MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY SubCommittee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 2:32 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Chairman John J. Lee presided in Room 3142 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. John J. Lee, Chairman
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Roy Neighbors
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Bob Beers, Assemblyman, District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert W. Mulvana, Curator, Ye Public Morgue
Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, State of Nevada
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), Carson City, Nevada
Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities (NLC), Carson City, Nevada
Daniel Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, Nevada
Paula Berkley, Representative, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence and the Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada
Martha Tittle, Legislative Representative, Clark County School District, Carson City, Nevada
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Legislative Representative, Clark County, Nevada
Joe Edson, Field Organizer, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), Reno, Nevada
Fred Hillerby, Representative, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada
Elizabeth Pederson, Representative, League of Woman Voters, Carson City, Nevada
Mary C. Walker, CPA, Principal and Owner, Walker & Associates, Minden, Nevada, Representative of Carson Tahoe Hospital
Robert L. Crowell, Attorney at Law, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, Carson City, Nevada
Richard W. Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, Nevada
Steven Tackes, Attorney at Law, Advanced TelCom Group, WorldCom, XO Communications, Pac-West, Carson City, Nevada
Assembly Bill No. 60: Requires public body to post notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)
Assemblyman Bob Beers stated there had been a number of meetings with interested parties on A.B. 60. The meetings had resulted in five potential amendments to the bill that would address some serious concerns. He indicated parties were concerned with meeting the outline of the bill and had suggested a distant effective date of enforcement. The suggested timeframe had been one to two years forward. The second area of concern involved the number of boards in an individual county. Some boards had no elected official seated on the board. Clark County had suggested a possible amendment be added to include only meetings where an elected official was present. The third suggested amendment would give agencies a 48-hour deadline to have the meeting posted on the Internet instead of the open meeting law that stated 72 hours. A fourth suggested amendment would protect agencies or entities against possible violation of the law if a technical problem occurred which prevented posting a meeting on the Internet. The fifth amendment would include a statement on the Internet that stated the web agenda was supplemental to protect agencies from possible lawsuits in which citizens claimed troubled access to the web meant the agency was withholding information.
Mr. Beers stated a more comprehensive bill was heard in the Senate of the Nevada Legislature that included some of the provisions of A.B. 60. He had been invited to the Senate to demonstrate the 60 to 90 seconds necessary for posting an agenda on the Internet. The committee members at that time had been able to hit “refresh” on the computer, and observed the changed and updated agenda. He would be happy to give the same demonstration to the Government Affairs Committee.
Chairman Lee reiterated the five amendments stated by Mr. Beers. He stated the time frame of the enforcement was opened for discussion, the non-elected boards issue that Mr. Beers concurred with, the possible server problem concern for an entity, and possible lawsuits against agencies from citizens. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Beers to rephrase the possible entity lawsuit problem that pertained to citizens not able to gain access to the Internet.
Mr. Beers stated he had been advised there had been a problem in an area of the state and, of course, he wanted to make sure A.B. 60 covered the problem with an amendment. He stated the other amendment would declare the web version was a supplemental posting of the agenda with the “bulletin board” posting primary for notification.
Mr. Lee needed clarification in regard to the 48-hour versus 72-hour posting issue. Mr. Beers indicated the current paper version of the agenda needed to be posted in the proper locations 72 hours before a meeting in order to comply with the open meeting law. The agencies were concerned they might not be able to comply with the open meeting law by posting on the Internet. The suggestion had been the web version of the agenda could be posted within 48 hours of the meeting. The original posting of the meeting would go in the mail and arrive at a destination within one day of the meeting or traditionally two days after the meeting. When the meeting was posted on the web the agenda could be viewed immediately. Everyone that had access to a posted web agenda would be able to access it before the meeting. The current law did not ensure that anyone would get the information in a timely manner. Mr. Beers indicated he had been told numerous stories of meetings that had been missed by people in the north that wanted to attend a meeting in the south, and vice versa, and had not received an agenda in time for the meeting.
Assemblyman Lee verified there were issues that concerned the smaller counties that had problems getting websites or even computers. Mr. Beers contended the current language of A.B. 60 only applied if there was an existing website. The agencies without websites were eliminated from complying. There was, however, a middle area that involved a smaller jurisdiction that had a website running but was just an economic diversification tool. Mr. Beers called this type a “static” website. He stated if those websites were updated slightly the agencies were close to complying with A.B. 60.
Robert W. Mulvana, Curator, Ye Public Morgue, and publisher of the Honey Badger, a “watchdog” newsletter, spoke in favor of A.B. 60. He stated this legislation was sorely needed. He read from Exhibit C and outlined the reasons for endorsement of the bill. He stated his main concerns rested with the Reno City Council and the meetings that had been held in “closed-door” status. There was concern that the three counties in the Reno, Sparks and Washoe County areas had held “semi-public” meetings without proper notification. Mr. Mulvana stated Reno City Council published priorities for 2000-2001 that concerned communication with the community and citizen participation. He wanted to bring his observations to the committee.
Mr. Lee replied the issue of A.B. 60 was more state-related and did not just concern the city of Reno. Mr. Lee did not want to only discuss the city of Reno and stated the bill would serve the city as well as other cities in the state. Mr. Mulvana asked if there would be an opportunity to expand the postings of the Reno City Council by adding an amendment to the bill. Mr. Lee responded this bill only concerned the use of the Internet in posting agendas.
Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, Nevada, was asked by Mr. Lee for clarification of her written comments of support, with amendments, of A.B. 60 since the amendments were not yet written. Ms. Harvey stated support for the amendments submitted by Mr. Beers. She stated Washoe County already performed the actions required by A.B. 60. She asked if there would be any proposed language in A.B. 60 that indicated who would be responsible for the posting. Chairman Lee stated if a public body maintained a website it would be the responsibility of that body. The bill would not assign the duty to an individual.
Steve Williams, Washoe County School District, Reno, Nevada, stated the school district board had voted for support in favor of A.B. 60 subject to proposed amendments one through three mentioned by Mr. Beers. The school district currently complied with the provisions of A.B. 60. Mr. Williams felt the school board would also be very supportive of the last two suggested amendments by Mr. Beers. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Williams to comment on the timeframe issue that had not been clarified in the proposed amendments. Mr. Williams stated the time frame was not an issue for the school board because they already complied.
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, NACO presented on behalf of all of the counties, NACO had traditionally been opposed to new laws that forced the counties to perform. NACO had worked very hard with Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director of the Nevada League of Cities (NLC), to try to formulate a way to implement the principals of A.B. 60 without passage of a law. The cities and counties had started in the direction desired by Mr. Beers. He stated the counties and cities had made progress and indicated they would prefer another method that would make them report back to the legislature within a couple of years. He stated he did not believe the legislature needed to pass a bill that changed the open meeting law and mandated technology. Some of the counties needed help in moving towards the technology currently desired by the legislature. The smaller counties did not have the resources to purchase computers. NACO wanted to comply with the technology mandates, but did not feel A.B. 60 was the method needed. NACO would entertain a proposal that would allow the counties to participate and report back to the committee in a year or two with a progress report. At that time the counties would have assessed individual situations and problems. NACO, he reiterated, was always opposed to mandates.
Mr. Grady stated Mr. Hadfield had expressed the opinions of the Nevada League of Cities. He expressed the cities wanted to comply however there were matters of time and money. Mr. Grady asked the committee not to alienate the smaller cities by forcing a new law; rather, encourage them to attain the new technology.
Assemblyman Humke remarked perhaps there should be a delayed date for compliance of A.B. 60 or exemption based on population. The larger counties and cities had no problems with the Internet posting required by A.B. 60. Mr. Hadfield replied he did not care to use population caps unless absolutely necessary. He stressed he did not feel a law was needed. He felt the counties and cities would comply without a law. Perhaps, he suggested, there could be a resolution that gave guidance and direction to counties and cities without complicating the issue with a new law. Mr. Hadfield suggested NACO would welcome a clear draft from the legislature on direction and intent that would allow the counties to report back next session. He felt the counties could be in compliance with legislative intent, without a new law, in 18 months.
Mr. Hadfield testified the smaller counties were afraid of the new technology. He suggested the larger counties and cities could help the smaller areas by sharing expertise and knowledge of the complexities of working in the new technology. Mr. Humke replied he agreed with Mr. Hadfield concerning population cutoffs that created a two-tiered effect.
Mr. Humke stated he agreed with Mr. Beers that the issue had to be made into a law that authorized the medium of communication concerning open meeting laws. He indicated technology had overtaken law and the law had to catch up. He declared when the law was delayed and brought to bear after the medium, the law had an effect of authenticating the communication medium. The Internet was sometimes thought of as a source of unpopular information and a law that authenticated its use helped improve the image of the web. Mr. Humke stated strongly he did not agree with Mr. Hadfield’s position in regard to letting the counties and cities progress at their own pace.
Mr. Hadfield responded the Internet posting had been done without a mandatory law. He stated there was a dual standard because the technology did not flow uniformly across the state. The entities were getting closer, as fiber-optic lines were being laid in rural Nevada. As an example, Eureka complied with A.B. 60 at this time; however, White Pine did not and had hired a consultant. He strongly stressed it would not take a law to implement the requirements. NACO as an organization was very protective of its entities and their abilities to perform responsibly. There were some difficulties, but the problems would be solved, and it was not necessary to make a law. The counties and cities were concerned a new NRS would involve them in areas that could become potential problems.
Mr. Grady followed with a reminder the legislature had appropriated thousands of dollars to the state for technological advancements. The state, school districts, cities and counties would be covered under A.B. 60, he added. He stated the cities and counties aimed for the same technology the state was moving towards; however, it would just take time and money.
Chairman Lee asked Daniel Musgrove, Lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, Nevada, to testify in regard to Las Vegas’ thoughts concerning A.B. 60. Mr. Musgrove replied the city of Las Vegas yielded to the concerns Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Grady expressed; however, they had no problem with the bill amended as proposed. The city of Las Vegas would also support the concept of a resolution and would lend expertise to smaller cities.
Paula Berkley, Representative, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence and the Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada, stated her organizations supported A.B. 60. The network, as did most nonprofit groups, tried to keep current with local and state government and had experienced a difficult time receiving agendas on time for meetings. The network did not support, however, the proposed amendment that required agendas to be posted 48 hours in advance. The existing mandate of 72 hours allowed interested parties to clear their calendars to attend. The Chiropractic Board met last week to support the idea of posting agendas on the Internet. The board currently did not utilize the Internet; however, they would be on-line by October 2001. Ms. Berkley stated the board received many phone call questions in regard to meeting times, dates and appearances. The Internet would save them man hours as well as mailing costs.
Martha G. Tittle, Legislative Representative for Clark County School District, Carson City, Nevada, stated the school district was in support of the bill. The amendments proposed by Mr. Beers clarified A.B. 60, especially the amendment that stated the law would only apply to boards with elected officials. Currently board agendas were posted on the Clark County School District website; however, the subcommittees were often omitted because of time constraints.
Colleen Wilson-Pappa, Legislative Team, Clark County, Nevada, thanked Mr. Beers for sponsoring the five proposed amendments to the bill. She indicated she had spoken to the sponsor and asked for a change in the amendment. She requested “one elected official on the board” be changed to read “all elected officials.” She stated the county dealt with 69 public entities and the administrative duties involved would be overwhelming. The county did understand the concerns of the rural communities. Mr. Lee asked if the server to the county computer system had ever gone down. She stated as a user of the system she had instances where the technology had failed. Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated one of the amendments addressed the issue of a failed Internet posting. She felt the county would not want to cancel a meeting because a posting was not achieved on the Internet. Mr. Lee asked if the amendment proposed that stated the Internet posting was a supplemental posting would work. Ms. Wilson-Pappa stated in the affirmative.
Joe Edson, Field Organizer, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), offered support from the coalition of members. He stated he agreed with Assemblyman Humke in regard to technology surpassing the law. The constituents in the rural areas that were interested in information such as county meetings, etc., had become more dependent on tools such as the Internet.
Fred Hillerby, Representative, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, had a concern regarding the effective date of A.B. 60. The commission would support an effective date of January 2002 or later in order to have compliance.
Elizabeth Pederson, Representative, League of Women Voters of Nevada, stated the league supported A.B. 60. She indicated the posting of agendas on the Internet supported uniformity and access. She stated the bill did not indicate communities had to purchase computers. If a community currently had a website, interested parties should be able to access information concerning meetings.
Mary C. Walker, CPA, Principal and Owner, Walker & Associates representing Carson Tahoe Hospital, mentioned many of the hospitals have websites that were maintained by other entities that were fixed sites. She stated the responsibility of A.B. 60 would have to be maintained by those entities because the hospitals did not have control over the websites. She indicated she would want to have a provision in A.B. 60 that would be applicable to those Internet sites. She also supported the amendment as written to include public boards with only elected officials. Carson, Lyon and Douglas counties had many committees that had one board member attending. She stated the meetings were usually held on Mondays and Tuesdays and she feared staff would be working over weekends to post agendas on over 40 committees. The counties wanted to maintain one board member link on citizen committees. Compliance of the existing language of A.B. 60 indicated committees with one elected official meant overtime to post agendas. She felt committees would excuse the board member in order to comply with the new law.
Assemblyman Humke stated it appeared a number of boards, commissions and committees posted agendas to comply with the open meeting laws whether it was mandatory for those agencies or not. He asked for an example of an agency that was clearly not required to comply with open meeting laws.
Ms. Walker stated the rule was if the governing body appointed a committee regardless of the makeup of the committee, even citizens only, then it would be considered an open public meeting. If a city manager created an ad hoc committee that would only report back to a committee there was no requirement of open public meeting. Entities such as Carson, Douglas and Lyon counties wanted to have as much public involvement in issues as possible so the counties set up many different committees on many different issues. The governing body and the planning commission were two agencies of most concern to constituents. Those meetings should be posted on the Internet, she felt. Parks and recreation, smaller ad hoc committees, and even animal control issues that were controversial would eventually be heard by the governing body. Budgets and fiscal matters would be governed by the governing body as well.
Mr. Humke stated the e-mail he received from citizens voiced concern over the issue of not knowing about ad hoc committees and subcommittees. The constituents stated the issue was usually discussed at length at those lower committee meetings and by the time it reached the governing body the issue had already been decided. Citizens were told they should have attended the meeting at the lower level to voice concerns. He stated Ms. Walker’s argument did go both ways.
Robert L. Crowell, Attorney at Law, Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated support of A.B. 60. The association’s main interest was supported exactly by Mr. Humke’s statement: public access to meetings. He appreciated the problems associated with the quantities of meetings; however, the advent of computers and the ability to access information facilitated public involvement in government. The concept of A.B. 60, he stated, had merit.
Chairman Lee questioned the penalty associated with A.B. 60 for noncompliance. He queried if noncompliance meant the public body was issued an ethics complaint, and was the complaint against the whole county or against the person directed to do the posting. Mr. Crowell suggested compliance of that nature would be generally brought before the ethics commission. Mr. Lee asked for Ms. O’Grady’s opinion in the matter. Ms. O’Grady replied the action taken at any meeting would be considered void and the matter would be referred to the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Lee questioned again if a meeting was not posted on the Internet, for a variety of reasons, and a citizen filed a complaint, the Attorney General’s Office would receive a complaint and issue what type of penalty.
Mr. Humke suggested a simple affidavit that stated the posting was completed, or attempted to be completed, would suffice to create a record of proof.
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate for the city of Henderson, Nevada, stated Mr. Beers had addressed the concerns of the city and thereby allowed them to support A.B. 60. He also stated he believed an entity could be fined for violation of the open meeting law.
Assemblyman Neighbors concurred with Mr. Wilkie’s assessment of violation of the opening meeting law. As an example, he stated a county commissioner had been removed from office for a violation of the open meeting law.
Steven E. Tackes, Attorney at Law, Representative, Advanced TelCom Group, WorldCom, XO Communications, and Pac-West, spoke as a concerned citizen. He stated he searched the Internet often researching notices of meetings. Some entities, he noted, did a good job of putting agendas on the sites. He also noted he had sometimes received notices of meetings in the mail a day or two after the meeting had occurred. He stated the situation created frustration for the companies he represented when a meeting had already occurred and attendance was not feasible. The agency or governing body responsible usually responded when confronted with the problem that their compliance had been met with the opening meeting law on the date required. He reiterated Mr. Beer’s bill was an excellent approach that would make sure the notices were made available. The population of Internet users would only continue to grow, he stated.
Assemblyman Lee asked the committee to consider the requests for amendments the committee had heard: keeping the open meeting time required at 72 hours, amend to state “only boards that have only elected officials,” and create language that would address organizations that employ outside entities to maintain the websites.
Assemblyman Beers put forth a situation similar to the proposed question concerning maintenance of websites by outside entities. In large corporations the information systems department usually maintained websites for security reasons. In those circumstances a person who had prepared the agenda had to submit the agenda to the information systems department and that department posted it on the Internet. Some information system departments were very fearful of an “amateur” having access to “their” website. Mr. Beers described what a web server entailed. When someone asked for a web page, all they really did was ask for a file and create a folder. Entities large and small and entities that did not maintain the agency’s website could create a folder that was separate from all of the other information. At that point the person who prepared the agenda would be able to directly post agendas to the Internet without going to the information systems department or the outside entity that maintained the website.
Mr. Beers pointed out the misconception of concern of possible overtime on weekends if the organization had to post on the Internet. He stated he demonstrated to the Senate it took less time to post an agenda to the Internet then it did to print an agenda and post it on a bulletin board. He reiterated the whole process was extremely simple.
Assemblyman Humke declared the University of Nevada, Reno was a land grant institution and he wondered if Mr. Beers could speak to the people at the university to help set up a program that would use students to help agencies in setting up websites. He wondered if this could be a solution.
Mr. Beers stated the process was so simple we could assign the project to high school students. He emphasized the students in the 9th grade in three Clark County schools made phenomenal websites. He pointed out the pieces were all there; the infrastructure existed in urban and rural areas of Nevada to be able to meet the goals A.B. 60 suggested.
Chairman Lee defined for the committee the five possible amendments to A.B. 60 and mentioned the proponents and opponents that had testified. He stated the bill was not ready to go back to committee until there was an understanding of the proposed amendments. He suggested the committee meet one more time and asked Mr. Beers to work on clarifying the amendments.
Mr. Humke asked for clarification on the time line issue between 72 hours and 48 hours for the web posting of agendas. Mr. Beers replied he had not formalized his amendments at the time and would submit the amendments in writing to the committee the next day. Mr. Neighbors concurred on setting up a workshop and agreed the issue was not ready to go back to the committee. Mr. Humke agreed the amendments and issues needed to be studied further and therefore another meeting would be desirable.
Chairman Lee asked for additional comments and seeing none closed the subcommittee hearing at 3:43 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl Meyers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman John Lee, Chairman
DATE: