MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

May 3, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:45 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2001.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:

 

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Bernie Anderson

Mr.                     Douglas Bache

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District 2

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Polly Hamilton, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics

Nancy Lee Varnum, Commission Counsel, Commission on Ethics

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the meeting on A.C.R. 3.

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 3:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning misdemeanors. (BDR R-20)

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, requested the committee’s approval on an interim study regarding misdemeanors. He stated the resolution was fairly self-explanatory (Exhibit C). In 1995 there was a study on felony classifications, which was fairly successful and felt it was imperative the same type of study be done on misdemeanor classifications. During the 1999 session there were law enforcement officers and attorneys who testified in favor of such a study, and continued to support such an endeavor.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the misdemeanor classification study was recommended last session and was bumped on the Senate side by the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement study. She appreciated Assemblyman Carpenter’s perseverance. She pointed out that she had spoken with Assemblyman Anderson, Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, who was in support of this study due to committee input regarding changing the verbiage from two categories, i.e., misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor, to misdemeanor. Referencing line 12 of A.C.R. 3, she did not believe they meant a “subcommittee” when drafting the bill, but “a committee of legislative commission.” She asked if there was a recommendation regarding the size of the committee. Assemblyman Carpenter stated whatever number was decided would be fine as he was not looking for a huge committee but one made up of individuals who understood the issues. He suggested three or four from each house would be more than adequate.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the issue was large enough to address since the Assembly was only allowed three interim studies. She asked if it could be combined with another type of study. Assemblyman Carpenter felt it was an issue of much importance because there were many petty offenses that needed classifying, as was done with the felonies. It was a large area that encompassed a great deal of time from judiciary and law enforcement personnel. He did not know if it could be combined or not, but had no objection to such an endeavor as long as the topic was discussed in earnest and positive decisions reached. Members of the Committee on Judiciary dealt with questions on the subject daily, especially the gross misdemeanor law because the crimes punished in that category greatly affected county budgets. Many times the prosecutors were at a loss to know what to do because of the penalties associated with some of the crimes. The job of the interim study would be to reclassify and make simpler the definition of a misdemeanor.  Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the gross misdemeanor category crimes caused the overcrowding in the county jails. Assemblyman Carpenter answered that was a major factor for the overcrowding in the jail system, and the one reason prosecutors were sometimes reluctant to bring gross misdemeanor charges and enforcement of such because it affected the county jails. He stated in Elko the county jail was being remodeled once again to meet the needs of the courts. With a misdemeanor, house arrest was an option that he would like to see improvised, as well as restitution and community service duties. Assemblywoman Freeman agreed the interim study would help everyone over time.

 

Vice Chairman Price closed the hearing on A.C.R. 3 and opened the hearing on S. B. 57.

 

Senate Bill 57:  Requires employers to grant leave for legislators to attend certain meetings during legislative interim. (BDR 17-157)

 

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District 2, stated the history behind the bill was to protect citizen legislatures/legislators during the interim in the same way they were protected during the biennial session. The 1999 Legislative Session was her first and the 120 days passed very quickly. She realized when looking at the history of the legislature, that more was being done during the interim than before in order to become prepared and do a thorough job to be ready for the next session. As a citizen’s legislature, legislators needed to be able to respond to the constituents’ needs during the interim and represent them at the committee hearings that were held. The bill merely extended the privileges legislators had during the 120 days to the interim period so that no employer may deny a legislator a right to represent their constituency. The bill changed from the original format with amendments made. On the other side, she concurred with Vice Chairman Price about the Senate, bills, and misdemeanors, and fully understood what he was talking about. She closed stating the idea was brought to her through conversations with other legislators and in no way was a reflection upon her employer, but she felt it was necessary to protect legislators as citizens.

 

Vice Chairman Price asked about the amendments made by the Senate. Senator Carlton referenced Section 1, subsection 3, as a new section dealing with number of employees. She felt that all legislators should be treated equally, no matter who the employer was. The committee in the Senate decided that might be a bit onerous for small employers; the amendment was proposed and passed out of that committee. She noted two provisions in the original legislation were omitted and the scope of the meetings covered under the legislation was narrowed. She continued, saying that in the original bill, the last page included under subsection (e), “ . . .conference, meeting, seminar, or gathering of a delegation or committee established pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 218.682 of which the employee was a member . . . “ Subsection (e) of NRS 218.682, subsection 3, spoke to the “ . . .general powers under the legislative commission to establish delegations and committees as official agencies of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) as may be deemed advisable to confer with similar delegations and committees from other states concerning problems of mutual interest.” It went on for another four or five sentences but that was the gist of the citation. Subsection (f) related to “. . . conference, meeting, seminar, or gathering at which the legislator officially represents the State of Nevada or its legislature.”  Those two subsections were omitted.

 

Vice Chairman Price understood that meant attendance during the interim at various national organizations were omitted. Senator Carlton stated that was her understanding also, but she could not speak for the committee as she was not present for the meeting when the amendments were proposed and voted on. She stated she was neither in support or opposition of the amendments, but stated the changes were what the committee felt would make it a fair piece of legislation. Therefore, it was up to the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics to decide how they viewed the original versus the first reprint.

 

Assemblyman Brower stated the statute was unknown to him and he found it very interesting. It looked to him that only seniority was protected and asked if that was what the statute related to. Senator Carlton stated that was in the original wording as related to all employees. It also allowed them to attend the meeting without being penalized; therefore it included the seniority issue. In her particular case, while she was on administrative leave from her corporation, she did not lose the four months of seniority. She did not have to wait an additional four months after returning to her job for her one year of tenure to receive another week of vacation. Assemblyman Brower understood the bill to further report that the employer was mandated to grant leave for interim activity. Senator Carlton stated that was the question she posed when first seeing the bill. She did not realize what was contained in the NRS until it was presented to her by LCB. Vice Chairman Price stated that when he first joined the legislature there was nothing on the books to protect legislators’ jobs.

 

With no questions from the committee, Vice Chairman Price closed the hearing on S.B. 57 and opened the hearing on S.B. 501.

 

Senate Bill 501:  Repeals prospective expiration by limitation of provisions relating to appointment of commission counsel by commission on ethics. (BDR S-1317)

 

Polly Hamilton, Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics, stated though the bill was proposed by the Department of Administration, she wanted to be present to answer any questions and indicated the Commission strongly supported the continuation of the counsel position.

 

Assemblyman Brower questioned the “sunset” attached to the bill. Ms. Hamilton stated she wondered about that herself. She was appointed to the Commission during December 2000 and was not present when the position was enacted during the 1999 Legislative Session.

 

Speaker Perkins stated it was a departure from when the Commission was advised by the Attorney General’s Office. There was some concern that if the Commission had a totally independent counsel there could be some potential to defer from routine. Therefore, a safeguard was set in place to see how it would work prior to seating an independent counsel. He then asked how that had worked and if there was any feedback on having a counsel independent from the Attorney General’s Office and relative to how the office was advised prior to that particular enactment. Ms. Hamilton stated the new procedure had been working very well. The current eight members of the Commission were very pleased with the independent advice that was obtained from the in-house Commission Counsel. She had not received any feedback on how procedures were followed when a Deputy Attorney General was advising the commission. Assemblyman Brower stated the Commission was the one state commission where the Attorney General would be subject to commission investigation. Ms. Hamilton introduced Nancy Varnum, Commission Counsel.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called for a vote on S.B. 501.

 

            SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 501.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON, ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY, SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL.

 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R1530.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON, ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE, ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY, SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL.

 

The genesis of the BDR was Assemblyman Beers’ bill in Commerce, which was moved to the end of the legislative process to keep the door open if it was decided to introduce before end of session.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani announced that on Tuesday, May 8, 2001 and Thursday, May 10, 2001, there would be discussion on reapportionment for the State Board of Education and the University Regents. The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: