MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 21, 2001
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Wednesday, March 21, 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
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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Ms. Merle Berman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Dennis Nolan
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Glenda Jacques, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ginny Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Chairman Bache introduced the following Bill Draft Requests (BDR):
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 22-186.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 18-1337.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 21-829.
ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
********
Assembly Bill 329: Authorizes advertising in certain public buildings. (BDR 27-726)
Ginny Lewis, Deputy Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, supported A.B. 329. Advertising was a tool that could educate and inform customers. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had worked with a company, Motor Vehicle Network, to have electronic reader boards installed in the metropolitan DMV offices. The boards provided motor vehicle related ads from insurance companies, vehicle dealers and automotive shops. They also displayed headline news, sports scores, weather information and safety DMV messages. She felt DMV should be involved in the development of the regulations that established advertising guidelines. They would control the types of advertisement displayed in the offices and the medium, such as poster boards, reader boards, or pamphlets.
Mr. Humke questioned what types of advertising would be allowed. Ms. Lewis responded control was necessary to prevent a barrage of posters. She felt reader boards in key locations would be the best. The reader boards would be displayed in the same area as the cue-matic number system. She did not oppose poster boards but felt regulation was critical to establish the criteria for types of advertising allowed.
Mr. Humke questioned what the impact would be on commercial speech and if advertisement would be provided for high school car washes or elected official’s fundraisers. Ms. Lewis answered the regulations would monitor those.
Mr. Humke said the bill sounded like a “by regulation” bill where the Legislature gave its authority to make laws to DMV. He felt it would be better for specific language to be placed in the bill.
Ms. Lewis clarified the bill gave the authority to Buildings and Grounds Division and the director of the Department of Administration. The bill was not specific to DMV and was intended for all public buildings. Specific public building situations would be difficult to address in statute.
Ms. Von Tobel questioned if the advertising would generate a revenue stream and what would it be used for. Ms. Lewis answered she was not sure if the bill addressed the issue. Any additional revenue would benefit an agency.
Dennis Nolan, Assemblyman District No. 13, said A.B. 329 had been an idea from entrepreneurial constituents who had waited in DMV lines. The current language in statue prohibited advertising in public buildings. The bill would generate an additional revenue stream to state agencies.
Mr. Humke stated the bill did not direct where the revenue would go. He wondered if the money would go into a special account for the agency that executed the contract for advertising. Mr. Nolan said the state agency that displayed advertising would receive the revenue. The agency would decide how to spend the funds.
Mr. Humke responded he would prefer to see the revenue go to the general fund. State agencies might be tempted to enter into contracts for salacious advertising to attract additional advertising revenue. There were policies that dictated why the revenue sources should go to the general fund.
Mr. Nolan responded he did not have a problem with the suggestion, but there should be motivation for the agency that handled the advertising. If the funds could be used by the agency they would be motivated to deal with advertisers.
Mr. Humke said DMV was a part of the larger corporation of the State of Nevada. Any generated revenue should go to the greater good of the state. The Legislature should make the independent decision for where the funds should go.
Ms. Parnell questioned what statute prevented DMV from using reader boards. Mr. Nolan replied the prohibitive statutory language was addressed in the bill and disallowed any advertising.
Ms. Parnell felt the educational information Ms. Lewis talked about did not cause a problem. She was concerned about outside advertising.
Ms. Lewis clarified there was nothing in statute about reader boards. Currently DMV had a budget request for reader boards. Without A.B. 329, approved reader boards would display informational and highway safety messages. The bill allowed outside advertising and generated revenue to offset the costs of the $30,000 reader boards. Proposed regulation would limit advertising to what was relevant to the state agency.
Mr. Mortenson felt there should be certain decorum in state facilities. The agencies could go overboard to push advertising that increased their revenues. He felt very strongly the revenues should go to the general fund so disinterest would be generated in advertising promotion. He would hate to see advertising in DMV that related to vehicles. It could be perceived DMV endorsed those businesses and litigation might result for unsatisfactory service.
Mr. Nolan said 30 other states allowed advertising to some degree in their buildings and could provide an example of how situations were handled. Public service and safety-type messages sponsored by advertisers would be developed through regulation.
Ms. Lewis added DMV regulated car dealers and automotive repair shops and it would be a conflict of interest to allow them to advertise at DMV.
Ms. Freeman shared her concerns and was philosophically opposed to the bill. She felt the desire to create revenue streams for state agencies caused her concern. She would like to know how successful other states had been in monitoring the advertising. The bill did not need to provide entertainment for those waiting at state agencies.
Ms. Smith felt the ”advertising” could be conceived as “the slippery slope” because it was difficult to predict what areas could be affected. She enjoyed places without advertising and felt the barrage of advertising on “free” websites was frustrating. She liked the specific issues defined in law and not regulation. A public service announcement sponsored by a company was very different from regular advertising.
Chairman Bache felt Section 3 included the Legislature and he did not want to see the Legislature or the Capital Building bombarded with advertisements.
Mr. Humke questioned if the bill would include Internet advertising on the state’s websites. Certain state agencies offered outside services. If outside agencies were able to advertise at state agencies they could conceivably damage potential outside sales for other state agencies.
Mr. Nolan responded he had not contemplated that question. The intent of the bill was to address advertising in physical state locations and he shared the concerns of the committee. Other states had generated millions of dollars of revenue for their states and had addressed the same questions. The question was whether processing A.B. 329 in a careful, prudent manner that addressed the First Amendment issues was worth the additional and innovative revenue stream that could generate tens of millions of dollars for the state. If the committee felt the legislation was beneficial than Mr. Nolan would work with them.
Ms. Von Tobel felt people were bombarded by advertising everywhere and it would not be perceived as inappropriate. Public schools were supported by advertisers constantly. Any revenue stream in government was a good thing. Except for a few minor changes she felt the bill was a positive issue. Two sessions ago a bill had been passed that allowed advertising on school buses.
Chairman Bache stated he was a teacher and had opposed the bill that allowed advertising on school buses. He closed the hearing on A.B. 329. Chairman Bache appointed himself to chair the subcommittee for A.B. 61 with Ms. Berman and Ms. Parnell.
Chairman Bache stated the committee had recently received 23 bills and the workload would pick up significantly over the next couple of weeks. He wanted to act on all bills before the committee by April 13 so the committee would not have to work during Easter weekend. Subcommittee meetings would be scheduled outside of regular committee time.
Ms. Von Tobel stated she had received a copy of the Overton Power agenda through her e-mail and would pass a copy to the committee members.
Seeing no further business, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Glenda Jacques
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: