MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY SubCommittee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 13, 2001
The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Tuesday, March 13, 2001. Chairman John J. Lee 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.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. John J. Lee, Chairman
Mr. David Humke
Mr. Roy Neighbors
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robin Keith, President, Nevada Rural Hospital Project, Reno, Nevada
Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology, 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
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, Henderson, Nevada
Steven E. Tackes, Attorney at Law, Advanced TelCom Group, WorldCom, XO Communications, Pac-West, Carson City, Nevada
Assembly Bill 60: Requires public body to post notice of its meetings on its Internet website, if any. (BDR 18-674)
Chairman Lee stated the subcommittee had received wonderful input from several sources and this meeting would probably be the last subcommittee meeting. The subcommittee had taken the total sum of all of the problems and requests and compiled them into a solution that Mr. Lee thought would be palatable for everyone affected by A.B. 60. Mr. Lee asked for any further testimony.
Robin Keith, President, Nevada Rural Hospital Project, mentioned her organization had sent a letter to Chairman Lee’s office that outlined their concerns with regard to how the hospitals could implement the requirements of A.B. 60. She queried if the comments had been taken into consideration by the subcommittee. Chairman Lee responded he believed they had been considered and asked her to read the proposed amendments to the bill when the paperwork was passed out.
Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology, State of Nevada, stated he was available to answer any questions the subcommittee had. His department completely supported A.B. 60 and if entities that were impacted had any technical problems his department would be happy to assist them with the implementation.
Chairman Lee stated the subcommittee had acknowledged the pressures of the smaller counties as well as the concerns of the larger counties. The compilation of all of the concerns and suggestions, they felt, had been covered in the amendments proposed (Exhibit C). If A.B. 60 could be written to give flexibility and freedom to all counties and cities in Nevada, the subcommittee felt within two years everyone would be able to comply. The suggestions formulated into amendments were:
1. To make the law applicable to only boards with all elected members; 2. Counties under 100,000 were exempt;
3. Counties over 100,000 to be in compliance by January 2002;
4. Language on the website should state the information posted was supplemental information and not a primary resource (to avoid possible lawsuits in case of technical failures);
5. Every agency in the state should report progress made to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Government Affairs by December 1, 2002.
Mr. Lee stated in addition to the proposed amendments the subcommittee was submitting to the committee a proposed resolution. The resolution would be a concurrent Senate and Assembly Resolution (Exhibit D).
Assemblyman Neighbors requested Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Grady return to the witness table. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Grady for their opinions regarding the amendments and the dates proposed in the amendments. Mr. Grady stated the NLC could give their support to all five amendments. He felt the number four amendment was the most critical issue. The public had to be made aware that the information posted on the Internet was supplemental information. The information posted on the Internet could not in any way have an effect on the open-meeting laws. This would be the main concern of the NLC. He insisted the language in the amendment should make the issue clear to everyone. Mr. Hadfield concurred with Mr. Grady; the posting on the Internet did not change the posting requirement that was currently required. The business of the government needed to be conducted regardless of any technical impact from computers.
Mr. Neighbors asked the gentlemen if they had any problems with the timelines suggested in the amendment. Mr. Hadfield replied he had no problem with the timelines because even the smaller counties were in the process of becoming technologically oriented. The timeline gave them plenty of latitude to convert to the Internet.
Richard Wilkie, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson, Henderson, Nevada, asked the subcommittee if the five amendments covered the question of the 48-hour versus 72-hour posting requirements. Chairman Lee stated the subcommittee did not make an exemption for the posting requirement on the Internet. The requirement would stand at the 72-hour deadline as per statute.
Mr. Grady stated there was an error on the date in the number five proposed amendment. Mr. Lee stated the error was typographical and would reflect the December 2002 date mentioned.
Chairman Lee stated he would take a motion to refer A.B. 60 back to the committee on Government Affairs. Mr. Neighbors moved that the subcommittee recommend amend and do pass A.B. 60 to the committee.
Mr. Hadfield stated in light of the changes that were being made with A.B. 60, he would ask the legal department if the language in the resolution would conflict with A.B. 60. The amendments to the bill stated a timeline and the resolution seemed to suggest that all agencies comply immediately. Mr. Lee stated the resolution would be drawn up by the Legislative Counsel Bureau and would have clearer language at that time.
Mr. Humke stated he would second the motion to recommend. He also indicated that he would like to make a record at this subcommittee for the legislative history in case the resolution failed or could not be drafted. The record should state the most important part of the resolution, which in his opinion was the performance date by the exempted counties. He asked that the record show it was the subcommittee’s intent that the counties under 100,000 in population would fully perform by the December 2002 deadline imposed by A.B. 60.
Chairman Lee acknowledged Mr. Humke and for clarification stated counties under 100,000 were exempt from A.B. 60; however, they would have to report their status in progress toward compliance to the next legislative session. If at that time the counties or agencies needed assistance in compliance with A.B. 60, the issues would be discussed.
Steve Tackes, Attorney at Law, Advanced TelCom Group, World Com, XO Communications and Pac-West, stated he needed clarification on counties with population over 100,000. He thought from previous testimony that counties with over 100,000 in population would be in compliance with A.B. 60 as soon as possible and now he believed the information stated compliance did not have to be in affect until January 2002. He noted also that counties with under 100,000 in population did not have to have compliance as of that date but merely had to report to the legislature. He wanted clarification if that was the subcommittee’s intent. Mr. Lee replied in the affirmative. Mr. Tackes voiced his concern that the state move forward using the Internet. He stated progressive cities and counties used the Internet already and he was concerned about the protest from other counties that claimed it was a difficult job to perform. He indicated there were classes of fifth grade children that could create Web pages and update them daily. Mr. Lee stated there had been testimony from areas such as Goldfield where the city had two phone lines. To access the Internet the city would have to disconnect one of the two lines and the issue was a real concern.
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst, asked the Chair for clarification and if the subcommittee would recommend amendments to A.B. 60 and a concurrent resolution. Chairman Lee stated that was correct. The motion to recommend amend and do pass to the committee was carried unanimously.
Chairman Lee stated the subcommittee hearing on A.B. 60 to be adjourned at 8:27 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl Meyers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman John J. Lee, SubCommittee Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
______________________________________________
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman