MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
February 16, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:05 a.m., on Friday, February 16, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4406, 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 Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Joseph M. Neal (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County Assembly District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kim Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Julie Burdette, Committee Secretary
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Joyce A. Newman, Lobbyist, Utility Shareholders Association of Nevada
James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T
Susan L. Reeder, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and Nevada Power Company
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities & Municipalities
John J. Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
David Pursell, Executive Director, Department of Taxation
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill 121 (S.B.) 121.
SENATE BILL 121: Makes various changes concerning recording of public meetings and attendance of workshops. (BDR 19-32)
Senator Raggio asked several questions regarding this bill: whether it applied to all public meetings; whether all public entities would need their own Website; and whether audio recording would be required. Senator O’Connell confirmed the bill would apply to all public meetings. Kim Guinasso, Committee Counsel, noted that chapter 241 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) does not include the Legislature under the definition of public meetings. Ms. Guinasso also clarified that all entities would not need their own Websites, but would need access to some Website to post information.
Senator O’Donnell questioned the bill language on page 3, line 41 which requires posting of minutes within 30 days of a meeting. Specifically, he asked whether this would require all members of public bodies to meet again within 30 days to approve the minutes. Chairman O’Connell stated that, as written, the bill would require such a meeting. Senator Raggio asserted that if the Legislature cannot have minutes prepared within 30 days, local public entities should not be required to do so.
Joyce A. Newman, Lobbyist, Utility Shareholders Association of Nevada, testified she had experienced difficulty with getting agendas in time to determine whether to attend meetings. She also referenced similar legislation proposed by Assemblyman Bob Beers (Clark County Assembly District No. 4), which requires posting of agendas by entities that already have Websites.
Chairman O’Connell described problems reported by some of her constituents who have not been able to participate in meetings due to late notification. She noted the problems identified by Senators Raggio and O’Donnell are extreme, but added that many offices at the state level are not represented in the south, which makes it difficult for people in southern Nevada to take an active role in state business.
James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T, voiced support for the bill and testified that the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has a long-standing practice of recording their meetings and making tapes available, which has served the public well in the past. With regard to Senator Raggio’s concerns, Mr. Endres suggested that the bill should be reviewed for impact on small local governments.
Senator Raggio stated that the concept of the bill is commendable, but if recording is mandatory, technical problems could arise that could stop a meeting and be detrimental to the performance of public business. Chairman O’Connell responded that county representatives would testify on an amendment that should address Senator Raggio’s concerns.
Susan L. Reeder, Lobbyist, Sierra Pacific Power Company, and Nevada Power Company, testified support for the bill. She added that she has also had problems with getting late notice of meetings and suggested a language change to read “upon approval of minutes” to resolve the 30-day requirement issue that Senator O’Donnell raised.
Senator Care inquired, with regard to section 3, subsection 2 of S.B. 121 (which requires at least one member of a board that schedules a workshop to be present at the workshop), if people who schedule workshops do not show up. Chairman O’Connell responded that there have been cases where appropriate staff or board members were not present at hearings to answer questions from the public.
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, testified that S.B. 121 would create a dilemma for some of the 69 boards in Clark County subject to the open meeting law. In many cases, there are part-time clerical staff, and some boards just recently became computerized. Further, he stated there could be technical difficulties uploading information to a Website. If the scope could be narrowed to boards upon which elected officials sit, Mr. Spinello said he expected the requirements of the bill could be met.
Senator Raggio said that Mr. Spinello’s suggestion was worthwhile, but it would not include some important boards that are not elected. Mr. Spinello reiterated that his main concern is the scope of the bill and possible technical difficulties. He concluded that the county has audio recordings now and broadcasts meetings of elected officials, so there is opportunity for people to “see the show.”
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), testified as both an elected member of the Minden Town Board and a representative of NACO. The Minden Town Board meets only once a month and has no Website; notices are sent to every home announcing when there are meetings, he said. NACO invested $17,000 to get Websites in every member county and realized the difficulty of setting up Websites, providing training, and performing ongoing updates to keep systems current. He said most counties have Websites with posted agendas; some have “static” Websites because staff have left. He concluded that mandates for technology use can have a chilling effect and that people have to evolve into technology at their own pace.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Hadfield to address some of the solutions to the concerns that had been expressed. Mr. Hadfield responded that he was unaware of complaints in Minden, but noted that such concerns should be brought to the attention of the town board. He said that NACO can work with their membership and larger counties that have better technology, to get local public entities set up on their own time frame. He suggested that progress be reported back to the Legislature in 2 years.
Chairman O’Connell gave examples of slow mail service resulting in people receiving necessary information after meetings had already been held. Mr. Hadfield replied that the organizations he represents operate under the open meeting law (chapter 241, NRS) and their materials go out 2 weeks in advance. Chairman O’Connell stressed that this is a real problem for people who need to be well-informed for meetings and noted that late mail delivery had occurred three times in 5 years with the Department of Education’s Council to Establish Academic Standards for Public Schools, upon which she serves.
Senator O’Donnell suggested a state Website that could be a central repository for minutes. He noted it would be costly, but could be accessed all over the world. He added that a state Website could be an alternative for small organizations.
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities & Municipalities, testified the Nevada League of Cities & Municipalities’ Website is under state jurisdiction and will work with the state to accomplish requirements of the bill. He added that some small rural areas only got fax machines a couple of years ago, and suggested a resolution from the committee that strongly encourages local government entities to work toward the requirements of this bill, but gives them 2 years to accomplish progress.
Senator Porter asked if the fiscal note showing an impact of $2000-$3000 is an average cost for the smaller communities. Mr. Grady confirmed this average cost and noted that some cities have Websites that are controlled by others. Senator Porter asked how many cities are currently using the Website. Mr. Grady responded all but three have Websites, but it is unknown how many are posting agendas, although all cities are working toward that goal.
John J. Slaughter, Lobbyist, Washoe County, testified agreement with Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Spinello regarding county impact saying about 32 boards and commissions in Washoe County would be affected. He reported that the Washoe County clerk suggested an amendment to section 2, page 3, line 43 to read “and approval of minutes by public body,” which would resolve the issue of minutes not being approved until the next public meeting.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Slaughter if there had been many complaints from people in Washoe County about not getting information in a timely manner. Mr. Slaughter responded that there had been some complaints, but five boards and commissions broadcast on public access television and Washoe County would be close to compliance with this bill. Advisory or volunteer boards would be more likely to get complaints, he said.
Chairman O’Connell closed S.B. 121 and opened S.B. 125.
SENATE BILL 125: Makes various changes to provisions relating to financial reporting of local governments. (BDR 31-898)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, testified it would be valuable to have financial information readily available, as required under this bill, which is supported by the committee formed by S.B. 253 of the Sixty-ninth Session.
SENATE BILL 253 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Creates legislative committee to study distribution among local governments of revenue from state and local taxes. (BDR 17-193)
Mr. Leavitt noted that there is now an opportunity to establish a process for entering information onto the Internet via the Department of Taxation and forms could be developed for local government use that would not require substantial staff support if training could be provided. Further, he stated that this bill would facilitate better information on the financial condition of local governments to help avoid financial emergencies. He said information could be made available to various committees of the Legislature almost immediately.
Mr. Leavitt shared his view that local governments are sometimes irresponsible, although some, such as Mineral County, have done all they can to maintain financial stability despite economic difficulties. He suggested that the old report should be eliminated and replaced by this newer report that would be much more useful.
David Pursell, Executive Director, Department of Taxation, testified that local governments send in budgets to the Department of Taxation and copies are made available to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), Fiscal Analysis Division. He also said the Fiscal Analysis Division had put together a program and developed a report for the Legislature. Also, a database was developed by the Department of Taxation to show history that would illuminate local government financial trends.
Mr. Pursell stated that a fiscal note is expected that will reflect what the cost would be to make this process electronic. He concluded that the old budget report does need to be updated and the report design proposed in this bill would reduce the amount of work for local governments and would be a step toward electronic filing.
Senator Porter referenced the Legislative Committee To Study The Distribution Among Local Governments Of Revenue From State And Local Taxes and the discussions between representatives of the City of Henderson, Clark County, and the City of Las Vegas that Senator O’Connell has been facilitating. He stated that something should be done as soon as possible, because the question of the amount of revenue that Henderson receives from the local government tax distribution account will keep coming up.
Mr. Hadfield stated that NACO supports this bill as long as there is a bailout provision for the Internet requirement.
Chairman O’Connell allowed further testimony on S.B. 121 to accommodate a demonstration from Assemblyman Bob Beers, Clark County, Assembly District No. 4.
Assemblyman Beers gave a demonstration for posting agendas to the Internet and gave testimony. He said a similar bill was heard on the Assembly side this week, and some local government representatives testified that the burden to post an agenda on the Internet would be onerous. Assemblyman Beers suggested, through his demonstration of a two-step process, that there is not a significant burden with regard to space and time. He added that some software tools can make the process even easier, becoming a one-step process.
Senator Raggio challenged anyone else to do the same process. Assemblyman Beers responded that one hour of set-up and training would enable anyone to do this process.
Chairman O’Connell stated that the lack of timely information and notification is a serious problem for the public. Although many are concerned about, or fearful of, technology, the problem of not getting timely information needs to be addressed. She concluded the state needs to do whatever it takes to bring people up to speed.
Assemblyman Beers stated that he had also experienced delays in communication as a problem and suggested an amendment for changing the deadline for posting agendas to 2 days instead of 3 days before a meeting. He summarized that electronic posting avoids potential postal problems.
Senator Porter estimated that over 60 percent of the people in southern Nevada have Internet access and he said that although this bill presents a challenge for small local governments, it is not a problem for larger local governments. He concluded that the Legislature has a responsibility to take advantage of the available technology, particularly since so many of its constituents are on the Web.
Assemblyman Beers agreed with Senators Porter and O’Connell, but noted that the “Digital Divide” – the 40 percent that do not have Internet access – is a legitimate concern. However, he said, in Clark County, every library branch has at least three workstations up and running.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified her organization is neutral on this bill. They are aware of technical concerns, but also have experience with late school board agendas. She agreed that a single Website repository, as per Senator O’Donnell’s suggestion, might be effective. Ms. Lusk said it would be easier for citizens to go to one place and click on different agendas and would also have economic benefits because there would not have to be separate sites for each local government entity.
Ms. Lusk expressed concern with page 3, line 38, of the bill regarding the cost of audio recording, saying some people may interpret this as including staff preparation costs, which could become prohibitive for the average citizen. She suggested the language be clarified to define costs as meaning the “buying of the recording itself.” Ms. Lusk also encouraged the committee to keep the requirement for 3-day advance posting of agendas, rather than changing to 2-day advance posting as Assemblyman Beers suggested, because ordinary citizens need sufficient notice to take time off from work if necessary.
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 12:07 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: