MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 14, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 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
Mr. Wendell Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bob Beers
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bruce Pfeiffer, Ham Radio Operator, Carson City
Stan Brokl, State RACES Officer, State of Nevada
Dick Flanagan, Amateur Radio Operator, Minden
Steven Goldman, General Class Radio Operator, Las Vegas
Ed Richards, Amateur Radio Operator, Sparks
Tim Stoffel, Amateur Radio Operator, Reno
Danny Lee, Legislative Consultant, Real Estate Management, Inc.
Bill Gregory, Advocate, Howard Hughes Corporation
Pamela Scott, Advocate, Summerlin Master Planned Communities
Bruce Pennington, RACES Officer, Las Vegas
Terry Glen Haggard, Radio Operator, Reno Area Metro Simplex, Inc.
Shari O’Donnell, Chairman, Community Associations Institute
Dr. William H. Avery, Jr., Professional Electrical Engineer and Adjunct Professor at The University of Nevada, Reno
Janet Welsh, Amateur Radio Operator, Las Vegas
Jim Myers, Amateur Radio Operator, Washoe County
Norm Patterson, Antenna Builder, Carson City
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates, Clark County Commission
Marvin Leavitt, Director, Office of Administrative Services, Las Vegas
Daniel Walters, Executive Director, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District
Assembly Bill 61: Prohibits certain restrictions pertaining to station antenna structures used in amateur service communications. (BDR 22-672)
Assemblyman Bob Beers, District No. 4, introduced A.B. 61, which reversed the Las Vegas ordinance that restricted the placement of large cell phone towers and inadvertently restricted amateur radio service. Mr. Beers’ ham radio operator handle was WB7EHN. There were many amateur radio operators around and they were passionate about their hobby.
Bruce Pfeiffer, ham radio operator N7CPP, testified that he worked as an assembly attaché copy room coordinator, but he testified as an individual today. He explained his interests were radio emergency communications. His radio was powered by solar-charged batteries and did not rely on outside power sources. During the Loma Prieta earthquake in Central California he passed health and welfare messages to concerned citizens and relatives.
Mr. Pfeiffer explained volunteer radio operators provided backup communications for the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). The statewide organization provided free emergency communication to state or local agencies. Improved antenna systems were needed for propagation of statewide and area wide communications. State and local agencies received the benefit of radio equipment, volunteer time and expertise without cost to the public (Exhibit C).
Mr. Humke inquired about the reference in Section 4 to a local entity passing a restrictive ordinance and “the limited preemption.” Assemblyman Beers answered that would be covered in their comments during the meeting.
Mr. Beers ran a two and a half minute KKVU channel 5 television news spot that related how a Las Vegas amateur radio operator, Steve Scott, had connected local residents with loved ones during the March 2001 Seattle earthquake. A ham radio operator could get messages through when cell phones, phone lines or other power sources did not work.
Stan Brokl, Nevada RACES Officer, had been an amateur radio operator since he was a teenager. He was a retired electronics engineer and volunteered for the Division of Emergency Management of Nevada. He referred to Exhibit D, which outlined the RACES organization. The organization consisted of volunteers who donated their equipment and their time to the state. Radio equipment could typically cost thousands of dollars.
Assemblyman Beers explained that in addition to the RACES program, there was a government-sponsored program called Military Affiliate Radio Service (MARS), which passed messages to military personnel in locations where no Internet or e-mail service was available. The ham operators’ organization, American Radio Relay League (ARRL), maintained Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES), the primary non-emergency trafficking service.
Dick Flanagan, Amateur Radio Operator, stated passing messages, or “traffic,” as the ham radio operator referred to it, required regular on-the-air training and practice. The Northern Nevada Radio Service sponsored a national training exercise Monday night where 26 amateur radio stations checked in and transmitted the following message to Chairman Bache (Exhibit E) that expressed support for A.B. 61.
Mr. Beers explained that ham operators had procedures in place and practiced regularly to accommodate foreign language and odd spelling of names. The Internet had brought many communities together, but the Internet was very fragile. Fiber optic cables would snap during a 6.5 Richter scale earthquake and would be useless. Mr. Beers received his amateur license when he was 14. His amateur radio experience had channeled him into his career field of a computer professional.
Steven Goldman, Registered ARRL Instructor and General Class Amateur Radio Operator N7JAZ, read a prepared statement (Exhibit F) via Las Vegas teleconferencing that expressed his support of A.B. 61. Mr. Goldman had applied for a permit to install two towers on his half-acre lot. He was told the process had recently changed and he would need a special use permit. The permit required a nonrefundable $400 fee, an appearance before the zoning and city council, and letters from his neighbors that stated they approved of the towers. The process would take roughly three months to complete. He then asked for a permit to install a 24-foot antenna. He was told the same process applied. He was told the antenna was not in compliance with the new city ordinance, No. 5190. The ordinance plainly stated that no antenna over 15 feet could be installed on residential property without a special use permit. When Mr. Goldman questioned the reason for the ordinance, he was told it was aimed at cell phone companies that wanted to place a cell phone tower on every corner. Any questions Mr. Goldman had about the ordinance could be directed to the city attorney’s office. His numerous calls to the office had not been returned. The $400 fee to obtain a special use permit was cost prohibitive to homeowners or ham radio operators who wanted to erect antennas.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required amateur radio operators to use low power frequencies that reduced band interference and antenna radiation. Specialized antennas were needed to support low-frequency communication over long distances.
Mr. Goldman clarified that ham radio operators provided their own equipment and worked independently of commercial service, power, landlines and funding. They donated hours of time during Y2K and potential disasters. Ham operators provided emergency communication and training to the community at no charge.
Mr. Beers commented that walk-a-thons, marathons and other nonprofit activities could not happen without ham radio involvement. The city of Las Vegas passed ordinance No. 5190 to force proposed cell towers into the city of Las Vegas master plan and it had inadvertently affected ham radio antennas. Exhibit G showed an antenna and the citation received by the homeowner.
Chairman Bache questioned whether the ordinance interfered with any existing federal statutes. Mr. Beers responded the regulation described in A.B. 61, Section 1, “Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 F.C.C. 2d 952 (1985),” forbade local governments from enacting ordinances that prevented reasonable amateur radio antennas. The FCC had been asked repeatedly to define what a “reasonable” amateur antenna would be and had repeatedly refused.
Mr. Lee noted the problem was not exclusive to Las Vegas. In Section 3, paragraph 1, Subsection (b) it stated, “Unreasonably restricts the placement, screening or height of a station antenna” and he wondered if there was an antenna height definition.
Mr. Beers replied the language in question was from the FCC and there were different technical factors that involved antenna heights. Radio frequencies were propagated with different wavelengths and had unique characteristics. The radio wavelength was directly related to the antenna and transmitter. Longer wavelengths required bigger antennas.
Mr. Lee wondered if the average antenna would be around 25 feet or if taller antennas were needed to go over larger obstacles. Mr. Beers explained the systems designed for local communications could be between three to six feet. Repeaters, or sites that are owned and maintained by the amateur radio community that sit on high locations, received weak signals, amplified them and transmitted them to other radio operators. A repeater on Angel Peak transmitted signals to other areas.
Mr. Brown questioned if antenna technology had developed a telescoping antenna. Mr. Beers responded there had been advances made but they were hindered by the laws of physics. Those types of antennas were expensive. There were times when large antennas were needed.
Mr. Brown asked what the radiating element and a beam referred to. Mr. Beers answered they were both horizontal to the top of the tower.
Ms. Berman questioned what the shortest antenna was that could be used to carry a clear signal. Mr. Beers replied the question could not be answered because there was too great a variety of amateur communications. The type of communication you desired would dictate the type of transformer and antenna needed.
Ms. Berman questioned if a 24-foot antenna was the highest antenna. Mr. Beers replied, “No.” Most amateur antennas were less than 50 feet. The Las Vegas ordinance that restricted heights to 15 feet would outlaw most second story homes.
Ms. Parnell was concerned the Las Vegas ordinance applied to existing structures and they were given 12-day correction notices. Mr. Beers replied that was correct.
Ms. Smith commented how much she appreciated the support of the amateur radio operators. She questioned the variety of antenna shapes.
Mr. Beers said there were laws of physics that dictated the types of antennas that were used. Different frequencies required different types of equipment and antennas.
Mr. Beers requested the camera in Las Vegas show the committee the number of people who had come to show their support of A.B. 61.
Mr. Lee stated a person that chose to live in a gated community voluntarily chose that group lifestyle. The bill would usurp the community’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Mr. Beers replied the portion of the bill that referred to local government would not be necessary in a perfect world. The ordinance enacted by the city of Las Vegas was illegal under federal law. The federal government did not have the resources to enforce the law. Any home built within the last 15 years in Las Vegas had homeowner associations with CC&Rs. The Government Affairs Committee had to weigh the importance of amateur radio service and the millions of dollars of service they provided to local, state and federal governments against the needs of the homeowner associations.
Ms. Parnell stated it was inexcusable for government to cite people to remove existing structures. On the other hand, people who moved into a neighborhood had an expectation of a certain lifestyle.
Mr. Beers replied if A.B. 61 did not pass, the Las Vegas ordinance and the increased homeowner association-governed communities would effectively outlaw amateur radio. We should not be shortsighted and remove a service that was invaluable to us.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she had an antenna in her neighborhood and people generally ignored it. Neighborhoods needed to be protected but consideration had to be made for radio operators. Home values would not deteriorate because of antennas.
Mr. Brown echoed Ms. Parnell’s comments that concerned existing towers. He questioned the term “safety of active antenna system” and what the safety issues were.
Mr. Beers answered the safety issues concerned an antenna falling over. Mr. Brokl clarified there were FCC rules that regulated radio wave emissions. A 50-foot antenna would not be an emission danger and would not interfere with electro-magnetic fields.
Mr. Brown stated he had received numerous e-mails from constituents that contained information about amateur radio websites. Mr. Beers commented his first antenna had been two pieces of copper wire that hung down a pole. He said A.B. 61 was the fourth most commented-upon bill on the legislative message center.
Mr. Mortensen noted radio operators were invaluable to the world. In graduate school he had to study the radio operator’s manual book because it was the best source of electronic and radio frequency technology. Mr. Mortenson questioned if some protections were needed in the bill to address “unreasonable” radio operators.
Mr. Beers answered the bill accommodated “reasonable” antennas and maybe an amendment was needed to set guidelines. Mr. Mortensen suggested they create specific guidelines to prevent outlawing of structures as “unreasonable.”
Mr. Beers replied the local radio operators’ league had pleaded that argument before the FCC twice. Technical people could provide specific answers, but ultimately the answer was a legal decision that would remain vague.
Mr. Goldman clarified radio wave energy was the same type of energy that came out of the electrical wall outlet. A radio transmitter sped up the flow and physics dictated what length of wire would be needed to radiate the energy to the air. The formula that determined the length of antenna needed was the number “234” divided by the frequency transmitted. One of the best frequency bands used was 1.8 megahertz and would result in a 115- to 120-foot antenna. Ham radio operators had been able to shorten the 100-foot distance by adding coils of wire onto the vertical antenna and making it physically shorter to radiating the radio waves more efficiently.
Mr. Goldman explained the building codes of local ordinances dictated how the antennas and support structures were built. A.B. 61 would not allow an operator to put up a 500-foot tower. It allowed for a “reasonable” system to perform the communication requested. FCC, part 97, limited antenna systems to 200 feet without Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval. A typical ham operator around Nevada had an antenna of 100 feet or less. The large antennas that operated at high-level frequencies were illegal in Nevada and were not what ham operators used.
Mr. Goldman spent two weeks in his class studying radio wave frequency safety. Every ham operator must sign a statement that they understood the safety issues and ramifications of people in controlled and uncontrolled radio wave environments. For safety reasons, an antenna should be 30 feet from people. By limiting the height of an antenna it conflicted with radio frequency safety standards.
Chairman Bache stated he would go down the sign up sheet in order, alternating between Carson City and Las Vegas, because of time constraints. He would like the comments to be as brief as possible because there were two other bills that were in committee today. Based on the various testimonies today, he would probably recommend a subcommittee on A.B. 61.
Ed Richards, citizen, commented the 75 to 80 meter band was one of the most popular frequencies and required an antenna of 120 feet. For maximum efficiency the antenna should be about 64 feet above the ground. A common arrangement was an above ground antenna of 70 feet and the additional 50 feet underground.
Tim Stoffel, Amateur Radio Operator NS9E, stated the bill’s intent was to allow an amateur radio operator to have an appropriate antenna structure for emergency communications and other services they performed. Mr. Stoffel referred to Exhibit H that provided technical information to city planners that described the reasons why amateur radio antennas needed to be high. The FCC had strict laws that governed electro-magnetic radiation. The safe, lower frequency antennas worked better if they were high.
Mr. Stoffel pointed out the impact from the bill would not result in two to three towers in every neighborhood. Currently Nevada had 4700 amateur radio operators. He had been looking for a place to live and could not locate anything in northern Nevada that did not already have anti-antenna restrictions. Because of the numerous antenna restrictions, the FCC had granted full preemption for certain classes of antennas that included satellite dishes and television antennas. Mr. Stoffel referred to Exhibit I that elaborated some previous instances where amateur radios played an important role. Many educational opportunities were available through ham radio involvement (Exhibit J). NASA had chosen amateur radio as the primary way to communicate from the space station to the public. Mr. Stoffel stated there were ten states that currently had laws that protected amateur radio operators from height restriction ordinances (Exhibit K).
Mr. Flanagan explained the FCC had not defined antenna height because it was impossible to make a global definition of what was needed. The question of “reasonableness” had gone before many legislative bodies. Around the country 70 feet had typically been set as a “reasonable” standard for the amateur operator. Anything higher would require a special use permit.
Danny Lee, Legislative Consultant, Real Estate Management, Inc., stated he was concerned that a problem with an ordinance in Las Vegas would affect the whole state. Exhibit L, No. 7, stated,
Amateur operators also oppose restrictions on their amateur operations which are contained in the deeds for their homes or in their apartment leases. Since these restrictive covenants are contractual agreements between private parties, they are not generally a matter of concern to the Commission [FCC].
The FCC had said they recognized those problems and were not concerned about them. His concern was in Section 3, paragraph 1, where all the state’s CC&Rs were abolished to rectify one problem in the city of Las Vegas. If the bill was passed a person could erect an antenna in the common area of a complex.
Bill Gregory, Advocate, Howard Hughes Corporation, introduced Pam Scott from Las Vegas representing Summerlin District and passed out Exhibit M.
Pamela Scott, Advocate, Master Planned Communities of Summerlin, expressed her opposition to Section 3 that disposed of CC&Rs throughout the state. Members of common-interest communities had full knowledge of the controlling restrictions of that community and relied on the board to enforce that contract.
The FCC telecommunications act of 1996 adopted the BOCA Code as a reasonable safety standard for antennas. The standard stated any antenna or mast that extended 12 feet above the roofline posed a safety hazard and required a special use permit. Special anchorage needs were required for high antennas. A falling antenna posed a hazard to neighborhoods that had increasingly diminutive lot sizes. Ms. Scott proposed an amendment (Exhibit M) that would give exception to common-interest communities.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned whether Summerlin prohibited antennas or were they just regulated. Ms. Scott said the regulations did not allow antennas above the roofline and all antennas had to be reviewed by the governing board.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if cell phone towers were in the common areas of Summerlin. Ms. Scott replied the cell phone equipment had been placed on the tops of large light poles that existed in the recreation areas of Summerlin.
Ms. Von Tobel explained the current CC&Rs did not prohibit antennas but Ms. Scott still wanted the language removed from the bill. Ms. Scott replied the Summerlin CC&Rs required any antenna to be reviewed.
Bruce Pennington, Amateur Radio Operator NK7H, was the Clark County RACES officer. He had been cited by the Las Vegas ordinance and had to remove his existing antenna and urged support of A.B. 61.
Mr. Mortensen commented that maybe we should follow what other states had established as a compromise between homeowners and radio operators.
Terry Glen Haggard, Amateur Radio Operator, Reno Area Metro Simplex, Inc., stated ten states had successfully passed regulations since 1985 (Exhibit K).
Shari O’Donnell, Chairman, Community Associations Institute, requested Section 3 be deleted because of contractual agreements, aesthetic reasons and safety issues. Increased land and building costs had resulted in smaller lot sizes. Cost, maintenance and water conservation issues made small lot communities desirable and in demand. Establishing a “reasonable” standard within those communities would lead to litigation (Exhibit N).
Mr. Humke questioned whether there was a market for a less restrictive homeowner association that would accommodate antennas. He thought the majority of the people in the planned communities rarely read their CC&Rs.
Ms. O’Donnell explained she worked with developers in the development of common areas and attended many homeowner association board meetings. Many homeowners did not read their detailed CC&Rs, but were notified through community newsletters and advocacy groups of important issues. There were currently communities that had less restrictive rules, but proposed antennas had to be reviewed before they could be installed. Each community had its own special needs and Section 3 would get rid of the restrictions that addressed those needs.
Ms. Von Tobel stated the issue of a ham operator antenna hurting property values was a moot point in Las Vegas. The high value placed on cell phones overshadowed the obtrusive cell towers that were placed throughout the community. The question might be whether a higher value should be placed on amateur radio operators. Because ham radio operators had a right to have antennas, maybe Section 3 should not be removed but amended.
Mr. Brown questioned if studies had been done on the depreciation of land values in relation to antennas in the neighborhood. Ms. O’Donnell replied there were no actual studies. It was a perception that antenna structures were not desirable in a neighborhood.
Chairman Bache commented he found some of Ms. O’Donnell’s comments offensive because they referred to the perception that “certain elements” would lower property values. Whether it was ham radio operators, ethnic minorities, or certain types of homeowners, it was unfair to be classified as “not desirable” to the community. Ms. O’Donnell apologized for her comments that suggested any bigotry or unkindness.
Dr. Bill Avery, Professional Electrical Engineer and adjunct professor at the University of Reno, commented the antenna towers needed to be approved by the city engineer and were safely installed. Once a year the ham radio operators had a three-day “field day” in June that simulated a no power environment (Exhibit O). Last year approximately 20,000 people participated in “field day.”
Ms. Von Tobel requested the statistics on the size and circumference of certain antenna types. Dr. Avery responded the “work horse” of around the world radio frequency was 20 meters. The required antenna would typically extend 35 to 70 feet in the air.
Janet Welsh, amateur radio operator, stated amateur radio provided a training ground for emergency communications. During New Year’s Eve 2000 the only communication that functioned in Las Vegas’ Y2K Emergency Operations Center was the amateur radio civil emergency communication system.
Mr. Haggard explained antennas below the roofline would radiate into the neighborhood and could cause interference with neighbors’ televisions. Ham operators were able to get information in and out of disaster areas and had been instrumental in developing radio technology. The cell phone was a “repeater” system that was developed by amateur radio operators. Mr. Haggard’s 12-year-old son had built his second radio and was preparing for his ham operator’s license. Most 25-foot antennas were made of hollow aluminum and would typically weigh between 10 and 20 pounds. Those lightweight antennas would not create a safety hazard. Mr. Haggard explained they had not been able to buy a new house because of stringent CC&Rs. They felt the Legislature was the last place they could go to get relief.
Jim Myers, amateur radio operator, had been looking for a new home for two years and had been unable to find any residence in a new development in Reno or Washoe County area that allowed any type of antenna. He could put a 19-foot flagpole in his yard as long as it was not used for an antenna.
Norm Patterson, Antenna Builder, Carson City, suggested maybe the antenna regulations could be related to the size of the property. If the antenna fell down it would stay on the property owner’s lot. The standard antennas available to the amateur radio operator were 37’, 55’ and 71’.
Dan Musgrove, lobbyist, city of Las Vegas, said that in deference to time he would save his questions for the subcommittee.
Lois Avery, Citizen, stated her reading of the law indicated A.B. 61 would only affect new CC&Rs. A single pole antenna, a crank-down antenna, or a painted antenna that did not reflect sunlight would be less obtrusive.
Chairman Bache introduced two Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 23-1057.
ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
*********
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 10-911.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
Assembly Bill 293: Requires board of county commissioners and governing body of city to approve proposal for issuance of bonds for consolidated library district. (BDR 33-1293)
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District No. 6, stated all parties involved with the bill had reached an agreement. The bill provided fiscal accountability to the Las Vegas-Clark County consolidated library district and would not affect other libraries in Nevada.
Yvonne Atkinson Gates, Clark County Commissioner, stated they supported the bill with some revisions (Exhibit P). Libraries were a very important infrastructure that enhanced the quality of life for all citizens. It was important to have strategically located libraries throughout the community that focused on the overall needs of the community. The bill would allow the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District to work with the city council and county commissioners to determine the funding and placement of libraries. The library district board consisted of five members appointed by the Las Vegas city council and five appointed by the county commission. Currently, the elected city and county officials had no opportunity to give input about library district issues. It was imperative the library district had the support of the city council and the county commission. The county commission oversaw the community as a whole and monitored other bond issues that might be more important than a library district. Parks, police and fire protection were all important infrastructures to the community and it was important they had the ability to work together. Other governing bodies had to come before the Clark County commission before they could institute a bond issue to the voters. Ms. Gates stated because the county commission and the city council had to levy the tax, they felt it was imperative to have some input where libraries were located. The compromise language allowed the city of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the library district to work together for the betterment of the community.
Marvin Leavitt, Director of Administrative Services, Las Vegas, concurred with the remarks of Commissioner Gates. He referred to Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald’s written comments (Exhibit Q) that supported A.B. 293 and the importance of reviewed bond issues.
Daniel Walter, Executive Director Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, stated the bond issue would be strengthened by the two elected boards’ review that would modify proposals to work for the community. The language also provided for when the elected officials might not want to give their recommendation.
Mr. Neighbors asked for the assessed value of the library district. Mr. Walter explained the assessed value of the district was different from the county because it excluded the entire city of North Las Vegas, much of Henderson, and Boulder City. The current levy generated about $19 million in "ad valorem" property taxes at a rate of 6.59¢. The current bond proposal was for an additional two cents. The library district was in the top 25 of libraries in the nation.
Mr. Leavitt replied the assessed valuation of the library district for FY2000 was $27.5 billion. The assessed valuation of Clark County was $33.6 billion.
Mr. Williams stated the intent of the legislation was to allow all entities to work together.
Chairman Bache called for a motion on A.B. 293.
MR. WILLIAMS MOTIONED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 293
MR. NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Von Tobel disclosed her daughter-in-law worked for the library district.
Ms. Parnell questioned the proposed amendment, Section 1, line 13 and 14, which stated, “After the public hearing has been closed, the governing boards may determine to . . .” She felt the language referred to closed meetings.
Ms. Gates explained a hearing was held to hear public opinions and when the hearing was closed, the governing board would adopt or reject a motion.
Chairman Bache clarified that the circumstance A.B. 293 referred to were the same as when the Government Affairs committee closed a hearing after a bill was heard but action was taken during a public meeting. He suggested Ms. O’Grady might provide technical language to address that specific point.
Ms. Freeman suggested that part of the amendment be clarified to not conflict with open meeting laws.
Ms. Parnell suggested the language could state “after public testimony” to clarify the issue. She wanted to make sure the amendment was in compliance with the open-meeting law. Ms. Gates responded they would clarify the language because they did not want to violate any open-meeting laws.
Chairman Bache asked Ms. O’Grady to address the issue to make sure it was understood by everyone. He acknowledged Ms. O’Grady responded in the affirmative.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 282: Revises provisions relating to refusal of peace officer to submit to polygraphic examination. (BDR 23-1271)
Chairman Bache stated that due to time constraints A.B. 282 would roll over to tomorrow’s agenda under “items from a previous agenda.”
Seeing no further business Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:56 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Glenda Jacques
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: