MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

March 20, 2001

 

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, March 20, 2001.  Vice Chairman John 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.

 

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

 

Mr.                     John J. Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms.                     Merle Berman

Mrs.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Dawn Gibbons

Mr.                     David Humke

Mr.                     Harry Mortenson

Mr.                     Roy Neighbors

Ms.                     Bonnie Parnell

Ms.                     Debbie Smith

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

Mr.                     Wendell Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     David Brown

Mr.                     Bob Price

 

MEMBERS PRESENT IN LAS VEGAS:

 

            Chairman Douglas Bache

 

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel

Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst

Virginia Letts, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

John Slaughter, Strategic Planning Manager, Washoe County

Stephanie Licht, representing Elko County

Will Hull, Legislative Intern

Penny Bichsel, Fourth Grade Teacher, Henderson Nevada

Deanna Chase, Fourth Grade Student

Jordan Dowell, Fourth Grade Student

Taylor Prince, Fourth Grade Student

Monty Kaser, Fourth Grade Student

Kylie Torres, Fourth Grade Student

Jessica Beyer, Fourth Grade Student

M. K. (Ike) Yochum, American Independent Party

Devon Reese, representing Chief Justice Cliff Young

 

Chairman Bache was in attendance for the beginning of the meeting in a video-conferencing room in Las Vegas.  Vice Chairman Lee stated he had just been notified that students from Henderson would not be arriving until around 10:00 a.m. and Assemblyman Goldwater was detained until approximately 9:30 a.m.; therefore, the committee would recess until 9:45 a.m. at which time it would first hear Mr. Goldwater’s testimony on A.B. 326.  He recessed the meeting at 8:32 a.m.

 

Vice Chairman Lee reconvened the meeting at 9:46, indicating they would take Assembly Bill 326 first.

Assembly Bill 326: Requires local governments to disclose certain expenses relating to lobbying. (BDR 31-496)

 

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District 10, testified that during the Seventieth Session he had introduced the Small Business Regulatory Reform Act, which had been requested by small business owners.  In researching the language, he found that local governments had expended a lot of energy in fighting the bill.  He represented the people in Assembly District 10 and wondered why the lobbyists for local governments were fighting him since they represented the same people he represented.  He believed local governments had every right to lobby the Legislature, with innumerable good done by those representatives.  However, he felt the citizens in those local jurisdictions had a right to know how much of their tax dollars were used in those lobbying practices.  The amount of money that was used to lobby in Carson City was really unknown even though reports were issued.  A.B. 326 attempted to break out in exact detail how much of the taxpayer dollars were used in those efforts.  It was a very short bill with Section 1 expanding what was to be included in the report to show salary and wages; compensation paid to any lobbyist that was not duplicative; and also, in Number 5 of Section 2, a separate account for anticipated expenses.  He pointed out this was the same language that was in the original legislation that Senator O’Connell introduced in 1985 and consequently amended out of the bill.  A report was still required, but not in as much detail as they had hoped for. 

 

Assemblyman Williams noticed Mr. Goldwater had stated the language in the bill was amended out of the 1985 bill and wondered what the logic at that time was to delete the language, as local government lobbyists had a limited number of bills for which they were advocates.

 

Mr. Goldwater replied that private lobbyists do not use tax dollars to finance their efforts.  The reason for the request was because citizen tax dollars paid for local government lobbyists, and the bill simply requested full disclosure on where those tax dollars were being spent.  He was not a member of the Legislature in 1985 and therefore did not know what the logic was in deleting the language from the original legislation.

 

Mr. Williams conceded local government lobbyists did use taxpayer dollars but in every case they used their lobbying to improving the lives of the taxpayers, while some private lobbyists used their powers for special interest groups or furthering their own careers.  He was not opposed to the bill but did wonder why the two groups were being separated in the bill.  Mr. Goldwater knew that local governments lobbied on behalf of the people but there had been occasions where local government officials had lobbied against issues that adversely affected the taxpayer.  He felt in many cases the legislators were at odds with local governments because they were at opposite ends on issues that affected both of those entities. 

 

Ms. Berman thought the bill was a redundancy to NRS 354 because there were reporting requirements for the expenditures of the local government lobbying activities.  Mr. Goldwater related they were not asking for a second report, just more detail in their current reporting practices.  When going through local government budgets, many times there were items tied to lobbying that did not really identify the “who or why” of that lobbying and felt the bill would require local governments to be more forthright in their disclosures.

 

Ms. Berman asked if wages were public record.  She felt the bill doubled up on requirements already in effect.  Mr. Goldwater replied it was public record but there were not many people in the private sector who knew exactly what was going on at the county level, and which expenditure was tied directly to a lobbying effort in Carson City. 

 

Ms. Berman stated at the end of each session there was always an article in the newspaper on how much money legislators had received from lobbyists, and how much lobbyists had spent.  She recalled it was broken down by city and county and found the entire bill redundant.  The statutory itemization required identifying transportation, lodging and meals, entertainment, and money spent on supplies in Carson City.  She felt it was pretty specific.  Mr. Goldwater said he was referring to the resources local governments put together to lobby in Carson City, exclusive of dinners or drinks.  His point was many people on a city or county payroll were on that payroll simply to lobby the Legislature.  In lobbying a bill there was the possibility it affected the same people they represented.  The bill would require those entities to be specific in their reporting so they could not conceal things in their budgets.

 

Regarding Section 2 of the bill, Mr. Humke felt it referred to budgeting of local governments, which was found in NRS 354.600.  If so, he wondered if it was designed to set out in advance what a local entity had budgeted for lobbying efforts, rather than after the Legislature closed.  Mr. Goldwater replied that was the intent of the bill.

 

Mr. Humke asked if local government employees’ lobbying efforts could be broken out so their lobbying efforts could be identified in their salaries.  Mr. Goldwater responded many employees in local government had jobs other than lobbying.

 

Mr. Humke wondered if any employees were paid on a contingency basis depending on a lobbying outcome.  Mr. Goldwater felt that would be illegal.  One thing he hoped to avoid in presenting the bill was to place local governments in an accusatory position.  The spirit of the bill was simply the disclosure of tax dollars.  Mr. Goldwater stated the most telling point would be the aggregate of all the resources that local government spent to advocate for the same people the legislators represented.

 

Mr. Mortenson felt it was a great bill, and did not see it as an issue local governments should oppose.  Local governments benefited because citizens would know the amount and where tax dollars were being spent.

 

Ms. Gibbons thanked Mr. Goldwater for bringing the bill to the committee and thought it was something local governments should want to do, on behalf of taxpayers.  She was surprised it was not something local governments had brought to the Legislature for consideration on their own. 

 

Mrs. Freeman indicated she had a similar bill that would be heard in the near future regarding those types of issues.  She was very much in favor of Mr. Goldwater’s bill.  She added there was a lot of energy being put forth by local governments to defeat her bill. 

 

Mrs. Smith wanted clarification.  If she was a planning supervisor for a city and went to Carson City twice a month to testify, would two days of her salary be accounted for in the lobbying report?  Mr. Goldwater thought that was in the current law.

 

Ms. Von Tobel asked if the bill would clarify exactly which expenditures in the budget were earmarked for lobbying so when budgets were presented it would be clear how much was being spent and for what purposes.  Mr. Goldwater replied that was the whole thrust of the bill. 

 

Mr. Lee related there were some federal reports so thick no one read them, and wondered if the report would be something the average person could read, or if it would be a supplemental report only interested parties would know about.  Mr. Goldwater responded he could not answer specifically but the spirit of the bill was for the report to be clear enough so any citizen could read it.

 

Carol Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated she was speaking in support of the bill.  She wanted to respond to Mr. Williams question about the 1985 bill and why the language was amended out.  The general argument that was used at the time was it might be difficult to isolate the exact amount of time an employee spent in lobbying.  The other argument was the fact that all salaries were identifiable and were part of the public record for each local governmental unit.  She had contacted that department to find out what the aggregate report was on lobbying expenses for local governments at the end of last session and it was approximately $1 million dollars, but there were 236 local government entities in Nevada.  Thirty days after the end of session, government entities filed a report with the Department of Taxation and anyone had access to those reports.  It was nothing more than a “sunshine” bill and she felt the bill would clarify where those funds were being expended and the public had a right to know.  One person could go to the department and see a report filed by a particular entity so the actual records would not have to be researched.  She felt current statutes had served the state well and the only thrust of the bill was to clarify where the expenditure was made.

 

Mr. Lee pointed out there had been a county commissioner who had been visiting the day before and wondered if that time would be attributed to lobbying.  He wondered what the scope of the bill was intended to cover.  Ms. Vilardo thought Legislative Counsel could better answer the question, but she assumed if the commissioner was lobbying an issue and not just visiting, they would fit under the definition of lobbyist.  Mr. Goldwater said the bill was not meant to limit the amount of time spent on lobbying, only identifying the amount of tax dollars spent on an issue.

 

Stephanie Licht, City of Elko, wondered if the “sunshine” law was good for local government, why state government was omitted.  The public should have the right to know how much a state agency was spending.  One interesting point was the amount of money that was returned to the counties, as a major part of local government lobbying was to obtain funding for things needed by the citizens of those areas. 

 

Ms. Gibbons thought the main point of the bill was how tax dollars were disbursed by a county for lobbying, not the funds brought into those counties.  It was up to the local governments to educate the citizens on lobbying.

 

John Slaughter, Washoe County, stated the county had questions originally on how salaries and employees were treated and thought most of those had been answered.  In Washoe County he felt they did a good job of reporting their expenses as it was set out in the budget what would be spent on the Legislature.  By the end of a session, Washoe County tracked about 700 bills, as most counties do, and he thought the citizens received good value for the efforts of the lobbyists.  In doing some quick calculations of money expended, during the last session it came to about 25 cents per person in Washoe County. 

 

Ms. Gibbons wanted to go on record as being proud of Washoe County in stepping forward and supporting the legislation.

 

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 326 and opened the hearing on A.B. 219. 

 

Assembly Bill 219:  Designates mustang as official state animal. (BDR 19-1119)

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, testified she had with her a class of students and parents from Aggie Roberts Elementary School in Henderson, Nevada.  She was proud to be sponsoring the bill because the students had researched the whole issue of the mustang, and she would turn the microphone over to her intern Will Hull.  Because of the content of the bill, she had to research the issue also, and Mr. Hull had done that for her.  Between that research and the research of the other students she became aware of things she never knew about the wild mustang and Nevada history.

 

Will Hull, Intern for Ms. Buckley, said the idea for the bill came entirely from the students.  They were studying about the legislative process and participated in that process by attempting to change policy.  The children would speak in support of A.B. 219 with the hopes that one day it would become public policy for the state of Nevada.  The term “wild horse” was interchangeable with the term “mustang.”  A bill of this type had come before the Legislature previously.  In 1971 Senator Cliff Young, now Supreme Court Justice Young, created a bill that would have the mustang as the official state animal and in his speech he stated, ”It has an indomitable will to survive and an undying love of freedom and spirit of independence.”  They had to be admired as they had been chased, shot, starved, and yet the mustang continued to increase in number.  He was pleased to have the children before the committee to participate in the legislative process and they deserved all the credit for the bill.

 

Penny Bichsel, Fourth Grade Teacher, Aggie Roberts Elementary School in Henderson, thanked the committee for allowing the class the opportunity to speak about a project that held a lot of meaning to the students.  The history of the bill actually started two years previous with her then fourth grade class.  The proposal submitted to Governor Guinn was greatly received; however, the trip to Carson City was too late in the session for it to become a bill draft.  The idea was kept alive and when the school year started the students’ efforts started in earnest once again.  It was amazing to watch and such a joy as a teacher to see when learning matched real world issues.  In researching the wild mustang; contacting state legislators through letters, phone calls and e-mails; surveying school populations and gaining support from other schools in Nevada, they had gained tremendous support.  The lesson they were learning was that the opinions of nine- and ten-year-olds really did matter.  There were six students that would testify on the bill and she would turn the floor over to them.  In closing she wanted to stress the bill was based on extensive research and not emotional responses from school age children. 

 

Mr. Humke asked if the bill covered estray horses.  Mrs. Bichsel believed it was only feral horses, which, from their research, were those that once were domesticated and were now wild. 

 

Mr. Humke wondered if they had run into any controversy during their research.  Mrs. Bichsel replied before 1971 a lot of “wild mustanging” took place as they were becoming overpopulated.  New research showed there was enough food and water on public lands to graze them.  There were over 4 million cattle and only 50,000 wild mustangs. 

 

Mr. Humke questioned if they had run into the concept that there were federal horses and state wild horses.  Mrs. Bichsel indicated she would have to get back to him, as she was not sure. 

 

Mr. Humke pointed out the issue was extremely controversial in his district.  The wild horses came down into the populated areas and he wondered if that had happened in southern Nevada.  Mrs. Bichsel related there were some in the Mt. Charleston and Red Rock areas, but those were not populated areas.

 

Kylie Torres, a fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School spoke in support of A.B. 219.  His class was learning about Nevada and state government and decided to request the Legislature make the wild mustang another symbol for the State of Nevada.  They contacted Assemblywoman Buckley who agreed to be the primary sponsor for the bill.  Since 37 Assemblymen and 13 Senators signed onto the bill, the class had written letters to the others and had received their full support (Exhibit C).  The class had researched the issue on the Internet, read books, and viewed history films about the mustang.  The class had also learned how a bill became a law and also collected signatures from residents who supported the concept of the mustang becoming the state animal.  The class had collected over 1,000 signatures (Exhibits D, E and F), bringing them to the committee in the hope that the committee would approve the bill and send it to the full Assembly for a vote.

 

Taylor Prince, a fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School, testified he and his class supported A.B. 219.  The first horses disappeared from North America and it was a mystery; however, they returned with the Spanish in 1514 and soon moved to the American West.  The word “mustang” came from a Spanish word meaning the “wild estray.”  Mustangs were then interbred with the horses brought to America by British settlers.  They multiplied quite rapidly and became both a help to the settlers but also a problem.  They became symbols of the American West as the plains states were settled.  Nevada became one of the last areas to be explored and settled.  Nevada was ideal for the horses as there was a lot of open space and plenty of feed.  Sometimes ranchers allowed the horses to run free and they would start running and living with wild horses and formed large groups.  The horses indigent to Nevada were a combination of Spanish and Indian ponies and European breeds.  When the groups became too large, people would round them up and kill them.  In 1952, Wild Horse Annie began the fight to save the mustang.  She had a ranch in Nevada and heard about a round-up in her area.  She found a place in Storey County to protect them and was able to stop the slaughter.  She was also instrumental in the passage of the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1972, which protected the wild mustang by giving them a legal home.  The population was now kept under control by the wild horse adoption program.  The wild mustang was a part of the West and five out of seven wild horses live in Nevada.  While it was difficult to determine how many were from the original herd, it is imperative to recognize the part the wild horse played in Nevada history. 

 

Jordan Dowell, a fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School, stated he would inform the committee about the importance of making the wild mustang the state animal.  They were originally Spanish horses that escaped or had been turned loose.  They formed the great herds from Mexico to the United States and finally Nevada.  At the beginning of the twentieth century, hundreds of wild horses roamed the West; currently the numbers were greatly reduced as many had been killed for pet food, glue, or chicken feed.  As of September 2000, Nevada was home for 24,321 of the 43,629 wild mustangs currently alive.  Those horses were symbols of the pioneer spirit and contributed to the diversity of life forms and enriched the lives of American people.  After the Wild Horse Act was passed, the Bureau of Land Management was put in charge of protecting wild horses and burros.  He felt it would be advantageous to designate the mustang as a second wild animal for the state of Nevada.

 

As there were about 19,000 wild horses outside of the state of Nevada, Ms. Gibbons questioned if he knew where most of the other horses resided.  Mr. Dowell responded there were some in Montana, California, and Colorado.

 

Jessica Beyer, a fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School, said she was speaking in support of the bill.  The mustang should be one of the state animals because it was part of Nevada history.  A lot of states have the horse as the state’s animal, but most of the wild mustangs live in Nevada, just as in the past. 

 

Monty Kaser, a fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School, testified he was in favor of A.B. 219 because it might be extinct someday.  They were being slaughtered and used in chicken and dog food.  If the mustang was adopted as a state animal, people would give them more respect.  Even though they were protected by statute, they were still being harmed.  In his research he found that seven out of the fifty states have two state animals.  Those states were California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.  The states of Florida, Oklahoma and Texas had three state animals while Massachusetts and Wisconsin had four.  Eight other states had horses as their state animal, but Nevada would be the first to have the mustang. 

 

Ms. Von Tobel wondered if Mr. Kaser knew what each of the other states had for a state horse.  He replied Alabama, racking horse; Idaho, appaloosa; Kentucky, thoroughbred; Massachusetts, Morgan; North Dakota, Dakota horse; and Vermont, Morgan. 

 

Deanna Chase, fourth grade student at Aggie Roberts Elementary School, said the mustang played a big roll in the country’s history.  The early settlers captured the finest stallions and mares to breed with their domestic stock.  But by 1920 tractors had replaced the horses on American farms.  No longer a resource, the mustang became a pest and nuisance.  In the early 1930s the federal government authorized the removal of wild horses from public land.  Mustangs have since been used for target practice, baited with poison, and slaughtered for dog and chicken food.  In the 1950s the slaughter reached its highest point when hunters discovered dive-bombing could panic the horses and they raced across the country until they dropped from exhaustion.  Frantic horses were then loaded into trucks to be either slaughtered or auctioned off.  Once 2 million wild horses roamed the American West, the numbers were soon reduced to 17,000.  The mustangs were pushed into the most desolate areas of the West and the Nevada desert became a last-resort refuge for the wild horse.  The horse has a place in history in the settling, securing, and flourishing of America, so every time a wild horse dies a part of the country and Nevada’s history is lost.

 

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, Elko testified the wild horse had been an important part of his life.  He had grown up with the wild horse and some of the best horses he had ever ridden were wild horses.  He felt there was no subject that caused more emotion than wild horses and he was really impressed with the work the school had done.  There had been horrendous abuse of the mustang and that was the reason for the Wild Horse and Burro Act.  There was a period where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was unable to manage the horses and in order to have a thriving herd they must be managed.  Progress has been made in the past few years.  Nevada had the largest herd of wild horses of any state, but received less money than any state so it became a problem in adopting them out.  The problem was capturing them and re-domesticating them and some people were not able to do that.  They thought if they just went to the adoption center and got one of the horses, that was all that was needed.  They were wild animals and had to be retrained.  When the retrained horses were once again turned out, they ended up where they should not be.  Currently the horses were put in sanctuaries to live their lives in peace.  There was also a new program where prisoners were training wild horses, so when they were adopted out the adopter would have an animal they could take home and continue nurturing, training, and riding.  He felt the bill would help manage the wild horses.

 

Ms. Von Tobel wanted to point out there were wild horses that could be observed in the Cold Creek area.  When campaigning in that area she noted there was a small creek and there was a herd of wild horses that were in that area and were actually quite tame.  They would go to certain homes where they got treats.  She felt it might be beneficial for the class to go up into that area and observe them up close.

 

Mr. Carpenter pointed out it was difficult for the average person to observe them, as they do not know where to look.  He thought there should be an educational program in place that showed where a person could actually go and see the animals. 

 

Mrs. Freeman felt there could be a program where tours could be conducted to see the horses, similar to the tours in Yellowstone where one could observe the park’s wildlife.  Mr. Carpenter thought it was a good idea and might bring economic help to the state if it became a part of the tourism industry’s attempts to bring tourism to the state. 

 

M. K. (Ike) Yochum, representing the Independent American Party, stated he was not in favor of the bill.  He felt there was no political advantage to having the wild horse as a second state animal.  His organization felt the bighorn sheep was already the state animal and putting the wild horse in the same revere as the sheep would diminish the stature of that animal.  The horse was blindly worshiped, when in fact they overgrazed the land and were in competition with the livestock that were the livelihood for ranchers.  He felt they were nothing more than a public nuisance.  The herds suffered from inbreeding, overgrazing, and poor nutrition resulting in ugly mustangs.  The mustangs were also a fitting symbol of federal oppression over the territory of Nevada, and urged a no vote on A.B. 219.

 

Mr. Mortenson asserted the committee had previously received information that the big horn sheep and American bison were not native to America.  They were developed in Asia and came across the Baring Straight land bridge.  The mustang was truly developed in North America, and became extinct in America about 8,000 years ago.  Fortunately, before they became extinct throughout the world, some of them had crossed the Baring Straight in the opposite direction and continued to develop in Europe.  The horse was eventually brought back to America by the Spanish, so if that scenario was believed, the mustang was native while the big horn sheep was the import. 

 

Devon Reese, representing Chief Justice Cliff Young who was out of the state, stated he had received a letter from the students of the school and as previously stated, Justice Young had introduced a similar bill in 1971 so he wanted to support the students.  In 1971 when Justice Young was in the Legislature he introduced a similar type of bill, and at that time the Legislature was a simpler place.  There was less work and more time for some “horse play.”  He introduced the bill as a tongue-in-cheek measure to upset one of his fellow legislators who was opposed to the introduction of such a bill.  He managed to proceed with a mock vote with that legislator present.  Justice Young gave an impassioned oratory on the recognition of the wild mustang and the legislator also became impassioned and stormed out of the room before the vote was taken.  He brought that up just to bring a little bit of the history of that bill into the record.  Justice Young wanted to thank the young people for their determination and research into the history of Nevada.

 

Mrs. Parnell stated as a classroom teacher she wanted to thank the students for their efforts.  She taught history and government to sixth and eighth grade students and would have been proud if even the eighth grade students had done half the job the students from Aggie Roberts had done.

 

Mrs. Smith echoed that sentiment and also wanted to thank the parents for their input and in supporting the teacher in her endeavor.

 

Mrs. Buckley thanked the committee for hearing the bill and listening to the children.  She wanted to close by saying the bill recognized the beauty, mystique, and spirit of the wild mustang and did not comment on the federal government’s failures in the past with the management of the herds.  The bill did nothing more than recognize a true bit of Nevada history.

 

Deanna Chase read a short rebuttal, stating every five out of seven mustangs were found in Nevada.  It was symbolic of the pioneer west and the class had collected signatures statewide in support of the measure, which she submitted to the secretary to be included in the minutes (Exhibit C).   

 

            MR. HUMKE MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 219.

 

            MRS. VON TOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Virginia Letts

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                        

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

 

 

DATE: