MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 21, 2001
The Subcommittee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:15 a.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was simultaneously videoconferenced in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas. 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. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, District 31
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association
Michael Alonso, Harrah’s Entertainment
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Intergovernmental Relations, City of Las Vegas
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on S.B. 171.
Senate Bill 171: Revises standards for designation of gaming enterprise districts in certain locations. (BDR 41-116)
Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association, spoke in support of S.B. 171 with suggested modifications (Exhibit C). The first modification requested was in Section 1, subsection 9(d)(3), where language would be added referencing “exclusively related to the gaming activities.” The second modification was to delay the effective date of S.B. 171, changing it from “upon passage” to “December 31, 2001” to allow Harrah’s Entertainment to complete the processing of a petition related to land acquired when Harrah’s purchased the Rio that would be potentially available for development under existing zoning.
Chairman Manendo questioned the amended language in Section 1, subsection 7, pertaining to abstaining votes; he believed it would create a substantial change in the ethics law.
Mr. Whittemore said S.B. 171 proposed, in situations where a board member abstained from the vote or was absent from the vote, the percentage required to pass a measure would be computed on the reduced amount. It was to avoid a situation where two members of a board could create a new gaming enterprise district; an issue of significant importance left to too few people. Mr. Whittemore did not believe public officials would abstain from voting simply to avoid voting on the issue.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked what would constitute three-fourths of a seven-member board. Mr. Whittemore said it would be six, almost unanimous. He did not know of any other way than by percentage to create a super majority. Assemblyman Carpenter asked what kind of interest would prevent a board member from voting. Mr. Whittemore said under current ethics law, if the member had a tangible interest with respect to the person represented by the applicant or had some relationship that would preclude them from voting, they would need to disclose the relationship and might be compelled to withdraw.
Chairman Manendo posed a scenario where two out of seven abstained from voting. How many votes would be needed to pass a measure? Mr. Whittemore said a super majority would require five votes; if the three-quarters required six, a measure could not be passed out. Chairman Manendo clarified if there were three abstaining votes, nothing could be done. Mr. Whittemore agreed; without the high super majority standard, the opposite problem of a minimum of two could pass a gaming enterprise district.
Assemblyman Carpenter clarified that three-quarters of seven equaled six. Mr. Whittemore agreed; it depended on whether the computation was rounded up or down.
Assemblyman Collins said on a seven-member board, such as the Clark County Commissioners in the City of Las Vegas, if two members abstained, it would be the same as killing the bill. Mr. Whittemore agreed.
Michael Alonso, representing Harrah’s Entertainment, said in 1997, S.B. 208 of the 69th Session created an exemption for the Rio property previously discussed. The Rio property complied with current law, the only problem it had with S.B. 171 was one area where it was only 1,430 feet from a residential district. With the proposed change in the effective date, Harrah’s Entertainment would have time to file their application and get all the traffic studies done to preserve that property.
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported S.B. 171 but was uneasy with the language in subsection 9(d)(3) making reference to “exclusively related to gaming activities.” Ms. Lusk suggested language “includes gaming activities.” With regard to the super majority vote, it seemed to be excessive. One possible option might be that there always be a majority of the governing body for any affirmative action. A second option would be a “majority plus one,” if a super majority was really wanted. Ms. Lusk believed the three-quarter requirement was almost impossible.
Assemblyman Collins made comments about past legislation, a voting table that was used, and how local governments did not pay attention to the legislation. Ms. Lusk said the requirements of the ethics laws made people abstain in order to be safe, a whole lot more than maybe they ought to. The ethics laws needed to be reviewed in light of the reality of the situation; what the ethics laws required while still allowing a governing body to function.
Assemblyman Collins said the “majority plus one” would require five votes on a seven-member board, instead of six. It was Mr. Collins’ opinion that abstaining votes were just as much a safe vote as a conflict vote.
Assemblyman Carpenter said the “majority plus one” put a very high standard on Clark County and Las Vegas; it would strike a balance.
Dan Musgrove, City of Las Vegas, was in agreement with the proposed amendment. The Las Vegas City Council wanted to be able to vote, but games could be played to prevent votes. Mr. Musgrove believed S.B. 171 was setting the bar very high, “handcuffing the government,” and taking away local control. Mr. Musgrove cited an example where council members were precluded from voting because of conflicts. Mr. Musgrove suggested a “majority plus one” or the majority standard set in S.B. 329, which prohibited certain public bodies from taking action by vote without the affirmative vote of the majority of the entire public body, should be acceptable.
Assemblyman Collins posed a scenario where elected officials should have a responsibility to avoid conflicts ahead of time. Mr. Musgrove agreed philosophically, but citizen legislators and citizen officeholders still dealt with ethics complaints and their reputations might never recover from those problems.
Chairman Manendo asked if S.B. 171 was similar to S.B. 329 where an abstention was not counted as a vote in favor of an action. Ms. Lang did not believe an abstention was ever counted as a vote in favor, but it would not be counted as a vote in favor in S.B. 171.
Chairman Manendo asked for further testimony on S.B. 171. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 171.
Assemblyman Collins supported S.B. 171 as written or with the “majority plus one” with the condition that the abstentions did not reduce that number.
Assemblyman Carpenter supported the “majority plus one,” which he believed was a tough standard.
Chairman Manendo said he was not aware of any other legislation that included a super majority.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMITTEE TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 171 WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO INCLUDE CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO DECEMBER 31, 2001, MEMBERSHIP VOTING WOULD BE A MAJORITY PLUS ONE, AND ABSTAINING VOTES WOULD NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE NEEDED TO PASS ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED AND WOULD BE REPORTED TO THE FULL COMMITTEE.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 8:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: