Erickson explained there had been some question at the hearing but that was resolved.  He felt uncomfortable addressing the technicalities and deferred to the experts.  Chairman Price had talked with Ms. Hansen and said her concerns had been resolved after speaking with Ms. Vilardo.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE MEMBERS PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.             

 

 

 

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 4 of the 70th Session:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to repeal constitutional rule against perpetuities.  (BDR C‑914)

 

Chairman Price distributed information (Exhibit D) and (Exhibit E) regarding perpetuities.  Mr. Mortenson still felt uncomfortable with his limited understanding of the concept of perpetuities.  He stated he had heard no opposition to the bill, and he expressed a desire to know the language of the laws other states had passed.  He asked whether the Legislative Counsel Bureau analyst would prepare information on both sides of the argument.  Mr. Price agreed to this, and Mr. Mortenson continued that Assemblyman Goldwater had provided information that did mitigate a strict law, but this, he believed, should have been in legislation, not in the constitution.  Again, he requested clarification from LCB research.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera offered that the law of perpetuities was difficult to comprehend and archaic in concept.  Our forefathers endorsed it because of their English background. 

 

Mr. Price agreed the committee would study the issue more before taking action on the bill.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Linda Lee Nary

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bob Price, Chairman

 

 

DATE: