MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 8, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Thursday, March 8, 2001.  Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 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.                     Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr.                     John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mr.                     David Brown

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Dawn Gibbons

Mr.                     David Humke

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell

Mr.                     Bob Price

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Wendell Williams

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Bru Ethridge, Notary Supervisor, Office of Secretary of State, State of Nevada

Renee L. Lacey, Chief Deputy, Office of Secretary of State, State of Nevada

Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, Nevada

 

Assembly Bill 266:  Makes various changes regarding notaries public. (BDR 19-648)

 

Renee L. Lacey, Chief Deputy, Office of Secretary of State, State of Nevada, specified A.B. 266 would make various changes to the provisions for notaries and repeal the provisions for commissioner of deeds. 

 

Bru Ethridge, Notary Supervisor, Office of Secretary of State, State of Nevada, outlined the changes and revisions in A.B. 266 in regard to notaries public (Exhibit C).  The changed sections included Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 20 while Sections 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 were conforming statutes related to notaries public and Sections 17, 18 and 19 were conforming statutes related to commissioner of deeds.

 

Assemblywoman Smith and Assemblymen Humke disclosed to the Chair they were notaries public and would be voting.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson asked Ms. Ethridge to explain the definition of an apostille.  Ms. Ethridge stated an apostille was used when a document was sent to a foreign country.  The foreign dignitaries wanted to make sure the person that submitted the document had gone through the checks and balances of individual agencies.  The signature on the document must be verified by the Secretary of State.  The request could come from a notary, a county, etc.  The document was submitted to the Secretary of State’s office and the signature was examined and verified it was not a forged signature.  The office attached a document then to verify the signature found on the item did match the signature found in the Secretary of State’s office.

 

Assemblyman Price asked for clarification in regard to the commissioner of deeds.  Ms. Ethridge explained the state of Nevada had not appointed a commissioner of deeds in over 50 years.  Mr. Price asked if there had ever been any question about the legality of a deed because the state did not have a commissioner of deeds.  Ms. Ethridge stated not to her knowledge.

 

Ms. Smith submitted Section 5 regarding electronic and digital signatures displayed the biggest change.  She asked for the latest information in the area of electronic signatures and documents.  Ms. Ethridge stated several states had enacted the UEDA (Unified Electronic Transaction Act).  The state of Nevada had a bill before the legislature this session asking for passage of the UEDA.  The states that had passed the act have found there were no procedures set forth in relationship to actions performed.  The Secretary of State’s office was not aware of how the states would approve using an electronic signature.  When there was a uniformity across the United States the state of Nevada would like to be in the position to set regulations to match the rest of the states.  Ms. Smith clarified A.B. 266 did not approve electronic signatures, rather A.B. 266 established procedures for notarizing if the other bill pending was passed.  Ms. Ethridge stated that was correct.

 

Assemblyman Humke asked Ms. Ethridge if Section 3 created a special fund at the Secretary of State’s office.  She replied the fund would be a small fund that would stay at the Secretary of State’s office and be used primarily for the procurement of rental rooms and printed materials for the training of notaries.  The Secretary of State’s office did provide voluntary training; however, Ms. Ethridge stated the rooms she received at no cost to hold the training in were sometimes taken away at the last minute causing her to cancel training.  Under A.B. 266 the notaries would be charged a nominal fee so that she could rent a specific room, purchase beverages, provide desks, supplies, etc.  Mr. Humke asked if there were some preliminary numbers associated with the special fund.  Ms. Ethridge stated the nominal fee would be around $15 to $25.  She did not expect the fund to contain more than $5000 at any given time.  Mr. Humke offered he did not want to cause concern; however, whenever there was a special fund created the Ways and Means Committee would almost certainly want to be involved in the creation of that fund.  There were provisions that enabled the Secretary of State’s office to gain interest on monies and the interest would not revert to the General Fund. 

 

Assemblywoman Parnell echoed Ms. Smith’s question about Section 5.  She asked if Section 5 would be contingent upon passage of other legislation.  Renee Lacey stated Section 5 was placed in A.B. 266 to allow them to adopt the regulations.  The other legislation, S.B. 49, had been passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee.  The National Notary Association had sent a letter into the Senate Judiciary committee and requested procedures be passed for electronic notarization.  Other states that had adopted the UEDA had to have additional legislation to adopt procedures.  Ms. Parnell asked if this bill was the interim piece of legislation that originated with Senator Mark James and his committee to encourage businesses to locate in Nevada.  Ms. Lacey stated in the affirmative.

 

Assemblyman Brown asked Ms. Ethridge about Section 6 relating to a notary with limited powers.  He had not known there were differentiating classes of notaries.  Ms. Ethridge replied a notary with limited powers was specifically addressed to certified court reporters.  The statute that governed certified court reporters did not give them the authority to administer an oath.  The only person under statute that could administer an oath would be the notary.  The Secretary of State’s office had to create a special title for court reporters and the title was notary public with limited powers.  The title allowed them to administer oaths but did not allow them to notarize a signature. 

 

Mr. Brown asked about Section 9 where the notary added additional information to the journal and further where they mentioned the type of certificate used.  He queried if the certificate was a type of acknowledgement and verification.  Ms. Ethridge stated that was correct.  The certificate was an acknowledgement, a credible witness or a subscribing witness; the type of notarial act performed.

 

Chairman Bache asked if the notarization of electronic or digital signatures was a result of the legislation from a previous session that created a new title and chapter in the NRS, Title 59.  Ms. Ethridge stated that was correct.

 

Ms. Lacey added in regard to the special fund created in Section 3, the Secretary of State’s office would not have a problem amending the bill to have the excess of the fund revert to the General Fund.  The notary office was only interested in the proposed fund to be used to pay for the training room and extras.

 

Chairman Bache preferred to keep A.B. 266 as written to keep the excess with the fund so that after a year the cost could possibly be adjusted down to help future notaries’ costs.  Mr. Humke agreed with the chair and had only a policy question of the creation of the fund.  Mr. Humke stated that issue was usually dealt with by the Ways and Means Committee because it would include a statute change.

 

Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 266.  Her staff had checked all of the procedures proposed and was satisfied it met with all requirements in their office.

 

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 266.

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 5:  Urges Congress to allow states to extend Daylight Saving Time to conserve energy and to promote public safety. (BDR R-982)

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons, District 25, presented A.J.R. 5 to the committee and stated, while normally she did not like to bother the committee with a resolution, she felt the energy crisis that was present in the country made this resolution necessary.  An additional two months of daylight savings would help conserve energy and the resolution would encourage Congress to allow states to extend the days if the need arose.  She stated the next three years could bring about a great need for the conservation of energy.  The resolution asked to extend the days of daylight savings time to begin the first Sunday in February and end the first Sunday in November.

 

Ms. Gibbons informed the committee on the history of why daylight savings was created (Exhibit D) as far back as Benjamin Franklin.  There had been crisis times when year-round daylight savings time was instituted, such as World War II.  During the energy crisis in late 1973, Congress enacted emergency legislation to place the nation on year-round daylight savings time for a two-year trial period.  Public opposition developed against daylight savings time during the wintertime and Congress changed the emergency legislation to reinstitute standard time in November of 1974.  In 1975 the emergency legislation expired and the nation returned to the policy created in the Uniform Time Act of 1966.  Basically, she stated, this joint resolution encouraged Congress to let the states make their own decisions in regulations regarding daylight savings time. 

 

Assemblywoman Freeman declared a form of this resolution had come before the legislature on a regular basis; however, A.J.R. 5 was in a more complete form than any in the past and she appreciated the history presented.  She asked if Ms. Gibbons was hearing anything on a federal level in regard to this kind of issue.  Ms. Gibbons stated she had talked to Nevada’s congressional delegation and they were excited she was moving forward with the resolution.  California had also formulated a resolution with the support of Governor Gray Davis.  She indicated Nevada needed to be in the forefront as one of the states affected by the current increase in energy costs.  The congressional delegation supported the legislature voicing the concerns over energy and also supported Nevada’s leadership in conservation. 

 

Assemblyman Neighbors stated his support of A.J.R. 5, and hoped Ms. Gibbons would have more support than he had with a similar bill two sessions ago.  Mr. Price asked Ms. Gibbons if she had heard if there would be a problem or any effect associated with the major cities in Nevada, Las Vegas and Reno, in regard to lights.  Mrs. Gibbons stated A.J.R. 5 would help the Las Vegas and Reno casino industries because of their dependence on lights.  Las Vegas currently used light bulbs that were more cost efficient than other industries around the country. 

 

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.J.R. 5   

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOTIONED FOR A DO PASS A.J.R. 5.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOTIONED FOR A DO PASS ON             A.B. 266.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

Chairman Bache asked for discussion and Mr. Humke stated he felt the bill should be referred to the Ways and Means Committee.  The Chairman asked Ms. Von Tobel if she would like to amend the main motion with a rereferral to the Ways and Means Committee.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL MOTIONED FOR A DO PASS WITH A             REREFERRAL TO WAYS AND MEANS.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons withdrew her second and stated she did not feel this needed to be referred.  She would like to consider the bill as it was stated and if the Chairman of Ways and Means wanted to bring it to his committee he could do so.  Chairman Bache stated since Mrs. Gibbons did not amend her second the committee would need a separate motion for re-referral.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOTIONED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO             INCLUDE A REREFERRAL TO WAYS AND MEANS.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

The Chairman stated the committee was only voting on the rereferral to Ways and Means at this point.

 

            THE AYES CARRIED THE MOTION.

 

            MRS. GIBBONS, MS. PARNELL, MR. PRICE, AND MS. SMITH VOTED             NAY.

 

Chairman Bache stated the main motion now was to do pass and rerefer A.B. 266 to Ways and Means and asked for any further discussion.

 

            THE MOTION TO DO PASS AND REREFER TO WAYS AND MEANS             CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

********

 

Assembly Bill 131:  Authorizes governing body of city or county to adopt ordinances for preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 22-149)

 

Chairman Bache stated A.B. 131 would be assigned to a subcommittee with Ms. Freeman as chairman, and Mr. Mortenson and Ms. Gibbons as members.

 

The Chairman asked for a review of all of the subcommittees currently meeting on separate issues.  The Chair asked Mr. Humke for a summary on A.B. 19.  Mr. Humke stated the subcommittee had not yet taken action and they had a policy matter yet to be discussed.  The committee had requested another hearing on the following Tuesday.  Chairman Bache asked Vice Chairman Lee on the progress of the subcommittee hearing on A.B. 60.  Mr. Lee stated the subcommittee had met once with good progress and the second meeting was scheduled for March 13.  He indicated some of the smaller counties were having some problems with A.B. 60; however; the larger counties were already in compliance.  He stated the subcommittee would have a good bill back to the committee very soon. 

 

Mr. Lee spoke on A.B. 104 and indicated the subcommittee had a very good session.  The subcommittee had noted that the owner of the property was not a guarantee to the occupant of the dwelling.  The subcommittee felt the power companies had overstepped their boundaries by taking the extra monies.  The subcommittee looked for a refund provision for the apartment owner represented by Ms. Von Tobel.  The final meeting on A.B. 104 should be in the following week and then be back to the committee.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell declared two subcommittee meetings had been held on A.B. 63 and a third one was tentatively scheduled for March 20, at 3:45 p.m.  The meetings had been very well attended.  There had been some progress made as to whether residents could be assessed for exterior upkeep on housing, landscaping, walls and lighting.  She believed the subcommittee would come to final resolution at the next meeting.

 

Assemblyman Neighbors stated there had been one meeting on A.B. 94 and the subcommittee was awaiting the return of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) personnel from Washington D.C. to hold another meeting. 

 

Chairman Bache seeing no other business adjourned the committee hearing at 8:55 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cheryl Meyers

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: