MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-First Session

May 16, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:18 p.m., on Wednesday, May 16, 2001, in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman

Senator William R. O’Donnell

Senator Jon C. Porter

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel

Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst

Laura Hale, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs

John Dean Harper, General Counsel, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs; and Chief General Counsel, Las Vegas Police Protective Association

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Clark County; and Metropolitan Police Sheriff, City of Las Vegas

Dennis Balaam, Sheriff, Washoe County

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County

John Dotson, Police Chief, City of Sparks

Will Hull, Intern for Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8

Penny Bichsel, Teacher, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Kylie Torres, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Jessica Beyer, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Taylor Prince, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Deanna Chase, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Monty Kaser, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Jordan Dowell, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson

Deloyd Satterthwaite, Manager, Ellison Ranching Company

C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association

Jay Dalton, Student, University of Nevada, Reno

Tony Diebold, Concerned Citizen

Matthew Jeffress, Student, Lowry High School, Winnemucca

Tony Lamb, Student, Lowry High School, Winnemucca

Larry Johnson, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited; Chairman, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife; and Representative to the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board

Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association

Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist

Chap Pratt, Concerned Citizen

David Horton, Lobbyist

Robert Salley, Intern for Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23

Marian Kamalani, Intern for Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23

Robert Westwood, Intern for Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23

Tom Warden, Spokesman, Howard Hughes Corporation

Mitsi Johnson, Girl Scouts of Frontier Council, Girl Scouts of the USA; and Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada, Girl Scouts of the USA

Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Howard Hughes Corporation

Ron Garland, Executive Director, Boulder Dam Area Council, Boy Scouts of America

Deborah Campbell, Executive Director, Health Foundation, Saint Rose Dominican Hospital, Henderson

Colleen A. Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA)

Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities

Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration

Robert A (Bobby G) Gronauer, Constable, Las Vegas Township

Paul J. Iverson, Director, State Department of Agriculture

Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission

Michael D. Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, Transportation/Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General

Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State

 

Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 282.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 282:  Revises provisions governing use of polygraphic examinations for peace officers and as part of investigation of peace officers. (BDR 23-1271)

 

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, testified there has been concern, since a bill was introduced in the mid-1980s, that polygraph tests have a strong impact if an officer fails the test.  He said a polygraph machine judges stress level and perspiration, but is not a true evaluation of truthfulness.  He said the polygraph can fail and be misused and can result in employee termination.  Further, he said, it is important to ensure people get a fair investigation, which can be done without the use of the polygraph.  The bill would make the polygraph test voluntary rather than mandatory, he said.

 

John Dean Harper, General Counsel, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs; and Chief General Counsel, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, testified the original intent of A.B. 282 was to make the polygraph test voluntary for officers.  He provided a synopsis of the provisions (Exhibit C), and said neither a complainant nor an officer would be forced to take a polygraph, but may, which he asserted, is a good compromise.  One area to be examined, he said, is the picking and choosing of complainants, which can result in test abuse and “bootstrapping” untruthfulness charges against an officer.  This is of particular concern when it is the sole basis for disciplinary action, he said.  Currently, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), police and sheriffs’ departments have a lot of discretion in determining whether they ask a complainant to take a polygraph, he said, and typically only ask strong candidates.  Revision would not give the departments this type of discretion, he said.

 

Another area of concern, Mr. Harper said, is the potential unreliability of a polygraph examination.  From United States v. Scheffer (66 U.S.L.W. 4235, 1998), polygraph evidence is essentially inadmissible in a court of law, he said, and therefore should not be admissible in a situation which could terminate a career unless it is voluntary.  He stated a third area of concern is the inability to discern whether the polygraphic examiner’s opinion regarding the veracity of the officer is the sole basis for disciplinary action. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Harper said, if there is an examination and the officer is deemed to be untruthful, it seems to carry a lot more weight than the statute allows.  He asserted in Clark County there seem to be a lot of questions about complainants being forced to take polygraphs, so the provisions of the bill would serve both officers and the community at large.  He added he had made a mistake in not attaching the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s untruthfulness policy to his exhibit, as was done with the Assembly committee in March.

 

In response to a question from Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Harper said more weight is given to a polygraph test than is allowed under statute, which provides it cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action; but, he said, sometimes it has been.  Under this bill, he said, the polygraph test would only be used for administrative matters regarding the officer’s performance, and if there were potential criminal investigations, the option of the officer not taking the polygraph and potentially being terminated would have to be weighed.  If the officer were to take the exam, he said, Garrity provisions (Garrity v. New Jersey, 1967) would apply wherein any testimony the officer gave would not be admissible in subsequent criminal matters.

 

Mr. Harper explained to Senator Neal, currently, if a complainant passes a polygraph exam, then the officer is required by law to also take the exam.  He reported through his current involvement with the Clark County Citizen Review Board, he has heard complaints about people being forced to take polygraph exams, and, he said, the community needs to know it is voluntary.  He said he considers the officers’ submission to a polygraph test to be a condition of employment, as there is no ability to bargain away the statutory provision.  He asserted standards which have been used for years, apart from the polygraph, to determine the truthfulness of a person’s statement should be sufficient for administrative hearings regarding officers.

 

In response to additional questions from the committee, Mr. Harper said internal affairs officers seem to do their best and hardest work when an officer is involved, so it is probably easier to investigate an officer than an ordinary citizen, because there are more resources available.  He explained the Garrity warning requires officers to answer all questions in an investigation under threat of termination, but the answers cannot be used in a subsequent criminal investigation.  Because citizens are not also bound to take the polygraph, Mr. Harper said, he believes police should not be, even though citizens need to have confidence in police officers.

 

Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District No. 11, testified the legislature has made use of polygraphs in the past for employment purposes, and law enforcement internal investigations is the one area left using it.  He asserted it is not an accurate tool, and if there is a complaint, internal investigations should not worry about having polygraph tests from witnesses or officers.

 

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), testified as a representative of professional peace officers to request the committee’s support of A.B. 282 as amended and passed by the Assembly on April 27, 2001.  He submitted written testimony (Exhibit D) and stated the voluntary polygraph exam is a useful tool in a criminal investigation and a criminal cannot be forced to take the exam, but must volunteer to do so.  Further, he said, applicants for employment with most law enforcement agencies in the state must also volunteer for a polygraph exam.  He reviewed current requirements under NRS 289.070 for officers to take a polygraph exam and gave an example of the use of a polygraph exam in which an inconclusive result would lead to an assumption of failure to pass and subsequent allegations against an officer.  Mr. Dreher asserted current language under NRS 289.070 is vague and the operators of polygraph exams may have a range of experience and investigative abilities to administer an exam, which can have devastating and career-ending effects on a law enforcement officer.

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Dreher said assurance of officers’ integrity comes through criminal investigators and internal investigators doing witness interviews.  If a citizen were found beaten in the presence of an officer, he said, the investigation would look at the evidence at the scene and interviews of the citizen and the officer.  The officer would be forced, under Garrity, to provide a compelled statement and is supposed to tell the truth, he said, as is the complainant.  He said, “You get at the truth by looking at the victim and determining the status of the injuries.  The officer would be given the same right as anyone else to explain their [sic] side of the story, and if the stories were consistent, you could reasonably make conclusions.”  Following the investigations, a report is provided to the district attorney to determine whether or not the facts support issuing a warrant against the officer, he said, “or making sure that what the officer said was appropriate, such as resisting arrest.”

 

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified support for the bill.  With regard to some of Senator Neal’s questions, he said, battery cases were being confused with internal affairs investigations.  He pointed out the Supreme Court already ruled polygraph exams cannot be used to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal matter.  Mr. Wolff related a factual televised story of a U.S. Navy chief who spent 2 years in prison as the result of a polygraph exam and was subsequently found innocent.

 

Mr. Wolff asserted the outcome of polygraphs is dependent on who the operators are and who controls them through internal affairs.  Testimony on the Assembly side acknowledged polygraph machines are intimidating devices, he said, and, he asserted, three different polygraphs with three different examiners would result in three different evaluations.  He stated he had no problem with the use of polygraph exams in screening new highway patrol applicants, because subsequent investigations can address any questions.  But, he said, “when you are dealing with peoples’ careers, they are enormously intimidating and are not a fair way of doing businesses.  Good liars can pass the exam, but if someone is scared, they (sic) will fail.”

 

Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified support for the bill as amended and endorsed “all previous remarks.”  In response to Senator Neal, he said his attorney would agree with Senator Neal, the polygraph exam should be done away with entirely.

 

Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Clark County, and Metropolitan Police Sheriff, City of Las Vegas, testified the department has 3982 full-time employees, and he has 32 years’ experience in law enforcement with 6½ years as a sheriff.  In criminal investigations, he said, fact must be found and the use of law and evidence are factors of proof.  With allegations of misconduct, he said, investigators must set aside rumor, innuendo, opinion, and emotion and deal with facts, evidence and law.

 

The police department, said Sheriff Keller, is only successful with public trust and there are four basic elements to build and strengthen public trust: 1) selection of the best candidates; 2) a 9-month in-depth training process; 3) supervision and oversight of actions and teamwork; and 4) a series of processes to address public grievances.  The mission of the police department, he said:

 

. . . is to protect, enforce, and prevent crime and we, as administrators, must ensure to every citizen that we can provide the best service by the highest caliber of people.  When you have 4000 employees, there must be a system to identify those who go beyond the rules and weed them out.  The polygraph is only one tool and there are no substantiated abuses of the police officers’ bill of rights in the last 6 years, regarding administration of the polygraph.

 

Sheriff Keller testified his department implemented a policy of truthfulness January 1, 2001, and if a member of the department lies during an official investigation, after having been noticed, the only consequence is termination.  He reiterated the need for public trust and said it is maintained through the following of rules.

 

Dennis Balaam, Sheriff, Washoe County, echoed Sheriff Keller’s statements.  He said he had been in law enforcement over 29 years with involvement in all aspects including criminal and internal affairs investigations.  The use of the polygraph is only as good as the operator, he said, but it is a great tool in pre- and post-interviews.  He claimed the polygraph had not been abused during his administration, and many times it has “saved officers sleepless nights and days of turmoil . . . [because] many people will withdraw complaints when they realize they are not factual.”  He testified support for the statute to be left in place as is.

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS), said he had 32 years’ experience in law enforcement and 4 years in government service before that.  He said he served as chief of the Reno Police Department and also had 5½ years experience as the Washoe County sheriff, and finished his first year as director of DMV/PS this month.  He said the “management sitting at the table do not disagree with what labor has said in terms of what we want to accomplish, but disagree on methods.”  He asserted more than 99 percent of the people in law enforcement are “honest, decent, ethical, hardworking, committed people who want to do the right things for the right reasons.”  Administrators, he said, must balance rights and interests, with protections of the public and allegations of abuse by their employees.  He said because officers are given the unusual authority to use deadly force, deprive people of their freedom, and place people in jail, there is an extra concern about public trust, so managers need to go beyond what might apply to the average individual.  Mr. Kirkland said:

 

A polygraph is a tool, like psychology or DNA, which are imperfect tools.  We do not use a failed or inconclusive polygraph to discipline anyone.  If we don’t have significant evidence to correct, punish or terminate someone, we will not move forward. . . .  Statements given to us during the polygraph interview that were substantiated statements admitting that what they were accused of actually did take place and providing us with the details . . . without the polygraph, we would not have obtained that.  We would lose credibility, labor would lose credibility, [and] the public would be dissatisfied with our ability to ensure that the conduct of our employees has been properly investigated.

 

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Kirkland explained if an individual makes an allegation against an officer which cannot otherwise be proved or disproved, the only recourse is to use the polygraph.  He said an employee cannot be forced to take the polygraph, but would lose his or her job by refusing to take the polygraph.  He explained the exam starts with a series of questions, and a pre-test interview often elicits an admittance or “clarification” of what happened.  Following the test, he said, is a post-test interview in which the examiner asks for clarification on areas which were inconclusive.  Individuals usually do clarify, he said, but may state there is nothing to clarify, which would be the end of the case.  He said he never terminated someone on the basis of a failed or inconclusive test.

Mr. Kirkland said he disagreed the test is effective only with those who are not familiar with it.  He claimed officers who know the instrument well have failed the test because of false responses.  With regard to the Ames-Central Intelligence Agency case, he acknowledged some people can lie and still pass the test, which is why, he said, action cannot be taken one way or the other based only on the outcome of the test.

 

Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, testified strong opposition to the bill.  He described a professional standards unit in Douglas County which investigates allegations against police officers, and said the district attorney and human resource officers on staff are trained to do internal investigations.  He stressed an administrator is obligated to respond to citizens’ concerns, and asserted polygraph questions are not a free-for-all, but are designed to narrow in on points of concern.  Further, he said, the district attorney’s office and others review the questions for fairness.  He said law enforcement administrators need every tool they have, and allegations go to credibility of the department.  He asked the committee to consider denial of passage of the bill.

 

John Dotson, Police Chief, City of Sparks, echoed the comments of his colleagues and described his 33 years’ experience in law enforcement, including internal affairs.  He said the agencies need the ability to determine whether people are fit for duty in the face of allegations of misconduct or criminal activities.  He said there are often cases in which people are not willing to come forward with what they know, and he has experienced and been suspicious of the “blue wall of silence” in his 33 years of experience.

 

Chief Dotson described cases in his department in which a polygraph test was used as a tool.  He noted even in those cases in which an officer failed the test, absent any other evidence, they had to rule it was an inconclusive investigation.  In this case, he said, there is no disciplinary action or sustained finding against the officer.  Further, he said, in cases without a witness to officer misconduct, there is no ability to compel a polygraph.  Polygraphs may only be obtained voluntarily with safeguards the Nevada Supreme Court enacted through the 2000 decision, he said, which requires a stipulated agreement between both parties as to what the results can be used for and how they can be used administratively.  The current statute, he said, prohibits discipline of an officer on the sole basis of the polygraph.  He said it would be a great disservice to take this away entirely.

 

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 282 and opened the hearing on A.B. 219.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 219:  Designates mustang as official state animal.  (BDR 19-1119)

 

Will Hull, Intern for Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, introduced the bill as coming from Penny Bichsel’s fourth-grade class at Aggie Roberts Elementary School in Henderson.  He stated the students are learning about the legislative process through their effort to change policy and they presented the bill to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on March 21, 2001.  Mr. Hull said this is the second time the mustang bill has come before the legislature.  He noted several reasons for making the mustang the second state animal:  Nevada has two state trees, Nevada gives sanctuary to over 25,000 mustangs, the mustang is a symbol of the frontier and was once an indigenous species, the mustang provided transportation for pioneers and herd management to cowboys, and the mustang fought bravely in many battles.  He claimed the bill does not call for increased protection of mustangs and would not interfere with their management and providing a balance in competition for scarce land.

 

Penny Bichsel, Fourth-grade Teacher, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, explained her effort began two years ago with a previous fourth-grade class.  She said the proposal to Governor Guinn and various legislators was greatly received, but their visit to Carson City was too late.  However, she said, the idea was kept alive and efforts began in earnest.  She described the process students undertook to support the bill and how rewarding it was.  Ms. Bichsel reiterated the bill would not increase protection of the mustangs, and was based on extensive research and solid fact, not emotional responses from the schoolchildren.  She thanked Assemblywoman Buckley and other legislators, and also thanked her students for their efforts.

 

Kylie Torres, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with his research assistant, Kristen McKoy.  He said while learning about the state, students became interested in the wild mustang and its historical importance to Nevada, feeling it should be recognized as an official state animal.  He said the students learned about the issue through the Internet, books, films, and interviews.  Petitions and letters regarding the bill were submitted during testimony to the Assembly (Exhibit E). 

positive responses, in addition to 556 student signatures from Aggie Roberts Elementary School.  The class wrote to every elected official and all 63 legislators and the students were excited by their responses of support, he said.  They have the support of the National Wild Horse Foundation, Wild Horse Calendar Creations, and Let ‘em Run Foundation.  Mr. Torres said they worked hard on the project and it is very important to all the students.  In conclusion, he said, “Although many people think we’re just kids, we are the future leaders and builders of Nevada.”  He asked for the committee’s support.

 

Jessica Beyer, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with her research assistant, Shelby Black.  She said the wild mustang should be one of the state animals because it is part of Nevada’s history.  Many think it is not native to Nevada, but it was here thousands of years ago, she said, and is now limited mostly to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.  She quoted a statement from the U.S. Congress regarding the wild mustang and the pioneer spirit.

 

Taylor Prince, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with her research assistant, Dominick DiFranco.  She said the Spanish brought horses to North and South America and some turned wild and formed their own herds.  Mustangs, also known as “American Feral Horses,” defined a mixed-breed horse once domesticated, she said, but has since been freed and can be found in Nevada and the western U.S.  The term “mustang” is derived from a Spanish word meaning a herd of horses, she said, and is used when referring to wild or stray horses of western America.  Early mustangs were small light horses, but increasingly larger varieties were mixed with the breed and most today are feral descendants of ranch stock turned loosed or lost, she said. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Prince said Nevada was one of the last places to become settled and became a good habitat for wild horses because of the abundance of open land.  Herds became larger as horses were no longer needed for transportation, she said, and they were sometimes hunted down.  “Wild Horse Annie,” a Northern Nevadan, went to the U.S. Congress to stop the hunting of wild horses through the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, she said, and the BLM manages the horses and helps keep the population under control through the adopt-a-horse program.  Today, five out of seven wild mustangs live in Nevada, she said, and are part of Nevada’s history and the West.  She asked for the committee’s support of the bill.

Deanna Chase, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with her research assistant, Alexandra Peterson.  She said it is her dream the bill will be passed, but if it is passed, there will still be a lot of work to do.  The BLM puts Nevada’s wild mustang count at 24,321, according to September 2000 statistics, she said, and BLM is trying hard to help Nevada keep the mustang under control by rounding up the wild mustangs and keeping their number at a sustainable level for the available land.  Last year, about 7000 horses were removed at a cost of $29 million, and this practice will continue as long as there are too many horses and not enough land, she said.  What happens to adopted horses is often unknown, but no matter what happens to them, she said, it is not as good as staying in their natural habitat to run free and wild.  Ms. Chase said she once saw mustangs in the wild and will never forget the good feeling she had watching them disappear in the distance.

 

If we accept them as a state animal, said Ms. Chase, we have an obligation to protect their freedom and leave their spirit intact.  Rounding them up with helicopters and trucks is not a good method, she said, and the BLM will spend $30 million on roundup and relocation this year to protect mustangs from overpopulation.  She suggested the money could be put to better use, and reported University of California, Davis, scientists have developed birth control for horses which has been tried on feral burros in the Virgin Islands, whitetail deer on Fire Island National Seashore Federal Wilderness Area in New York, and wild horses on Assateague Island National Seashore at Maryland’s border.  They are also working on the elk population at Point Reyes in California, she said, and this would be one way to address the population problem.  Ms. Chase acknowledged the need to work out a fair plan with ranchers to protect horses and livestock, and concluded wildlife must be managed to be saved, but urged a hands-off approach by searching for benign, non-invasive methods of management.  She asked for committee support of the bill.

 

Monty Kaser, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with his research assistant, Andrew Tschernia.  He said the wild mustang should be a state animal because it is important to Nevada history.  He reported his research found 7 out of 50 states have two state animals; they are: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.  Three states; Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas have three state animals and Massachusetts and Wisconsin have four state animals.  Nevada, he said, would be the first state to have the wild mustang for a state animal.  Eight states have horses for their state animal, but none has the wild mustang, he said.  The BLM estimates 4321 horses and 775 burros, out of 48,000 nationwide, are roaming free in Nevada, he said, and roundups were conducted to remove 4022 horses by September 30, 2000.  He encouraged support of the bill.

 

Jordan Dowell, Student, Aggie Roberts Elementary School, Henderson, testified with his research assistant, Cory Hill.  He said he was excited to see wild mustangs when the class visited Virginia City in March.  People who want to protect wild horses say they are descendants of those brought by the Spanish in the early 1500s, he said, while ranchers and others in favor of government roundups say the horses are formerly domesticated animals turned out by farmers and ranchers.  “Our government believes the truth is probably somewhere in between,” he said.

 

Mr. Dowell drew attention to two articles from the Nevada Appeal, May 7, 2000, and quoted an authority from the BLM as saying the U.S. Calvary was probably one of the sources of today’s wild horses.  Spanish horses spread across the plains from 1540 through 1770, he said, and we now have mixed breeds.  Some of the horses today have similar characteristics, he said, and could be descendants of the Spanish horses, but most are not direct descendants.  Miners, farmers, and ranchers used a large number of the horses during the spring and summer, and then put them on the range in winter, he said, and at the beginning of the twentieth century, many wild horses roamed the West.  Today their number is much smaller because many have been killed for pet food, glue, and chicken food, he said.  Two-thirds of the wild horses live in Nevada, he said, which is far more than any other state.

 

Mr. Dowell reiterated the BLM is in charge of preserving and protecting the wild horses and burros, and said he believes ranchers and mustangs can live side by side.  He asserted it is hard work to manage herds and continue the adoption program.  The BLM wants nearly half of the 25,000 horses in Nevada removed and placed in the adoption program in coming years, he said, and President Bush promised nearly $30 million for roundups this year, with the goal of getting numbers down to a level which is healthy for the land.

 

While people argue the wild horses and the thousands of cattle roaming harm the range, said Mr. Dowell, “the question will remain: we must find a balance for both cattle and horses.”  Assembly Bill 219 does not ask for any special consideration for the wild mustang, he asserted, only for it to be given the recognition it deserves, and “Whether it be feral or stray, Spanish- or European-descended, the mustang that lived in our great state many years ago, or the mustang that lives here today, it’s all part of Nevada history.  Let’s give the wild mustang a true place in history.”  In conclusion, he pointed out the Grant Sawyer State Office Building has a desert bighorn sheep on one side of the doorway and the other side has an open space which would be “perfect for our second state animal, the wild mustang.”

 

Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District, referenced an article in the May 13, 2001, Reno Gazette-Journal about excess horses in the state of Nevada.  Since 1971, he said, the BLM has been trying to attain a reasonable goal and has never come close.  Right now there are 24,000 wild horses in Nevada, he said, and 6000 per year need to be gathered to get down to the 14,000 level goal.  Through the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands, more funds were gained for Nevada BLM districts for the next few years and they are getting serious about reaching the goal levels for the first time, he said.  He expressed concern the bill would send a signal back to Congress and to land agencies, the citizens of Nevada are not serious about seeking a reasonable level of horses.  He pointed out there are areas in Nevada where wildlife is gone and livestock grazing permits are cancelled, adding he has a neighbor who is in this situation, with a lot of horses on his range, and even the chukars are gone.

 

Deloyd Satterthwaite, Manager, Ellison Ranching Company, testified when the wild horse and burro act was passed in 1971, ranchers like himself had the opportunity to claim wild horses on the ranges, but did not, which has proved to be a very costly mistake.  At the time, he said, it did not seem the numbers would be a problem with 119 horses on a particular management area.  Some years later, the land use plan called for 250 head of horses; at last count there were 1648 horses and they are having their foals now, which adds 20 percent to 25 percent.  The count is reaching approximately 2000 horses, although the agreement was for 119 horses, he said, and nothing is being done.  He said he “has all the proposed state animals” he needs and can handle. 

 

Mr. Satterthwaite asserted the wild horse is probably the only uncontrolled user of public land, while all other users are limited or pay fees.  Nationally, he said, the wild horse and burro budget is $16 million and only about 20 percent comes to Nevada, although it contains the most horses.  He also expressed concern the bill would send a signal to the federal government, saying money does not need to come here for management because the bill would raise the wild horses to a higher level.  He said there are 103 herd-management areas in Nevada where the horses were located when the act passed in 1971 and approximately 120 more herd-management areas are there now, but the area management level of those horses is zero.  If the pressure is put on, the horses may be located throughout the state and not isolated to management areas, he said, and once they overpopulate an area, they drift out of the area and the horses are still not removed.

 

Continuing, Mr. Satterthwaite said the mustang is currently classified as wild and free-roaming, and therefore should “take its lumps” as do other users of the public land.  “If the horses were starving to death in deep snow or in a drought,” he asked, “would the public demand resources to save them?  When horses are gathered by the BLM, would the public demand a halt because it is the state animal?”

 

Mr. Satterthwaite asserted the state should not have a state animal which is completely controlled by the federal government.  The state could write new legislation, he said, but it would mean nothing because the mustangs are controlled by the federal government.  He suggested looking at strays as a state animal, which are controlled by the state, and confining them to the Comstock area, which would allow people to go out and help manage them and be able to look at them.  He further suggested waiting until horse populations are brought down to area management levels and revisiting the issue then.  When the act was passed in 1971, he said, there were probably a lot of young people at the hearing.  He noted the sensitive and emotional nature of the issue and said people wanted to do the right thing, but the legislation stopped short of giving anybody the authority to manage, dispose, and control these horses.  Mr. Satterthwaite said he would hate to see more legislation passed which would not provide for control.

 

C. Joseph Guild III, Lobbyist, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, expressed admiration for the teacher’s and students’ efforts, noting they were good examples of getting young people excited about making a difference in the governmental process.  As president of Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, he said, he would be willing at any time to go to Las Vegas at his own expense to talk to the class about the ranchers’ point of view on this and many other issues.  He stressed ranchers of Nevada are also living and working symbols of the spirit of the West and are trying to survive in a tough environment.  He said he was encouraged to hear some of the students say they want balance brought to bear on the issue and they recognize ranchers have a right and purpose in being out there.  With regard to what happens to horses put up for adoption, Mr. Guild said, he loves horses and has trained and started mustangs, and a lot of them have good homes once they are adopted.

 

Mr. Guild reported, in 1971, then-Senator Cliff Young introduced a similar bill for a state mustang, which failed in the Legislature.  It was considered again in 1973 when the desert bighorn sheep became the state animal, he said, as supported by legislators present at the current hearing: Senators Neal, Raggio, and Jacobsen.  Although in 1971, then-Senator Cliff Young was eloquent in support of the wild mustang, his colleagues did not support his amendment, and ultimately Senator Young also voted in favor of the desert bighorn sheep, said Mr. Guild.  The desert bighorn sheep is an indigenous species to Nevada and became our state animal in 1973, he said, and the bill to add the wild mustang should be rejected, because, as the students admitted, it is not native or indigenous, and did not evolve in this environment, but was brought here by man.  It is a feral animal, he said, and should not be a symbol of our state.

 

Mr. Dowell said the students are not asking for special consideration and support the efforts of the BLM to control the wild mustangs.  Through regular hearings, citizens are able to voice their opinions on management, he said, and asked, “Would the government manage the desert bighorn sheep if there were a problem and they did not have food or water?  Would we allow nature to run its course?”  He said he thought the committee should vote yes, keeping the desert bighorn sheep as a state animal and have the wild mustang be a co-state animal.  He claimed the mustang was actually native to Nevada, but it disappeared and then came back.

 

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, said he grew up on a ranch and would go into the mountains in the spring to catch mustangs and have a rodeo.  He said:

 

The good lord gave us our physical senses, but not common sense. . . . [I am] not in favor of the mustangs being the state animal because, although one student noted they look good from far away, up close their hooves and manes need to be trimmed, [whereas] you never need to trim the bighorn sheep.  Wild horses hang together in a bunch, all pooping in the same place, and then they lay in it.  A bighorn sheep would not do that.  Wild horses are not clean animals and if they were, we would probably eat them, as they do in foreign countries.

 

Senator Jacobsen said the bighorn sheep tag at this year’s conference went for $63,000 for someone to go hunt them, which shows their value as a game animal.  He continued:

 

If you saw the two animals side by side you would notice the bighorn sheep has more sensitivity, can see better, can smell better, even feels better.  I was born in Nevada and it is important to me its image be first-class.  If you have a chance to visit the Governor’s office, the most impressive thing there, to me, is a mount of the bighorn sheep.  If the wild horse was so impressive, we would have a wild horse there and in other places.  If you get up close to a wild horse, you would see what he looks like and smells like; it would not be good.  [With] a bighorn sheep, none of those things are present.  So even the good lord has indicated the bighorn sheep is the best.

 

Jay Dalton, Student, University of Nevada, Reno, testified he is a fifth-generation rancher from Elko County, and agrees with previous speakers opposed to the bill.  Because of limited and disproportionate funding the federal government gives to Nevada, he said, 48,000 mustangs are present in the western U.S., and a little over half are present in Nevada.  The funding allocated to Nevada by the federal government to manage these horses is disproportionate to actual populations, he said, and therefore the management levels set by the federal government have never been attained.  He noted the process of supporting the bill was a good educational experience for the young people, but said he did not think the bill was necessary or appropriate.

 

Tony Diebold, Concerned Citizen, provided written testimony (Exhibit F) and expressed concern with the impact of wild horses on wildlife.  In 1971, when the wild horse and burro act was passed, he said, it was passed by a U.S. Congress which “could care less about Nevada or wild horses.”  He asserted representatives were responding to letters written by a bunch of children, just as the committee is about to do now.  If there had been an environmental impact statement when the act was introduced, he said, it would never have reached the floor.  He asserted overgrazing of mustangs is the worst threat to Nevada’s fragile environment since the unregulated cattle and sheep herds of the 1800s.  A horse eats twice as much as a cow and four times as much as a wild animal, such as a deer, he said, and drinks 15 gallons of water per day, draining water holes, leaving nothing for wildlife, and dominating the best available land.  He urged the committee to stop, not glorify, the feral horse and its devastation of wildlife and the best 10 percent of our lands.

 

If this bill is passed, Mr. Diebold said, it would legitimize the feral horse, which would decrease funds and interest in its management.  Hundreds of horses and countless Nevada wildlife would die needlessly, he said, and it would be naïve to think this bill would not have such an impact.  In the 30 years since the wild horse and burro act was passed, a lot of horse history has died, he said, and in 1970, he saw 500 horses die through starvation and mismanagement; hundreds of deer and antelope also died because of this overpopulation.  The wild horse lobby does not take responsibility for the horses, he claimed, but simply wants to know they are out there.

 

Mr. Diebold estimated there are closer to 30,000 horses in Nevada.  He reported in the 1840s, historian John Freemont came through Nevada and made special mention there were no horses in this dry desert environment.  The Virginia Range is a shining example of horse management according to the horse lobby with over 1000 horses, Mr. Diebold said, when there should not be more than 200 there.  The deer used to be there by the thousands, he said, but do not go there anymore because they cannot compete for food.  He urged the committee to “listen to native Nevadans who understand the problem of overpopulation of wild horses, and do the right thing.”

 

Matthew Jeffress, Student, Lowry High School, Winnemucca, provided written testimony (Exhibit G) and testified as a fifth-generation Nevadan and avid outdoorsman.  He said, “It is disheartening that the wild mustang might become a co-state animal along with the desert bighorn sheep.”  The wild horse is not native to Nevada, he said, but was brought in by Spaniards in the 1800s.  Since then, it has competed with native wildlife for crucial habitat in our state, the most arid in the nation, he said, and “to name the wild horse as co-state animal is an insult to the prestige of the desert bighorn sheep.”

 

Mr. Jeffress reiterated mustang population numbers as reported above, and referred to a Reno Gazette-Journal article which quoted a BLM manager in stating the number of wild horses far exceeds the range lands’ capability to support them.  Wild horses must be gathered in sufficient quantity to keep the numbers down to a healthy level for animals and land, he said, and the BLM would like to reduce the population from 25,000 to 10,000 by 2005, recognizing the impact wild horses have on Nevada’s ranches.  He commended the involvement of Clark County students, but asserted the proposed bill is not an ethical choice.

 

Responding to Senator Neal’s inquiry, Mr. Diebold said he did not know where the Shoshones got their horses, and said the Northern Paiute were not “horsed” until the white men showed up.  Tony Laub, Student, Lowry High School, Winnemucca, testified opposition to the bill because the wild horse is not as prestigious as the desert bighorn sheep.  He said he was not representing the cattle industry, but is a hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman.

 

Larry Johnson, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited; Chairman, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife; and wildlife representative to the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, said he was not representing the wild horse advisory board in his testimony, but was representing wildlife.  The wild horse has been a romanticized symbol of the West and is a valuable and esthetic resource, he said, but proper management is necessary.  He asserted this management has been severely handcuffed for the past 30 years, focusing on protection rather than management.  He reiterated concerns about overpopulation of mustangs in an arid environment and the negative impact on wildlife resources.  “If you want to see some cruel things in nature,” he said:

 

One hundred to two hundred wild horses camp out on the only water source for miles during a drought while other animals give up their access and die.  Many wildlife managers consider range fire, noxious weeds, and wild horses as three major threats to wildlife resources in the state of Nevada.  [It is a poor] comparison to the desert bighorn sheep that clawed its way back from near extinction at the turn of the century, and sportsmen of the state have spent millions [of dollars] and [donated] thousands of volunteer man-hours in reestablishment of bighorn sheep populations across the state.  Results have been astounding as one of the most successful wildlife stories in America, if not in the entire world.  The sportsmen of the state are deeply, philosophically opposed to the wild horse as co-state animal.

From a practical standpoint, Mr. Johnson said, this may be a first step in further handicapping management of wild horses.  He reiterated concerns regarding the mustang population and the limited budget for management, noting the BLM has already removed 6500 horses with another 1000 to remove this fiscal year as part of a strategic plan to reduce levels within the next four years.  Of those horses moved, he said, only the young are up for adoption and older horses are put on prairie ranches which are lush free-roaming pastures.  He asserted the program would work in the next few years if promised levels of funding continue.  He asserted no one is out to cause extinction, but the welfare of the horse, wildlife, and healthy range are considerations.

 

Mr. Johnson suggested the wild horse could be the official state horse or official state wild horse, but does not belong in the same status with the desert bighorn sheep.  He recommended an amendment, if the bill were to be passed, for additional language to state, “nothing in the designation shall interfere with the proper management of the wild horse, including, but not limited to, gathering, adoption, and long-term holding by appropriate management agencies.”

 

In response to questions from Senator Neal, Mr. Johnson said a foundation for wild horses was being set up and a number of other wild life species have foundations set up for their preservation in Nevada, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited Foundation.  These foundations are established for both the purpose of hunters and preservation, he said.  He pointed out wild horses are not hunted, which puts them in a separate category.  He said there is a current bill to create a foundation for them, which he would be involved in and would advertise nationally.  Everyone is concerned about the preservation of the wild horse and its esthetic and historic value, he said, but he cautioned, an official designation could possibly adversely impact proper management in the future.

 

Paul Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, testified on behalf of 1500 to 1600 association members who are hunters and are concerned about destruction of game because of the horses.  He expressed concern if the bill were passed, it would just be a matter of time before there would be a problem with federal control.  He asserted it would be resolved with another bill in the future, calling for the Nevada Division of Wildlife to take care of the horses, at which point the Senate Committee on Finance would become involved because it would be very expensive for taxpayers; possibly $4 million to $5 million.  He said, “Hunters are not interested in killing all the animals in the field, but interested in having animals available for the hunt,” and “We can’t have hunting season if we don’t have animals, and since the wild horse is federally protected, it’s not an animal that people hunt now.”

 

Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, said he is familiar with Sheldon Antelope Refuge in Northern Nevada, which is a 6000-acre refuge created by Congress for the specific purpose of studying pronghorn antelope.  The pronghorn antelope would be a more practical choice for a co-state animal, he said, and the refuge is supposed to be reserved for native animals.  Federal authorities have agreed the horses on the refuge are not native, he said.  However, he added, because of environmentalists’ involvement in the process, they agreed to maintain a population of approximately 125 horses.  Today, he said, there are approximately 1200 horses on the refuge.  At Round Mountain Reservoir, the wild horses have run the antelope off from the remaining waterholes and have contributed to low surviving numbers of both antelope and deer in those areas, he said.  On at least two occasions, he noted, he has been charged by feral horse stallions protecting turf.  He said it was a “scary feeling that if you had to defend yourself there would be more paperwork to fill out than you could imagine.”  He concluded the bill would send the wrong message and testified his opposition.

 

Chap Pratt, Concerned Citizen, said he is a native Nevadan, and during drought years a lot of wild animals came onto his family’s property and he saw a lot of consumption by the horses, which hurt production of hay.  He said there are antelope and deer still on this range and the loss of hay is not as significant.

 

David Horton, Lobbyist, provided a document related to management of a similar problem (Exhibit H).  He said a county ordinance shows unrestricted multiplication of wild horses is generating nuisance problems in rural areas.  As a 17-year resident of rural Nevada, he said, he has known people who have friends or relatives who have been killed by these large animals coming through the windshield.  He concluded lack of management or restriction is very serious in rural Nevada.

 

Chairman O’Connell accepted additional documents (Exhibits I through P) but closed the hearing on A.B. 219 to further testimony, and opened the hearing on A.B. 451.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 451:  Authorizes certain local governments to donate real property to certain nonprofit organizations in certain circumstances.  (BDR 20-369)

 

Robert Salley, Marian Kamalani, and Robert Westwood, Interns for Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23, provided written testimony (Exhibit Q) and gave an introductory overview of this bill, for which Speaker Perkins is the primary sponsor.

 

Ms. Kamalani said A.B. 451 authorizes local governments to donate real property to certain nonprofit organizations under certain circumstances.  If the nonprofit organization ceases to use the property, she said, the property automatically reverts to the control of the county or city, which would help nonprofit organizations to acquire land without further depleting their resources.  Partnerships with local governments enrich the quality of life through community outreach, reducing the need for social service programs, she said.  Mr. Westwood noted these benefits must be considered in opposition to the argument tax revenues would be lost.

 

Mr. Salley explained local governments would continue to hold the deeds to the land, and in the event the land is no longer used for civic or charitable purposes, the local governments would have the right to recover the land, which could be sold or redeveloped.

 

Tom Warden, Spokesman, Howard Hughes Corporation, testified the corporation is involved with programs which give grants and donations to organizations doing charitable work in the community.  There is a great amount of need in the community, he said, and the growth in southern Nevada has created a “crunch” for the charitable organizations, with at least a dozen organizations currently conducting major capital campaigns.  He asserted provision of surplus land would be a rare and strong opportunity for these organizations, and said the Howard Hughes Corporation is very much in support of the bill.

 

Mitsi Johnson, Girl Scouts of Frontier Council, Girl Scouts of the USA, and Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada, Girl Scouts of the USA, testified her organizations had faced the challenges of maintaining offices on leased property, and strongly urge support of A.B. 451.  She pointed out the nonprofit sector saves the state millions in tax dollars every year by performing needed services without government funding.  The gift of property can benefit thousands of taxpayers by enabling a nonprofit entity to build a much-needed facility to serve the community, she said.

 

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Warden said his understanding is there are two kinds of nonprofit organizations: 501(c)(3) and 503.  Bill Gregory, Lobbyist, Howard Hughes Corporation, distributed a copy of a proposed amendment (Exhibit R) which he suggested would help clarify Senator Neal’s question about civic organizations and nonprofits.  He said it would clarify the definition of “corporation for public benefit,” pursuant to NRS 82.021, as follows:

 

1. Is recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in effect on October 1, 1991, future amendments to that section and the corresponding provisions of future internal revenue laws; or 2. Is organized for a public or charitable purpose and which upon dissolution must distribute its assets to the United States, a state, or a person, which is recognized as exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended.

 

In response to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Warden said this amendment was not offered on the Assembly side because of deadlines, but he was asked to bring it up on the Senate side.  He explained to Senator Porter, certain organizations are anticipating taking advantage of these provisions.

 

Ron Garland, Executive Director, Boulder Dam Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, testified a new scouting resource center is now under construction in the city of Las Vegas, on leased property.  He said the council approached the county regarding the use of surplus land and learned the county was unable to gift or sell the land to the nonprofit organization under state law.  This legislation would enable the county to take such a step if it decided to, he said.  The organization is currently under a lease and its major donor source had a challenge with its own regulations to make a gift on leased property, he said, but did so with the knowledge of this legislation.  He said there has been a growing pressure on the nonprofit sector in Las Vegas in the 3½ years he has been in the community and experienced its growth.  He reported the need for space and facilities is a common challenge expressed by others in the nonprofit sector.

 

Deborah Campbell, Executive Director, Health Foundation, Saint Rose Dominican Hospital, Henderson, said she has been in the community for 8 years, has worked for United Way of America, and now is with Saint Rose Dominican Hospital.  She testified support for A.B. 451.  Colleen A. Wilson-Pappa, Lobbyist, Clark County, also testified support for the bill.  She said the current limitation to providing long-term leases for nonprofits has hindered some of these charitable organizations in obtaining financing and getting grants.  She explained to Chairman O’Connell the types of lands being considered for donation are not prime properties.  She said the law specifically states, with regard to county leases, the land should not be needed for any other public purpose.  Also, she said, the land would revert to the county or city if it is no longer used for civic or charitable purposes.

 

Senator Porter asked whether use could be made of vacant facilities under current statute.  Ms. Wilson-Pappa said she would need to get an interpretation from the county’s district attorney, as there has been some variance in these decisions.  However, she said, the county counsel has reviewed the bill and found no problems with it, and sees it as a benefit to the county and the citizens of the community.  Ms. Wilson-Pappa said counsel’s review included the proposed amendment.

 

Tom Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA), said he supported the bill, but would like to propose to the committee that fair and recreation boards or organizations not receiving their funding from the ad valorem tax be exempt.  He explained the LVCVA has recently purchased the World Trade Center building (World Trade Center Hotel), and when the building comes down and parking is expanded, there may be a residual acre.  If someone were to approach the LVCVA, the land could be donated, he said, but because future expansion plans are unknown, there may be a problem getting the land back if it were needed while the nonprofit entity is still utilizing it.  He claimed the bill could also affect the airport and the school district, and other government entities would potentially be required to enter into this type of activity.  He reiterated his request for the LVCVA to be exempt, and suggested cities and counties be given the authority to do this, but not those who do not receive funding from ad valorem taxes.

 

Mr. Skancke explained an amendment to exempt such entities would exempt school districts from the bill.  If the committee prefers, he said, the language could specify fair and recreation boards only.  The list of entities not receiving funding through ad valorem taxes was not presently available, he said, but he spoke with Assemblyman Perkins, Mr. Gregory, and Ms. Wilson-Pappa regarding the amendment.  They had no issue with the proposed exemptions.  He agreed to get the proposed language to the committee.

 

Mr. Gregory pointed out to Senator Neal the provisions for property reverting to the county and city are in the bill under section 1, subsection 3, and section 2, subsection 3, respectively.  He explained to Chairman O’Connell he believes any improvements to the property made by the nonprofit organization would revert to the city or county if the original property were being reverted.

 

Ms. Wilson-Pappa pointed out to Chairman O’Connell, section 1, subsection 2 of the bill states, “A lease or conveyance pursuant to this section may be made on such terms and conditions as seem proper to the board of county commissioners.”  Chairman O’Connell noted it is important for the organizations utilizing and/or improving the property to understand this language.  Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 451 and opened the hearing on A.B. 381.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 381:  Makes various changes regarding cities and towns. (BDR 21-67)

 

Assemblyman Douglas (Doug) A. Bache, Clark County Assembly District 11, testified the bill began as a draft to create the new governmental entity of “incorporated town.”  Bill drafters indicated it was too large and difficult to do in the 120-day session, he said, and should be done through an interim study to write the bill.  The first section has a conflict amendment with S.B. 555 and various categories of cities, changing the minimum population specified in NRS 265.010 from “250 electors” to “1000 inhabitants,” he said, which is the appropriate mechanism. 

 

SENATE BILL 555:  Makes various changes in general laws governing cities. (BDR 21-352)

 

Assemblyman Bache said this is the first of various interim studies and it would go to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.  Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said he worked with Assemblyman Bache on A.B. 381 and supports it.  He explained the bill would change cities of the first, second, and third class to population categories in S.B. 555, which would also have to be done in A.B. 381.  Section 4 of A.B. 381 would provide for an interim study with membership of the government affairs committees from both Houses and taxation committee members, he said.  An ad hoc committee or subcommittee would be made up of representatives from the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, Nevada Taxpayers Association, and Nevada Association of Counties, he said, and the committee on local government affairs would be the advisory committee to the Legislative Commission, to help work through any problems.  He said representatives from a number of towns are looking forward to this, one of whom has already delivered a white paper to Assemblyman Bache with some ideas.  Mr. Grady said he looks forward to working on this committee.

 

Assemblyman Bache clarified for Senator Neal the language on classification of cities is not in the statute because it is amending the general law on cities, which does not affect special charters in state statute. 

 

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 381 and opened the hearing on A.B. 414.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 414:  Authorizes removal of manager of state public works board under certain circumstances. (BDR 28-670)

 

Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board, Department of Administration, said he testified in favor of the bill before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and had no objections.  He said he works for the Governor, indirectly, because the State Public Works Board and its chairman are appointed by the Governor.  He said the bill would have no detrimental effect on his position, but he understands frustrations which have occurred in the past.

 

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 414 and opened the hearing on A.B. 557.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 557:  Authorizes constables, upon request of sheriff, to execute certain process, writs and warrants. (BDR 20-246)

 

Robert A. (Bobby G) Gronauer, Constable, Las Vegas Township, asked the committee to vote in favor of the bill.  He said he authored a draft of this bill in 2000 with help from Assemblyman Bache, Sheriff Jerry Keller, and the sheriffs and chiefs association.  Interested parties were sent notices regarding the bill, he said, and they agreed with the proposed changes.  He explained it would not remove authority or power from any sheriff in the state and would not add authority or power to any constable in the state.  It would give sheriffs throughout the state discretion to give civil process duties to area constables if the sheriff in the area is unable to handle a particular process, he said.

 

In response to questions from Senator Neal, Mr. Gronauer clarified the bill would give more “duties” to constables, but not power or authority, and “judicial officers,” as identified in the bill, refers to all officers of the court.  Mr. Gronauer said the sheriff of Clark County had asked him to take over the civil process section of the civil bureau of the sheriff’s department, and an attorney threatened to sue the sheriff based on the language of NRS 248.100 providing the “sheriff will” take whatever paperwork is brought to him.

 

Mr. Gronauer clarified for Senator Neal the location of language which specifies civil processes under section 3 of NRS 248.100, which states, the sheriff shall: ”. . . execute the process, writs or warrants of courts of justice, judicial officers and coroners, when delivered to him for that purpose.”  His understanding is the sheriff of Clark County wants the constable to do civil process, not criminal work, he said, and he believes life-safety issues belong to the sheriffs throughout the state.  Therefore, he said, this was not proposed as “special” legislation, but for all sheriffs throughout the state, with all constables throughout the state.  The idea was to take the handcuffs off the sheriffs on civil processes, he said, giving them discretion to request assistance from constables when their departments cannot handle civil process in a timely manner.

 

Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, explained to Senator Neal chapter 248 of NRS does not distinguish between criminal and civil processes.  It would be at the sheriff’s discretion, she said, what type of process would be assigned.  Senator Neal asserted, because there is no distinction, constables would have expanded power if sheriffs chose to give it to them.

 

In response to a question from Senator Care, Mr. Gronauer said there would be no liability for constables because chapter 248 of NRS relates to sheriffs and chapter 258 relates to constables.  Under statute, Mr. Gronauer said, he is a peace officer and runs a law enforcement agency.  The provision would not require the sheriffs to assign papers to constables, he said, but would allow sheriffs to refer papers to constables if there were time constraints.  As the law is currently written, constables could refuse this duty, he said, but the idea is to relieve police and sheriff’s departments of responsibilities they cannot handle due to life-safety issues, by allowing constables to take those on.

 

Senator Neal pointed out the proposed language would require constables to accept duties sheriffs assigned to them.  Mr. Gronauer agreed with Senator Neal’s statement and said he would have no problem with it and did not think anyone else would, because it was sent out to all the constables, justices of the peace, and district courts in the state, and not one person spoke out against it.

 

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 557 and opened the hearing on A.B. 560.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 560:  Revises certain provisions regarding peace officers. (BDR 23-1461)

 

Paul J. Iverson, Director, State Department of Agriculture, testified support for the bill.  He said it would give his inspectors authority to temporarily stop vehicles to ensure any agricultural products carried are properly licensed as coming from certified nurseries and certified states.  He provided a proposed amendment (Exhibit S) to delete the language, “carrying livestock and carcasses,” and replace it with “under authority of chapter 561.225 of NRS” under section 1 of the bill.  Historically, he said, these inspectors have pulled over only livestock trucks, but they are transitioning into agricultural inspection.  He explained to Senator Neal, chapter 561 of NRS primarily deals with quarantine issues and gives the department authority to assign special field agents, who can have police authority, but primarily would look at agricultural products and would not be pulling over drunk drivers.  He confirmed NRS 561.225 covers agricultural products, and referred to page 4 of the bill regarding Titles 49 and 50 of NRS, as well as chapters 581, 582, 583, and 586 of NRS.

 

Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (P.O.S.T.), testified support for A.B. 560.  He drew attention to page 3, line 39, of the bill which provides the P.O.S.T. commission may enter into local agreements with an Indian tribe to provide training and certification to people employed as peace officers by the tribe.  Currently, he said, there is neither responsibility nor authority to issue certification or to regulate training for tribal officers because they are on sovereign territory.  The tribal officers have expressed interest in having P.O.S.T. certification, he said, and this part of the bill would allow it through interlocal agreements.

 

Mr. Clark said he also supported language worked through with the Legislative Counsel Bureau which would amend page 4, line 9, by inserting, “a person who fails to become certified as required, pursuant to this section shall not exercise the powers of peace officers” (Exhibit T).  This would prevent people from acting as peace officers, he said, and exercising those powers, without proper training and certification, which is currently the practice.  A reasonable length of time would be given after they are hired, to acquire training for certification, he said, and an extension to reach a total of 18 months may be granted through the commission.

 

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, (PORAN) Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, requested support of the bill with the amendment proposed.  He clarified to Senator Porter, section 3, lines 39 through 41, were amended in the Assembly and are part of the current reprint of the bill, and another amendment is proposed for section 4, page 4, line 9, as noted by Mr. Clark.  In reviewing the bill with Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Jensen, Mr. Dreher said, it did not have the intent which resulted from Assembly hearings, and Committee Counsel Kim Guinasso provided the language for this amendment.  He reported there is at least one agency in Nevada whose staff are supposed to be P.O.S.T.-certified who are not, and the amendment would take care of it.

 

Ms. Guinasso stated for the record, as currently written, the section is in the passive which is arcane language, which is why she wrote the amendment.  Currently, it states, “The persons upon whom some or all of the powers of a peace officer are conferred must be certified by the commission.”  They are already required to be certified by the commission, she said, but the new language just adds clarification.

 

Michael Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, Transportation/Public Safety Division, Office of the Attorney General, submitted written testimony (Exhibit U), and testified on behalf of the P.O.S.T. Commission, reiterating Ms. Guinasso’s statement.  The problem with the original language, he said, is it did not include any consequence for peace officers who did not get certification, and the language initially proposed resulted from a review of language from other western states.  The penalty of prohibiting non-certified peace officers from exercising the powers of a peace officer seemed more appropriate than attaching criminal penalties, he said, and the onus would be on the agencies controlling the training of those officers.

 

In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Jensen clarified the requirements would only apply to new officers coming into service, because the requirements are effective within 1 year of commencement.  He said he did not know whether the bill would be retroactive, but believes the commission’s intent is for the language to apply to “everyone out there.”

 

Mr. Clark said the intent of the commission is to make sure everyone who is in the position of peace officer and exercises those powers is required to have training and professional qualifications.  Peace officers have the power to take away people’s freedom, or even, under conflict situations, to take their lives, he said, and people who exercise this level of responsibility and authority should be adequately trained.  Under the current provisions, he said, there is no onus for following through or meeting a time limit for certification.  He also noted there is a liability factor due to lack of training and certification and there are various levels of professionalism resulting from not requiring more senior peace officers to be certified.

 

Ms. Guinasso explained to Senator Neal there is nothing specifically stated in the bill with regard to retroactive effect to make it so.  The commission does have discretion, she said, for good cause shown, to grant in writing an extension of time, which must not exceed 6 months.  She said the term “retroactive application” means something slightly different from what was being considered, which she believes was a “grandfathering” provision or an extension for those who have not been certified by the commission.  She confirmed for Senator Neal, if the bill were passed with the proposed amendments, the day it takes effect, individuals without certification would no longer be able to exercise the powers of peace officer, unless they were granted, in writing, an extension of time by the commission, which could not exceed 6 months.

 

In response to Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Clark said he had no specific knowledge of uncertified peace officers who have had discipline or personnel problems, because agencies do not report them to the commission.  Senator O’Donnell expressed concern about peace officers who may lose their jobs as a result of the bill.

 

Mr. Dreher said earlier research identified approximately 114 members of the state agency in Caliente who are not P.O.S.T.-certified, but by law, are supposed to be.  Whether there are disciplinary problems or not, he said, there are at least 114 people who have never bothered to get certification.  Under Nevada Administrative Code 289.200 there is a level for basic certification, he said, which they could get within the time frames required under A.B. 560 and still maintain P.O.S.T. certification.

 

Mr. Clark explained P.O.S.T. training is 16 weeks for category 1.  Senator O’Donnell expressed concern with the impact to public safety from 114 peace officers being out of service for training for 16 weeks.  Mr. Clark said, “There is a serious public safety hazard if people in the field who are acting with the power of peace officers, who are untrained and not qualified to do the job that can be absolutely hazardous, [are] making judgments on life-and-death situations without the proper training.”  He suggested to Senator O’Donnell his concern with the time frame could be handled through extension of the activation date of the bill.

 

Ms. Guinasso stated her interpretation of the bill is it would not provide an    18-month certification period for someone who is already employed, but it could provide for 6 months.  If the peace officer is already employed as of the effective date, she said, the 1-year standard allowed for training would already be gone and the employee would only be eligible for the 6-month extension at the discretion of the commission.

 

Mr. Clark explained to Chairman O’Connell, P.O.S.T. certification would not affect salaries, although some agencies give bonuses for advanced professional P.O.S.T. certificates.

 

Mr. Jensen explained the proposed amendment language resulted from collaboration among representatives of the sheriffs and chiefs association, and Clark and Washoe Counties, which would deal with the concern about rural agencies not having enough time.  He said the language was sent to all the sheriffs and chiefs and no opposition was reported, and some of them testified support during Assembly hearings.  He said he agreed with Ms. Guinasso on the requirement for getting training within 1 year; and was not sure the 6-month extension would apply to existing peace officers.  He reported other states handled this by having the provision apply only to those people hired after a certain date, which would be a potential solution in this case.

Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 560 and opened the work session with A.B. 257.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 257:  Revises provisions governing Virgin Valley Water District. (BDR S-935)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 257.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened A.B. 314 for discussion.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 314:  Makes various changes concerning collection of debts owed to state. (BDR 31-642)

 

Chairman O’Connell held the bill to await requested information.  Senator Porter asked to also find out whether or not it is realistic to carry a debt at 5 years which had already been written off at 3 years.  Chairman O’Connell explained his question was related to the information she had already requested, and opened discussion on A.B. 326.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 326:  Makes various changes concerning disclosures relating to lobbying. (BDR 31-496)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 326 WITH BOTH OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

 

Ms. Guinasso explained to Senator Porter school districts are included in the bill, but the university system is not currently included.

 

            SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened A.B. 386 for discussion.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 386:  Makes various changes concerning public employees. (BDR 23-621)

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 386.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 395.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 395:  Revises provisions governing authority of city or county to control location of certain residential facilities and changes statutory name of “halfway house for alcohol and drug abusers.” (BDR 22-1118)

 

Chairman O’Connell said there was a non-substantive conflict on the bill.  Senator O’Donnell clarified the organizational structure of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) was changed in Senate finance, resulting in a conflict.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 395            WITH THE CONFLICT-RESOLVING AMENDMENT.

 

            SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 428.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 428:  Revises provisions governing state public works board. (BDR 28-229)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 428.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

                THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 440.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 440:  Revises provisions governing qualifications and election of members of governing board of Moapa Valley Water District. (BDR S-334)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 440.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened A.B. 443 for discussion.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 443:  Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-986)

 

Senator Titus said she rejected the second proposed amendment because its provision is already covered by statute.  Ms. Guinasso clarified the change from “and” to “or” on page 1, line 4 of the bill would cover private property occupied by local governments.  Ms. Guinasso reported bond counsel, John Swendseid, advised the Fremont Street Experience would not be covered if the bill were passed as written, and she said he was concerned about lease properties in general and was relieved to hear the current language is “and.”  Ms. Guinasso said she was not sure what Mr. Swendseid’s objections were, but this would open up private property occupied by local governments to the provisions of this bill, and his concerns may be with lease arrangements and existing provisions.

 

Senator Titus suggested the bill be adopted with the amendment and if there were a problem in concurrence, it could be worked out in conference.

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 443 WITH   THE FIRST AND THIRD AMENDMENTS.

 

            SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 536.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 536:  Makes various changes to provisions relating to secretary of state. (BDR 18-1337)

 

Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, explained the bill would unclassify their executive assistant position, at the request of the person holding this position, to bring her into conformity with similar positions in other constitutional offices.  Ms. Lacey said the position was pulled out of their budget and put into consideration in the unclassified pay bill.  Also, she said, there were four unclassified deputy positions currently authorized by the unclassified pay bill, whereas statute only provides for three, so this would clean up the statute in conformance with the unclassified pay bill.  An additional unnamed deputy position would be added under section 3 of the bill, she said, as requested by Bob Gagnier, State of Nevada Employees Association.  Section 2 of the bill deletes the securities deputy, which position is funded, to become the commercial recordings deputy, she said.  The securities deputy is a classified employee, she added.

 

            SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 536.

 

            SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 563.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 563:  Authorizes additional deferred compensation plan for state employees and employees of political subdivisions. (BDR 23-1345)

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 563.

 

            SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 601.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 601:  Restricts ability of state agencies to enter into certain agreements to purchase real property. (BDR 31-1106)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 601.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell opened discussion on A.B. 604.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 604:  Makes various changes relating to awards for state employees. (BDR 23-1307)

 

            SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 604.

 

            SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Laura Hale,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: