ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND ETHICS

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

Seventy-First Session

May 31, 2001

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 4:02 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 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.

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mrs. Barbara Buckley

Mr. Richard D. Perkins

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark District No. 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Recording Committee Secretary

Glenda Jacques, Transcribing Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Josh Martinez, Political Intern to Senator Jon C. Porter

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.J.R 7.

Senate Joint Resolution 7: Urges United States Department of State to approve establishment of Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas. (BDR R-1148)

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark District No. 1, introduced his intern and asked him to present the bill.

Josh Martinez, staff with Senator Porter’s office, explained Senator Porter’s staff had worked on the Mexican Consulate issue and had received support from the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and the Hispanic community in southern Nevada. Nevada had the second fastest growing Hispanic population and the fifth largest Hispanic population in the country. Nevada had 394,000 Hispanics and the Federal Census Bureau estimated that would increase to over 600,000 in 25 years. Over 302,000 of those Hispanics resided in Clark County (Exhibit C).

The large number of Hispanics in Clark County made southern Nevada an ideal place for a consulate. A consulate would provide invaluable information and emergency services to Nevada residents and Mexican tourists who traveled to Las Vegas. Las Vegas had seen a 50 percent increase of tourists from Mexico over the previous year.

Mrs. Freeman asked how a consulate in Las Vegas would benefit the Hispanic population in northern Nevada. Mr. Martinez responded a consulate in southern Nevada would handle all of Nevada’s Hispanic concerns. There could be a future northern Nevada satellite office in Reno.

Mrs. Freeman wanted an assurance the Hispanic community in the north would be consulted on the issue. Mr. Martinez assured her they would.

Mr. Anderson supported the bill and asked where the consulate offices were in California. Mr. Martinez replied Hispanic populations determined the locations of the consulates. Sacramento, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles had offices. Las Vegas was represented within the geographical area of the San Bernardino Consulate.

Mr. Anderson asked how the San Bernardino Consulate would be affected by the loss of the Las Vegas Hispanic population. Mr. Martinez explained the consul in San Bernardino was in favor of Las Vegas having its own office. San Bernardino had a Hispanic population of 450,000 to 500,000 and he did not believe they would be affected by the change.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Martinez to briefly outline the roles of the consulate. Mr. Martinez replied many U.S. Citizens were resident aliens and had to complete complicated paperwork to travel between the United States and Mexico. A consulate would also facilitate businesses that wanted to expand into Nevada and Mexico.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani had read that Mexico was interested in having a consulate in Las Vegas, but was having difficulty in finding the financial resources to complete the process.

Mr. Martinez replied Mexico had informed him Las Vegas was their first choice. Mexico’s President Fox was restructuring the economy and trying to revamp the tax base to fund a Las Vegas consulate by 2001.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was an objection to changing the pre-census percentage figures to the post-census figure of 22 percent Hispanics in Nevada. Mr. Martinez replied he did not.

Senator Porter interjected any consulate in Las Vegas required federal approval and the resolution enabled Nevada to be ready when the approval was received.

Ms. Von Tobel commended Mr. Martinez for his presentation and his outstanding work in Senator Porter’s office.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on S.J.R. 7 and opened the work session with A.J.R. 14.

Assembly Joint Resolution 14: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise certain provisions relating to system of county and township government and compensation of certain elected officers. (BDR C-1526).

Chairwoman Giunchigliani referenced Attachment A of the work session document (Exhibit D) and stated the language of A.B. 606 was a reference point for the commission structure.

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst, explained the resolution proposed a citizen’s commission on salaries for certain elected officials (Exhibit D). The resolution outlined the appointments, qualifications, and length of service for board members. Procedures for electing the chairman, adopting rules and taking actions were also detailed. The commission conducted public meetings to address salary increases and would set them as deemed appropriate.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the issue needed to be on the ballot for public approval. The commission, and not the legislature, needed to address salaries.

Ms. Von Tobel felt the legislation should have been passed years ago. She did not feel any elected official should receive mid-term pay increase as described in Section 33A, subsection 9. She wanted to remove the word “increased” in Section 15, Article 6, from “. . . commission shall not be increased or diminished.” She felt the language allowed justices a mid-term pay increase.

Mr. Anderson felt the best thing to do was to be honest with the public and disclose what public officials made. A Library Commission had been created for the Judicial Library to disguise what Supreme Court justices made and he felt it was not right.

Ms. Von Tobel said the Library Commission was discontinued because the members were not doing anything. An initiative asking for mid-term pay increases was defeated in 1994 and she did not want the resolution defeated because voters felt uncomfortable about a commission providing mid-term pay increases.

Mr. Anderson felt the commission should have been in place a long time ago. The removal of the phrasing suggested by Assemblywoman Von Tobel left the justices and judges at the mercy of the legislature. He felt compensation should be equal between senior and junior members of the Supreme Court.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani recited the old ballot question from 1994, “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow an increase in the salaries in the Justices of the Supreme Court and District Court Judges during their terms of office.” The ballot question was defeated 309,137 to 58,363. Maybe the justices should request a separate ballot initiative to address their salaries. She offered to speak to them and see if they wanted to introduce something that dealt with salary indexing.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill’s explanation could address that. Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt salaries and dates of increases should be addressed separately.

Mr. Brower asked how commission recommendations would be legal. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Governor Guinn’s task force had urged the commission to use the average private sector wage when determining salary schedules. She felt the analysis should include either private or public sector wages.

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Legal Counsel, referenced subsection 10 on page 2 that stated, “The commission shall file its initial schedule of salaries for the elected officials with the Secretary of State not later than January 1, 2005, and shall file a schedule of salaries not later than January 1 of each odd- numbered year thereafter. Each schedule of salaries is effective for the period from the July 1 immediately following the January 1 that the schedule is due through the June 30 of the next odd-numbered year.” Every January of odd- numbered years the commission would file a schedule of salaries. The schedule became effective on July 1 after budget appropriations. The salary would remain effective through the next legislative session.

Mr. Brower did not feel the scheme contemplated official statutory action by the legislature to put the new levels into law. The submission to the Secretary of State’s office enacted the official statutory action.

Mr. Wasserman stated the purpose was to have the commission enact the salaries and not require additional legislation. A provision codified the salaries in the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Mr. Brower wondered where the language that addressed the makeup of the commission came from. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered it came from the Washington legislation.

Mr. Brower did not understand why there had to be a lawyer, business representative, or organized labor on the commission. He did not feel those categories brought salary expertise to the commission.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated she was not sure herself and felt the intent was to provide a broad spectrum. Maybe people with actuarial backgrounds would be more relevant.

Mr. Wasserman added the resolution was based on the Washington statute and the committee could change the language any way they deemed appropriate.

Mrs. Freeman asked how long the Washington statute had been in place and how effective it had been. Mr. Wasserman replied Washington had filed its first schedule on February 18, 1987.

Mr. Brower did not want to limit the commission membership by category. Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested “The Governor shall appoint members of the commission of persons who had a diverse personal and professional interest and resided in various geographical areas of the state,” from A.B. 606 and felt it was simpler.

Mr. Brower felt gubernatorial and legislative appointments were appropriate to serve on any commission. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Wasserman if the language could be changed to follow Section 2, subsection 1 of A.B. 606. She believed simpler was the best way to go. She asked if the committee was comfortable with the fact commission members could not be public employees or professional lobbyists and the four-year term.

Mr. Brower felt payment of the commission should be addressed. Chairwoman Giunchigliani believed travel, per diem, or salary should be included.

Mr. Beers asked where meetings would be held. Chairwoman Giunchigliani answered the public hearings would be held in appropriate geographical areas and the commission meetings could be held where it was convenient.

Mr. Stewart asked if appointments from the legislature would be appropriate because the commission was created by the legislature. Mr. Hettrick understood seven members were to be appointed by the Speaker and the Majority Leader without listing professions.

Mr. Anderson questioned if the Governor appointed all the members. Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the language suggested five members would be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the Majority Leader and two members would be appointed by the Governor without designation of profession or education. Mr. Anderson confirmed the chairperson would be elected by the commission.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani addressed Ms. Von Tobel’s concern about “. . . The commission may increase but not diminish during his term of office. The commission may exercise any powers conferred by the legislature.”

Ms. Von Tobel requested the deletion of the word “increased” from Section 15, Article 6, that addressed Supreme Court justices and Section 33A, subsection 9, that addressed all elected officials. She did not feel it was right for legislators, other elected officials or justices to receive mid-term pay increases.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani wanted to make sure it was equitable for all elected officials and did not want to create problems that mirrored those with the justices.

Mr. Anderson asked if the committee was trying to perfect the language of the resolution or A.B. 606. Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified they were working on the resolution. A.B. 606 was legislation that was in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and she had introduced it merely as a reference point.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Wasserman to look at Section 9 and Section 10 and the different descriptions about term limits.

Mr. Wasserman answered subsection 9 allowed the salaries to be increased during the term when someone was elected before the July 1 effective date. Subsection 10 was similar because it anticipated how much money would be needed for salaries.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed with Ms. Von Tobel but did not want to put something in statute that created additional problems. Any elected official would have their salary increased the next year with other elected officials.

Ms. Von Tobel suggested “increased” should remain in Section 15 because of the negative reading. Mr. Wasserman clarified the removal of the deletion of the word “increased” prohibited justices from increasing their salaries. Page 2 needed to be adjusted because it allowed increases. The resolution needed consistency between the two areas.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if changing the wording to the “building of an index” might be more appropriate.

Mr. Hettrick felt the committee was debating semantics. The existing language allowed the creation of a salary schedule that gave a yearly salary increase. The resolution created an independent commission to set salaries and if they felt a salary increase was appropriate then he did not have a problem with it.

Mr. Brower stated the intent was to not allow bodies to increase their own salaries. The “commission factor” removed that possibility and any interim raise was not a problem.

Mrs. Freeman felt the public agreed with legislation that was clear, honest and forthright.

Mr. Anderson thought it would be appropriate to have the inception date moved from July 1 of odd-numbered years to July 1 of even-numbered years to coincide with elections. The salary would be the same for everyone across the board. He recognized judges gave up lucrative legal practices in order to serve on the bench, but they knew that when they ran for office.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained the Washington legislation created a salary schedule and posted it for public review.

Mr. Beers stated people in private sector jobs did not go six years without receiving a raise. The prohibition against mid-term raises was to avoid arbitrarily raising ones own salary and the concept of the bill eliminated the problem.

Ms. Von Tobel did not feel any elected official received pay increases during their term of office. The resolution changed major policy and allowed elected officials to increase their salary during their terms. Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out built-in percentage increases through retirement or longevity already gave them increases while they were in office.

Ms. Von Tobel did not feel it was appropriate for elected bodies to try and raise their salaries while in office. Many civic-minded groups would see this as a mid-term salary increase.

Mr. Beers suggested an amendment to set daily rates paid to appointees of boards and commissions. Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought indexing would be appropriate. Mr. Beers felt all commissions should be treated equally.

Speaker Emeritus Dini asked how a county would handle the inability to meet suggested increases. He asked if a deferral should be added to the resolution.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt Section 32 allowed county commissioners to determine what the compensation for county officers would be. Salaries would be set within budget constraints.

Mr. Bache explained the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs had standardized commission salaries to $80 per meeting. He did not advocate setting rates in the Nevada Revised Statutes because there had been no problem in adjusting rates through committee structure.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked when the commission salary had last been changed. Mr. Bache replied the pay had been standardized at $80 per meeting. He felt any change should be comprehensive to keep all commissions equitable.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about compensation for the school boards. Mr. Bache responded they were paid the same with a yearly bonus for the chairman.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated school board members had a very tough job and felt maybe they should look at raising their salaries. Mr. Bache felt the commission in question could do that.

Mr. Wasserman clarified the commission in question was intended to address constitutional officers and their salaries. Other factions could increase their salaries by appropriations or bills.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the commission should look at other boards.

Mr. Hettrick thought the salary of the commission should be set by what the school board was making. He wanted to avoid the picture of the legislature giving the commission a raise after they had voted to raise the salary of the legislators.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani advocated a salary for school board members instead of the daily rate per meeting. The salary would be compensatory with the size of the board.

In summary, Chairwoman Giunchigliani understood the committee was comfortable with the language on page two and adding language from the task force to consider average private and public sector wages in salary schedule development. The commission would set salaries without input from the legislature. The suggestion was given to pay the commission members $80 per meeting with allowance for travel and per diem. The last item to be resolved was Section 15, page 3, and asked if the word “increased” should be removed. She felt they should keep the deletion because it referred back to the staggering schedule on page 2.

Ms. Von Tobel agreed the commission should set the wages. An elected body should not expect a mid-term raise because they had colleagues who made more than they did. The rules should exclude any elected body.

Mr. Brower shared Ms. Von Tobel’s concern but felt the setting up of an independent commission would be okay with the voters.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested ending the sentence with the word “commission.” The resolution would be put on the desk for review.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 14.

ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK AND ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY AND SPEAKER PERKINS WERE ABSENT.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.B. 56.

Senate Bill 56: Creates legislative oversight committee on transportation. (BDR 17-68)

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated Senator Carlton and Senator Amodei asked to have their names amended onto the bill. She asked Mr. Stewart to review the amendments in Exhibit D.

Mr. Stewart explained the bill changed the name of the committee to the “Legislative Oversight Committee on Transportation” and adjusted the members to two members from each house. Section 6 and Section 7 were deleted from the bill and a sunset provision of July 1, 2005 was added.

Mrs. Freeman asked if an audit of the Department of Transportation (NDOT) had been requested and if the bill was really needed.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained an audit was passed and she felt S.B. 56 interfered with elected official boards. She had heard the rumor the Governor might veto both the audit bill and S.B. 56. The bill sponsors were concerned about road funding and how projects were decided.

Mr. Bache felt it might be wise to keep the bill alive with the amendments. They could use the bill as a negotiating tool with the Governor to keep the important audit alive.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

S.B. 56.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY AND SPEAKER PERKINS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.B. 570.

Senate Bill 570: Makes various changes relating to legislature and legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1073)

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated two or three policy decisions had to be addressed. Mr. Lorne Malkiewich had suggested interim committees be changed to five members and statutory committees remain at their present level. The second item requested the Legislative Commission to review each statutory legislative committee to determine whether they should be sunset or abolished. Speaker Emeritus Dini had suggested a 2003 sunset on all committees. The committees would return to the legislature for reinstatement.

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, urged reducing interim committees from ten to five members and have the Legislative Commission look at statutory committees. Members of the Senate were adamantly opposed to the amendment to sunset the Committee on Education and Committee on Health Care. They would not agree to cut the members on those committees.

Any sunsets would amend large sections of Nevada Revised Statutes and he did not feel it could be done at this late date. He had drafted an amendment that addressed those concerns. They could limit the Transportation Committee to five and it would take effect immediately. The Legislative Commission could review statutory committees and make recommendations regarding the need to continue.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 570 ACCEPTING 1(B), 2(A) WITHOUT THE NON-LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND 3.

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY AND SPEAKER PERKINS WERE ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.

With no further business, the committee was asked to stand at the call of the chair and the meeting was adjourned at 5:32 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Glenda Jacques

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: