MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-First Session
May 17, 2001
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 4:14 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 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. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Greg Brower
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Ms. Vivian Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Barbara Buckley
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
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:
Carol Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Peter Krueger, State Director, Nevada Petroleum Marketer's Association
Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Tim Crowley, Directorof Government Affair and Community Relations,
Nevada Mining Association
Larry Bennett, Contract Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Bell, and Cox Communications Company
Alan Glover, Clark County Clerk/Recorder; Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Officials
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Senior Legislative Analyst, Clark County Manager's Office
Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary of State, Secretary of State’s Office
Chairwoman Giunchigliani called the meeting to order as a subcommittee and opened the hearing on S.B. 56.
Senate Bill 56: Creates legislative oversight committee on transportation. (BDR 17-68)
S.B. 56 was concurrently referred to Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and the Committee on Transportation, though it had never been heard by Transportation and rather went directly to this committee. This bill related to a transportation oversight commission. Senator Carlton had worked on the bill and requested time to present the bill.
Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District 2, stated the bill was worked on diligently in the Senate Committee on Transportation and had been concurrently referred. The amendment presented simply amended the sponsors of the bill to include Senators Amodei and Carlton (Exhibit C). Both had worked on the bill in subcommittee. Chairwoman Giunchigliani affirmed the bill would establish an oversight commission for the Department of Transportation. She stated she would not take action on the bill until a quorum was present. The bill was referred to Ways and Means, as it was not an exempt bill and had a fiscal note attached. Senator Carlton agreed with the procedure described by Chairwoman Giunchigliani.
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Legal Counsel, had discussed with Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, the exempt policy, and stated the bill would be exempt as legislative business under the joint rules of bills that related to legislative business. This bill only established a legislative standing committee and action could be processed after the May 21, 2001 deadline. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for further confirmation because Senator Carlton had conferred with Brenda Erodes who told her she thought it would die if not addressed by Monday, May 21, 2001.
Senate Bill 65: Makes various changes to provisions relating to legislative committee to study distribution among local governments of revenue from state and local taxes. (BDR 17-698)
Opening the hearing on S.B. 65, Carole Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Taxpayers Association, presented the bill, which was committee-sponsored. S.C.R. 40 of the 1995 Legislative Session created an interim study for reviewing government local revenue and how the funds had been distributed. The study concluded with a recommendation that the interim committee should become a standing committee, with a "sunset" so that if the committee proved unnecessary, it would be discontinued. Ms. Vilardo said it was her belief the committee was needed and to that end had extended the sunset date to July 1, 2005.
Continuing, Ms. Vilardo explained from the onset of S.C.R. 40 the committee had dealt with the net proceeds and fuel tax issues. It had taken five years to resolve how a formula should be crafted to represent “today.” Ms. Vilardo said she thought legislation had processed through both houses in regard to this issue, and the committee had worked to include administrative and compliance provisions dealing with room tax in one section. She knew Assemblymen Anderson and Brower had heard that bill. S.B. 317's purpose was to provide cleanup language that removed 12 obsolete statutes. She reiterated it was necessary to continue the work of the committee. Ms. Vilardo offered to review each section of the bill, but rather compacted the information by stating the bill extended the work of the committee until 2005. It redefined a couple of areas since a standing committee was not required to do a report, and yet the committee dealt with issues from which a resolution was expected. It was felt on tax issues there should be some sort of a report that identified the tax issue discussed. The committee was still in the process of evaluating the impact of tangible goods from the electric industry. Rather than have that as a separate bill put under the purview of S.B. 253 of the 1997 Legislative Session, it was rolled into the general language of S.B. 65.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the bill would not add another study committee, but components to what the established committee would review. Ms. Vilardo answered in the affirmative.
Peter Krueger, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, urged the passage of S.B. 65. The industry was studied over a five-year period and had resulted in excellent legislation. While the committee had done great work in the past, he highlighted what they believed was in the future: a fuel policy from a taxation standpoint. Alternative fuels and the tax policies associated thereto were absolutely essential as more and more new fuels were developed:
When speaking about tax rates on those products, though not written in statute, it was essential the 2003 Legislative Session take a position that fuels be taxed on the British Thermal Unit (BTU). With that on the horizon and energy a number one issue, he urged the committee to favorably pass the bill.
Assemblywoman Freeman asked if fuel taxes were discussed in the Committee on Transportation. Mr. Krueger stated it depended in which house the bill was presented. In the Assembly, the Committee on Transportation had an ongoing debate about propane and the correct level of taxation associated with the product because there was never an agreement whether or not propane was truly a gas or a liquid. In the Senate, fuels were discussed in the Taxation Committee.
Tom Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, voiced support of S.B. 65, and said the league had supported the S.C.R. 40 and S.B. 253 committees. He referenced Section 3 and pointed out NACO and the school trustees appointed members to an advisory technical committee to work on the issue.
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, voiced support of the legislation because it allowed a forum to discuss critical taxation issues that affected not just counties but cities and school districts. It was an opportunity to craft solutions to problems presented either during the legislative session or through other entities. It also helped to solve various serious problems and to avoid lengthy, unproductive discussions during the legislative session.
Tim Crowley, Directorof Government Affair and Community Relations,Nevada Mining Association, stated the Distribution of Revenues Committee had to be of great value to the mining industry. The mining industry had participated in a number of issues, including the highway mile issues, depreciation, and property tax issues. He said the association appreciated all of the help provided to the industry and to the communities in which they lived.
Speaking in favor of S.B. 65, Larry W. Bennett said he was representing the Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Bell and Cox Communications Company. He read his testimony into the record (Exhibit D) and the following is a summary of that testimony.
Mr. Bennett explained in 1999 he had been appointed to the Centrally Assessed Properties Study group and the Business Person Property Study Group by the Committee on Distribution Among Local Governments of Revenue from State and Local Taxes that continued to be referred to as the S. B. 253 Committee. He said his responsibility was to monitor and offer input on behalf of the companies he represented.
Mr. Bennett explained the study groups were to provide additional private/public raw data, general information and insight on specific components of the study areas. The study groups provided analytical resources and identified alternatives for the advisory committee, but did not make specific recommendations. Membership on these study groups was ad hoc by interested volunteers from the private/public sector who used their own resources to provide additional information on an as needed basis. Mr. Bennett added it was the opinion of Sierra Pacific Power, Nevada Power Company, Nevada Bell and Cox Communications Company that the legislative committee provided a very important service to both the legislature, the state and local governments by providing an in-depth evaluation of the tax structure in the state and attempted to assure that the structure was both fair and equitable.
Mr. Bennett concluded, saying, in the current times of tight revenues and possible budget shortfalls, the data the committee would forward to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for distribution to the legislature would be a valuable tool for the assessment of possible changes or adjustments in the tax code during the 2003 Legislative Session. Mr. Bennett urged passage of S.B. 65.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.B. 65 and called for action on the legislation.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 65.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Speaker Emeritus asked if the committees changed the chairperson as described on page 3 of the bill. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Ms. Vilardo for an opinion. She stated it was not discussed in S.C.R. 40 and there had not been a rotation. It was discussed within S.B. 253, but recalled there was no discussion with the committee of legislators. Assemblywoman Freemen recalled voicing a motion regarding rotating the chairperson but the motion had been defeated. It was not discussed specifically for the bill on the table.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani voiced that on Section 3, subsection 3 on page 3, lines 42 through 45, “The legislative committee shall elect a chairperson from one house of the legislature and a vice chairperson from the other house.” Speaker Emeritus Dini understood those positions were to rotate each biennium. The issue was free to be discussed and asked for thoughts from the committee. She also offered to call a meeting on the floor to speak with the chair to see if there was a serious issue to be debated. Assemblywoman Freeman had not realized the option was in the bill and suggested talking to Senator O’Connell and Assemblyman Goldwater to get their views.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE SPEAKER PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY.
********
Senate Bill 297: Makes various changes to provisions governing elections. (BDR 24-841)
Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.B. 297.
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk/Recorder, representing the Nevada Association of County Clerks, stated the bill had Senator O’Connell’s name on it at the association's request. This decision came out of a discussion held with the Senator and the Legislative Counsel Bureau before the current session convened, as a result of the Florida election problems. The bill had a tortured history and was extensively amended in the Senate. He added it was a bill all county clerks supported. Many of the provisions looked familiar because they were in several other bills that had already been processed. Mr. Glover went through the text of the bill section by section and then addressed Exhibit E, the proposed amendments to the bill and narrated verbatim from the text of the exhibit.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for questions from the committee about the amendments (Exhibit E). Hearing none, she called for action on the bill with the addition of adding an effective date of October 1, 2001.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani, for clarification purposes, asked Mr. Glover if the bill addressed the three days that had been discussed previously and Mr. Glover answered yes.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE SPEAKER PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY.
********
Senate Bill 27: Makes various changes relating to voting. (BDR 24-504)
The first work session document to be discussed was S.B. 27.
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, referred to Exhibit F, which was a Work Session sheet, and Exhibit G, which was a local government fiscal note, and explained the current wording of Section 1 of the bill required the font size for the application to register to vote be a 20-point type. He said there had been discussion regarding the change of the font size to at least a 14-type. He said the Chairman has indicated the possibility of deleting Section 1 in its entirety.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Senior Legislative Analyst, Clark County Manager's Office, explained the committee had previously requested a revised fiscal note based on the first reprint of the bill. She said there was no material fiscal impact for the sample ballot. The font size would determine any increased printing costs. Chairwoman Giunchigliani said a 14 font for the sample ballot box would allow enough verbiage without having to add an additional page. Ms. Wilson-Pappa agreed and added the registrar felt using the smaller font would allow him to include a disclaimer that basically said all voters received a sample ballot, which was apparently not the case in all states.
SPEAKER EMERITUS DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 297.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
Senate Bill 466: Makes various changes regarding ethics in government. (BDR 23-716)
Mr. Stewart introduced the work session on S.B. 466 and referred to Exhibit F. He explained there had been discussion, after the bill had been previously heard by the committee, about the Statement of Financial Disclosure and the fact that a person who filed the form was required to go through a process where they notified the Ethics Commission as to whether or not they had previously filed the statement. This was so they could cover the requirement for filing either three months late, after they had declared their candidacy, or if they belonged to multiple offices or boards where they were serving in a public office capacity. Mr. Stewart explained the proposed amendment was to the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 281.561, which was a part of Exhibit F. He said the amendment would delete the last sentences in subsections 2 and 3 that provided for the public officer to notify the commission in writing that they had in fact filed a previous report.
Chairman Giunchigliani summarized, saying the amendment let a candidate, if they had filed within the previous three months, to not repeat the entire filing process, rather to let the statement stand.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 466.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
Senate Bill 565: Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-608)
Mr. Stewart explained S.B. 565 was the Secretary of State's elections bill. He said there were a number of amendments involved for the bill and listed them as follows:
Mr. Stewart explained A.B. 637, which had previously been passed by the committee, proposed that the local government act on an initiative and referendum ordinance within 30 days, but it had since determined to leave the 45-day limit. He said it would most likely be A.B. 637 that needed changes, and not S.B. 565 in regard to that issue.
Mr. Stewart added a couple conflict amendments had been generated for S.B. 466 and S.B. 565, but were technical in nature and would not impact the substance of either measure.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Glover to explain the 45-day issue. Mr. Glover stated the cities needed 45 days to correlate with the dates of city council meetings and publication dates. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested leaving S.B. 565 as it was, and amending other related legislation with the 45‑day requirement.
In reference to the first suggested amendment, Chairman Giunchigliani asked why the Secretary of State's Office had requested the five-day limit instead of the other wording. Susan Morandi, Deputy Secretary of State, Secretary of State’s Office said her concern was with mailing, as three days was not enough time for the ballots to go through the mailing system. The compromise was to allow for five days with no flexibility. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested the five days made sense but was concerned about "cutting" things off too soon. Ms. Morandi felt any provision to get the information to voters before early voting was acceptable. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated they would consider the 5 days with the flexibility language.
In continuation of discussion on the first amendment, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested “shall” be replaced by the word “may” because the money was not allocated for the program and she did not want to create fear of being unable to follow mandates until there was money to comfortably process a statewide program. Ms. Giunchigliani explained clerks would be more comfortable if, during the interim, money was received only then the concept of providing voter matches could comfortably be discussed. The language allowed the Secretary of State to study the program being used by California and other neighboring states. She requested a motion that accepted 1(a) and 2(b), but including the more flexible language.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 565.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
********
Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the Legal Division had confirmed S.B. 56 was an exempted bill. She said the bill would be posted for May 22, 2001, and if passed out of committee would be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, as there was a fiscal note attached.
Being no further business, Chairman Giunchigliani adjourned the hearing at 4:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann M. VanNostrand
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: