MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
April 9, 2001
The Senate Committee on Government Affairswas called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Monday, April 9, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel
Juliann K. Jenson, Committee Policy Analyst
Laura Hale, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
William G. Flangas, Commission on Ethics
Polly Hamilton, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics
Peter C. Bernhard, Chairman, Commission on Ethics
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center
Burton Cohen, Chairman of the Board, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center
A. Allan Stipe, President, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County
Corey O. Brown, Physician and Owner, Fremont Medical Centers
Antonio T. Alamo, Physician and Owner, Alamo Medical Clinic
James M. Hogan, Private Practice Physician
Sherif W. Abdou, Private Practice Physician
Lawrence D. Gardner, Private Practice Physician
Paul Fisher, Private Practice Physician
Larry Preston, President, Pinnacle Medical Management
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors
Jack D. Harker, Owner, Harker and Harker, Incorporated
Norman L. Dianda, Owner, Q & D Construction, Incorporated
Stacey L. Garry, Private Practice Physician and Pathologist
Gregory E. Boyer, CEO and Managing Director, Valley Hospital Medical Center
Pejman Bady, Private Practice Physician
Lawrence P. Matheis, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association
Flip Homanski, Chief of Staff, Valley Hospital Medical Center
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Pat Fox, Owner, Native Plant Farm and Tree Movers
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
Bjorn (B.J.). Selinder, Manager, Churchill County
Lynn Pearce, Board of Commissioners, Churchill County
Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool
Robin Keith, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural Hospital Project Foundation
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson-Tahoe Hospital
Steve Kastens, Director, Carson City Parks and Recreation
Scott A. Morgan, Community Services Director, Douglas County, and Legislative Liaison, Nevada Recreation and Parks Society
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Toni M. Weeks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriff and Chiefs Association
Stephanie D. Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Richard Harjo, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission
Rick Collet, Chief Executive Officer and President, Native American Pharmacies
Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission
Robert DeSoto Holquin, Concerned Citizen
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts
Eugene M. Hattori, Curator of Anthropology, Nevada State Museum
Janet Reeves, Executive Director, Nevada Urban Indians
Lois Whitney, Concerned Citizen, Western Shoshone Nation
Mary McCloud, Concerned Citizen, Western Shoshone Nation
Charles (Chas) L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry
Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry
Daryl Mobley, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission
Ronald Kruse, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Nevada Organization of Building Officials
Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Nevada Outdoor Media Association
Neal H. Cobb, Concerned Citizen
Gary Sayer, Concerned Citizen
Emily Braswell, Director, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency
Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Office of Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors
Chairman O’Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 466.
SENATE BILL 466: Makes various changes regarding ethics in government. (BDR 23-716)
William G. Flangas, Commission on Ethics, submitted written testimony on the bill (Exhibit C) and reviewed a possible mission statement. He suggested clarification of subsection 2 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 281.481 and paragraph (c), subsection 2 of NRS 281.501, that were found to be “unconstitutionally vague” by District Judge Jerome M. Polaha (District 3, District Court, Washoe County) in the Atkinson Gates Terminal D ruling in September, 1999. He also recommended striking “unwarranted” from line 10, section 5 of S.B. 466, as possibly subjective and contentious, to prevent vague references.
Additional recommendations from Mr. Flangas were to consider public competitive bidding for leasing and renting of all publicly owned facilities, to hold state agencies responsible for advising and issuing financial disclosure forms to all appropriate subordinates, to review the definition of “public officer,” and to consider deleting subsection 4 of NRS 281.462 to permit two-member panels to participate and vote on matters brought forth to a full commission hearing.
Polly Hamilton, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics, thanked Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff for drafting the proposed language, and provided a review of that language. Under section 1, Ms. Hamilton explained the commission wanted to narrow the scope of transactions to those which might meet a test of significance, focusing more clearly on intent regarding receipt of any commissioned personal profit or compensation resulting from a contract. Under section 2, she explained the bill would modify paragraph (c), subsection 4 of NRS 281.236, to emphasize the commission issues opinions, not orders. Section 3 would change the definition of “public officer” to a more narrow focus by replacing “includes” with “means,” so a person could more easily identify whether he or she is a public officer, she said.
Senator Raggio asserted, over the years, many changes have been made to the definition of “public official,” and those who are not full-time need some accommodation. He said the language has been crafted very carefully to avoid discouraging people from seeking public office, and although he agrees with the change from “includes” to “means,” he said he is unclear about the changes to the definition of “public officer” suggested by Mr. Flangas.
To clarify his suggestions, Mr. Flangas cited language from subsection 2, section 21 of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 638 which would provide, a “Public officer” does not include:
(a) Any justice, judge or other officer of the court system;(b) A commissioner of deeds;(c) Any member of a board, commission or other body whose function is advisory;(d) Any member of a board of trustees for a general improvement district or special district whose official duties do not include the formulation of a budget for the district or the authorization of the expenditure of the district’s money; or(e) A county health officer appointed pursuant to NRS 439.290.
ASSEMBLY BILL 638: Makes various changes regarding elections, ethics and financial disclosures. (BDR 24‑873)
Ms. Hamilton clarified for Senator Raggio although this language is similar to wording in subsection 2 of NRS 281.4365, it refers to “public officer” rather than “public office.” She said the commission is not attempting to address the case related to a university president who was not considered a public officer for the purposes of open meetings.
Continuing her review of the bill, Ms. Hamilton said changes to section 4 would expand subsection 4 to broaden the activity level of panel members, once it is determined a matter needs to be set for hearing. She explained it would allow members of a two-member panel to participate up to the point of voting, but not to actually vote. For example, she said, they could ask questions of witnesses and aid other commissioners in their deliberations.
In Ms. Hamilton’s view, subsection 2, section 5, contains the most important change to read, “or any person or governmental entity,” and would remove any ambiguity as to whether an unwarranted privilege could be granted to anyone. The term “or any person” would have the general meaning it has in NRS 0.039, where the only exclusion is for a governmental entity, she said, and this would close the loophole to make it clear an unwarranted privilege cannot be granted to anyone at all. Ms. Hamilton concluded the commission’s focus would be on whether a privilege is unwarranted, and not on what group the recipient might have fallen into.
Peter C. Bernhard, Chairman, Commission on Ethics, clarified for Senator Raggio the intent was to broaden the language to include any conceivable entity. He said the language of “or any other person” was found to be unconstitutionally vague by Judge Polaha. Mr. Bernhard explained the focus would be on whether the public official acts in the public interest, and as long as there is adequate reason or justification for an action, there would be no ethics violation.
In response to a question from Senator Care, Mr. Bernhard recalled in the 1999 Legislative Session a structure was created to consider ethical complaints early in the process with some very tight deadlines. Under the new statute, he said, the executive director of the commission would have to make a preliminary determination whether or not the complaint fits within the intent of the statute on what is, or is not, an ethical violation. Then, Mr. Bernhard continued, the two-person panel convenes to consider whether or not the recommendation should be followed. He pointed out, since the 1999 statute went into effect, about three-quarters of the complaints brought to the commission have been resolved at that phase, usually within 30 days of the time they are filed. He noted the proceedings are confidential until they are concluded, so a dismissal for lack of just and sufficient cause would constitute an exoneration of the elected official and it becomes public to help save the public official from what may be very severe damage to his or her good name and reputation.
In response to a question from Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Bernhard explained the focus of an investigation would be on whether an act was unwarranted. Although political enemies can submit complaints to the commission, he said, there are safeguards in place to get a prompt decision on whether or not the conduct was warranted and for the public official to show justification and adequate reason for his or her actions.
Mr. Bernhard pointed out there are also provisions under the statute giving power to the commission to sanction those who file frivolous, vexatious, or other complaints without adequate reason. However, he said, they are difficult to enforce. He asserted there is a philosophical question regarding whether people should have an avenue to raise questions regarding the actions of public officials and whether public officials should have adequate reason and justification for their conduct. Senator O’Donnell noted the people who brought wrongful charges against him were never punished because they could not be found.
In response to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Bernhard clarified the intention of the bill is not to say any benefit given to a campaign contributor would be an ethics violation, but the public official would have to give a legitimate reason for voting in favor of or killing a bill that would affect a campaign contributor.
Continuing her review of S.B. 466, Ms. Hamilton explained section 6 would add the agency representation form referenced in subsection 3 of NRS 281.491 as a form required by the commission. She said it is available on the website and as a hard copy, and would help the commission in getting needed information. Under subsection 5 of section 7, she explained the language “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6” was added by LCB to clarify only subsection 6 applies to a legislator, and paragraph (d), subsection 8 adds “or personal” to include cronyism.
Senator Raggio expressed concern with the change to subsection 8, section 7, because in small areas, such as Humboldt County, the county commissioner could be considered to have a “personal relationship” with everyone in the county. Mr. Bernhard explained the words “substantial and continuing” would modify the word “personal” and this definition would be in the disclosure section of the ethics code and would not create a substantive ethical violation; the public official would just have to provide disclosure. Mr. Bernhard said the commission felt it was better to err on the side of more disclosure.
Providing further clarification for Senator Raggio, Mr. Bernhard said substantial campaign contributions for several years to a public official, from one person, may give rise to an allegation if a personal relationship was not disclosed. He pointed out the language “substantial and continuing” is not being changed and would always need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Raggio asserted the extension to include “personal” relationships would make it very difficult for a public officer to know when disclosure would be required, and every relationship would have to be evaluated to determine if it meets this language.
Ms. Hamilton continued her review of the bill and explained changes under subsection 1, section 8, would clarify application of the provision to the filing of a first-party request for an advisory opinion, but not to a third-party ethical complaint. She pointed out NRS 281.511 already includes penalties for filing a third-party ethics complaint which the person knows to be false. She recalled there were two or three ethics complaints during the last election cycle and the filing period ended around February 5, 2001.
Mr. Bernhard clarified for Senator O’Donnell the Commission on Ethics is considered a government entity under the language of the bill. He said disclosure by a public official is required when there is a relationship to any parties involved in the given issue. Further, he said, if the relationship rises to the level of materiality, the public official would also have to abstain from voting. He explained a public officer makes an initial determination with regard to relationships and materiality, then if a complaint is brought to the commission, the Legislature has given the commission jurisdiction to decide whether the public officer’s judgment was correct or not, regarding both the questions of disclosure and abstention. If a complaint were brought against a member of the Commission on Ethics, Mr. Bernhard said the member would not qualify to hear such a complaint.
Senator Care described a hypothetical situation where a third party takes public action, based on derogatory comments of someone in the media. He asked whether the third party, or the media person, would be in violation of provisions in subsection 1, section 8, of S.B. 466, and how the situation related to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Mr. Bernhard stated the situation would not be covered because subsection 1, section 8, of S.B. 466 is limited to first-party opinion requests. He explained this is where a public official has an issue and comes to the commission for an advisory opinion. Mr. Bernhard said such opinions are confidential and typically, the commission relies solely on the testimony of the public official. He said the criminal penalties provided under statute would only apply to the people asking for a first-party opinion request.
With regard to a third-party opinion request, Mr. Bernhard said the commission adopted regulations to comply with the 1999 statute which defined credible evidence as not including solely media reports of any kind. He explained there would have to be some credible evidence other than a media report. He emphasized the commission believes this appropriately follows the line between the first amendment right to free expression and also protects public officials from wrongful claims. Mr. Bernhard said this has worked well in practice, with no hearings on complaints based solely on media reports since 1999 when the statute was adopted.
Ms. Hamilton concluded her review with section 9, which would change language to match the retention duration of other reports on file. Mr. Bernhard reviewed section 11 which would add subsection 3 to limit civil penalties for violations of the financial disclosure reporting law to the maximum annual compensation for the office. He explained, previously, fines could be calculated into the $10,000 to $15,000 range for positions that might pay $600 to $700 per year, which the commission thought was unfair. He added, if the public official receives no compensation, there would be no sanction. Mr. Bernhard explained this language would only apply to people who fail to file a financial disclosure statement, and is not related to sanctions for ethical violations.
Responding to a question from Senator Neal, Mr. Bernhard said because the fine would be derived through a “purely arithmetical computation,” it is not possible for the commission to impose inequitable discretion, and the highest fine possible would be equal to the annual salary of the public official. Concluding the review of S.B. 466, Mr. Bernhard said section 12 would remove the sunset provision for the commission’s legal counsel, which is crucial for effective function, and is also the purpose of S.B. 501.
SENATE BILL 501: Repeals prospective expiration by limitation of provisions relating to appointment of commission counsel by commission on ethics. (BDR S-1317)
In response to a question from Senator Porter, Mr. Bernhard clarified the commission members view their charge as regulating conduct or action, and in the case of public officials abstaining from a vote, or not showing up for a vote, a review panel would need to consider if inaction were in the scope of the statute.
Mr. Bernhard clarified for Senator Titus, in the commission’s determination of “unwarranted” action, the public official would have to provide reason or justification. He provided an example of “unwarranted” action in the case of an individual, but said the commission did not think of examples for governmental entities, but included the general provision in an effort to be as broad as possible.
In response to a question from Senator Care, Mr. Bernhard said he was not familiar with the senate bill requiring a majority affirmative vote from a public body in order to take action, but subsection 4 has been in statute for quite some time and is intended to avoid paralyzing local governments in cases of conflict of interest.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, expressed concern with the concept of the Commission on Ethics, because it broadens government and polices the representative process. She also expressed concern the language in the bill would allow civil actions that would not require a trial by jury. She said she believes abuses can come about through the ethics process because of the partisan nature and the potential for political retribution. She noted there is no check on the un-elected ethics commission, such as the limitation in the Nevada Constitution promising the “right to a trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate . . . .”
Ms. Hansen concluded, because the commission is an un-elected body essentially monitoring and censoring our elected officials, the right to a trial by jury needs to be placed in the statute to guarantee the basic constitutional rights afforded by our founding fathers.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 466 and opened the hearing on S.B. 355.
SENATE BILL 355: Requires local governments to comply with certain laws and regulations and to pay certain fees and taxes when providing goods or services in competition with private entities. (BDR 31-49)
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, said he believes the time has come for reevaluation of privatization of certain governmental functions. He explained section 1 of the bill would require laws applying to private enterprise would apply to local governments as well. Subsection 2, he said, would require local governments to pay fees and other charges that private enterprises have to pay; and subsection 3 would require, if laws did not otherwise apply, local governments would comply with laws as if they were a unit of private enterprise.
Mr. Barengo provided a proposed amendment (Exhibit D) to become subsection 4, where local governments would not be able to provide services or goods in competition with private enterprise if such governments receive ad valorem taxes as a source of funding.
Burton Cohen, Chairman of the Board, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, said a “cancer is growing” in Clark County as Quick Care Centers (QCC) in direct competition with the for-profit healthcare industry. He asserted the ultimate result would be private healthcare providers will not be able to continue to compete, and provide choice and quality care. Mr. Cohen claimed the QCC create unfair competition because they do not have the same expenses, such as taxes, private industry has.
A. Allan Stipe, President, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center (SHMC), referred to the policy of the Clark County Board of Commissioners (sitting as the Hospital Board of Trustees) which, he said, is to operate University Medical Center (UMC) as a for-profit hospital to compete head-on with private hospitals to hold down the cost of public support for uncompensated care. He claimed the QCC are an important strategic part of the overall game plan and the tax support allows them to compete without concern for usual business constraints of the marketplace, resulting in an unfair advantage over private physicians, independent physicians, and hospital organizations.
Mr. Stipe described the QCC as networks of primary and urgent care physicians in various strategic, affluent locations throughout the Las Vegas Valley, as shown in Exhibit E. He noted the only non-affluent location is the Enterprise QCC that recently opened in North Las Vegas. He said SHMC does not employ physicians and direct their activity as does UMC, and because QCC physicians are employed by UMC, they can be compelled to refer patients to UMC, as allowed under the “safe harbor” provision of federal statute. He explained, under a Nevada attorney general’s opinion (AGO), private hospitals cannot employ physicians, so in effect, the safe harbor provision does not apply to private industry. He claimed almost none of the QCC patients are directed to SHMC.
Mr. Stipe directed the committee’s attention to the Points of Service Policy flow charts in Exhibit E which show QCC generally refer out patients who do not have insurance or the ability to pay for services. He also reviewed financial statements in Exhibit E showing the QCC lose funds, but the result is greater profits for UMC through patient referrals. A chart with “Payer Mix” for patient visits in Exhibit E shows a majority of UMC payments come from Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), which private industry competes for, he said.
Mr. Stipe reported UMC administrators project a growth in visits from 368,000 in 1999 to 725,000 in 2010, representing 97 percent growth, while the population growth is at 4 percent. To do this, he said, they plan to substantially grow their market share through penetration of the primary and urgent care marketplaces in the Las Vegas Valley.
According to Mr. Stipe, in 1994 UMC received $34 million in public support and operated one QCC designed to “compress” a busy emergency department by allowing patients with non-emergency needs to be seen more quickly. Further, he said, in 2000 UMC received over $70 million in public support and operated 15 QCC. During the same period of time, charity costs to UMC went from $24 million to $30 million, an increase of a little over 40 percent, while public support increased 200 percent.
Continuing, Mr. Stipe pointed out UMC also has a franchise on trauma and burn centers, so it can leverage contracts with managed care organizations to require the QCC be included in managed care networks, and private industry has no such leverage. He claimed UMC also has an advantage with regard to the costs of malpractice insurance through sovereign immunity as opposed to the ongoing operating costs of private practice.
Mr. Stipe acknowledged the QCC serve a purpose in the community and he claimed it is not the intention to close them down or slow their growth; however, he asserted it is critical to level the playing field and the tax subsidies flowing to a losing operation must come to an end.
In response to Senator O’Donnell, Mr. Stipe said he is not sure if QCC physicians are required to refer patients to UMC, but said he has seen the result of the relationship and believes that is in fact what happens. He said he is not challenging the safe harbor provision under the Medicare fraud and abuse federal statutes.
Responding to questions from Senator Neal, Mr. Stipe said Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center does not operate QCC, but competes for the business of private practitioners working in the community. He said he believes the first QCC was established in 1988 as an urgent care center, adjacent to UMC, and he did not challenge this establishment, but saw it as a logical extension of the emergency department. He explained SHMC is an affiliate of the University of Nevada School of Medicine and is an equal partner with UMC in the pediatric residency program. Although there are no interns at SHMC, Mr. Stipe estimated there are approximately 18 pediatric and 1 Obstetrics and Gynecology residents.
Senator Neal inquired whether anyone representing UMC was at the hearing to testify. As there was not, he asked if they had been notified. Chairman O’Connell stated the UMC had notification of this bill about 18 months ago at the end of the last session and she assumed they were notified about this particular hearing because the county has about a dozen lobbyists at the Legislature. James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County stated the county has lobbyists who are more expert than he in this area, but said he would take accurate notes and make sure questions were answered.
Mr. Stipe responded to additional questions from Senator Neal, saying he believes UMC is owned and operated by Clark County and is the only publicly owned acute-care facility in Clark County.
Corey O. Brown, Physician and Owner, Fremont Medical Centers, submitted written testimony (Exhibit F), and claimed QCC do not have to follow rules of competition and would have been bankrupt years ago if they did, because they lose millions each year and make up the difference with taxpayer dollars. Further, he said they refuse to treat indigents. In response to Senator Neal, Dr. Brown testified he had been in the area for 25 years, through the startup time of the QCC and, if the proposed bill were passed, he would be serving some of the individuals the QCC are now serving.
Senator Neal claimed the ad valorem taxes support UMC and QCC because there was previously “patient dumping” from other hospitals in the area, including Sunrise. He said he believes the bill is trying to get at privatizing UMC by attacking the QCC, but he is strongly against that. He asserted a lot of people use QCC to avoid higher costs of hospitals. Dr. Brown said the intent is not to shut down the QCC, but to address the unfair advantage.
Antonio T. Alamo, Physician and Owner, Alamo Medical Clinic, testified he is a solo practitioner of internal medicine. He asserted the managed care environment has required physicians to become very cost-conscious and pay attention to the business of a private practice, but they cannot compete with QCC which provide access in affluent areas 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. He claimed the huge stipends and subsidies received by QCC allow them to operate at a deficit and pay staff at higher-than-market levels, and they only serve 2 to 3 percent of the indigent service population. Dr. Alamo said, “It’s not right that my tax dollars are being used for entities to compete directly with me,” and “We should want solo practices to flourish.” He said this was his first time away from his practice since it opened and the practice is all he has. He assured Senator Neal he treats people regardless of payment.
Mr. Barengo responded to a question from Senator O’Donnell regarding how this bill does what those who testified want. He referred to the amendment in Exhibit D and said he had worked with LCB to draft the bill.
Kimberly Marsh Guinasso, Committee Counsel, explained the bill requires if a local government provides goods or services to the general public in competition with private entities, it must comply with the regulations placed on the private entities providing goods or services. She said the list of laws, rules, and regulations it must comply with include paying taxes.
James M. Hogan, Private Practice Physician, provided a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit G), and said his Las Vegas clinic is taking a beating even though he is on call 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. He emphasized it is an honor and privilege to practice medicine, but said he received no training in business practices in medical school. He claimed he used to employ 135 people and now employs only 35. Dr. Hogan said he is “fighting for his life, the lives of his employees, and the lives of his patients who want to have a choice.”
Sherif W. Abdou, Private Practice Physician, testified, in Nevada, although Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the country, more physicians’ groups file for bankruptcy than in any other state, because of the QCC (Exhibit H).
Lawrence D. Gardner, Private Practice Physician, testified he came to Nevada from Canada due to the impact of socialized medicine in Canada. He asserted solo practitioners provide better service than groups because they can establish one-on-one relationships and provide guidance and psychological support. He said he receives patients primarily through referrals from other physicians, but the QCC physicians are not free to refer patients to him, because they must refer them to UMC. Mr. Gardner concluded, “They effectively stop access of these patients to my practice, and it’s partly on my nickel, because my taxes go to support that system.” He clarified to Senator Neal he is not seeking privatization of UMC, but he does not think tax dollars should flow to undercut private industry. He said he practiced at UMC for 10 years before becoming a solo practitioner.
Paul Fisher, Private Practice Physician, provided written testimony (Exhibit I) in support of the bill, and against “patient dumping.” As director of an independent contracting group running the emergency department of Sunrise Hospital, he said there is a need to compete on the open market for emergency physicians. He claimed uninsured patients whose numbers now exceed 20 percent are turned away from QCC and come to Sunrise under what appears to be “reverse dumping.”
Larry Preston, President, Pinnacle Medical Management, provided written testimony (Exhibit J), and said there is no accountability for the QCC system. He asserted private industry cannot compete with facilities generating $75 at a cost of $94. He claimed QCC physicians earn additional income for work done outside of QCC and he said he believes this is outside UMC guidelines.
In response to questions from Senator Neal, Mr. Preston said this issue has been brought to the Board of Commissioners, Clark County, but only an impact study was done which says it will come under further review. On April 17, 2000, he said, an impact study was presented due to requests from private industry. Mr. Preston said information from the meeting, including a report from UMC to the Board of Trustees, is available in the package presented by Mr. Stipe (Exhibit E).
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors, testified support for the bill. He said the contractor industry also must compete with local government, and he believes the bill will bring fiscal discipline to local governments by requiring them to comply with the same rules and regulations as private enterprise. He asserted the need to level the playing field and give emerging businesses access to a part of the market that would allow them to grow. Jack D. Harker, Owner, Harker and Harker, Incorporated, (a construction company), testified his business does work throughout the state and he has learned several cities are competing against them in several areas. He claimed sometimes cities transport equipment and crews to work in other cities. Mr. Harker reiterated the need to level the playing field. Norman L. Dianda, Owner, Q & D Construction, Incorporated, reviewed the process he has to undertake to bid on jobs and asked that cities, counties and the state play by the same rules.
Stacey L. Garry, Private Practice Physician and Pathologist, expressed concern with the unfair advantage of tax-subsidized competition. She said it is difficult to get qualified staff, particularly with the growth of southern Nevada. She noted Valley Hospital Medical Center is state-certified to train phlebotomists, while UMC is not, and will only hire them with at least 1 year’s training. So, she said, after private industry hospitals provide training, staff leave for UMC for a 22 percent higher salary (Exhibit K). She said she does not believe S.B. 355 would privatize UMC. Senator O’Donnell disclosed Dr. Garry is one of his real estate partners.
Gregory E. Boyer, CEO and Managing Director, Valley Hospital Medical Center, provided a written copy of his testimony (Exhibit L), and objected to unfair competition and agreed with Mr. Stipe’s testimony. He said, “If you allow UMC QCC to compete in the private sector, then you must allow payment of tax dollars to other physicians or hospitals providing services.”
Pejman Bady, Private Practice Physician, said he has friends working at UMC who say if they want to work there, they must admit all their patients to UMC. Mr. Bady claimed UMC pays physicians much more than can be afforded by private practices in Nye County, where physicians are badly needed. He said when physicians cannot be found, physician assistants are hired, but they need much more supervision, which limits other outside teaching opportunities. He asserted the patients from UMC get less care than those from other hospitals.
Lawrence P. Matheis, Lobbyist, Nevada State Medical Association, testified support for the bill and the principle, which he said is not about QCC or UMC, but local government. And on principle, he said, “we would extend it to state and federal government as well.” Mr. Matheis said it is about using public subsidies and when it is appropriate. He asserted taxpayer dollars should not be used to establish services to compete when the market provides appropriate services. When the market fails and there is a need not being provided, he said, it is then that subsidized public service is appropriate. He claimed the situation with the QCC is convoluted because it has created the failure of private competitors.
Mr. Matheis suggested the situation with insurance companies providing Medicaid services is an example of having made a bad assessment and he said there would probably be some change in the provision of indigent care, but those who have a proven track record of meeting the need for service should not be abandoned. According to Mr. Matheis, when the market is providing services, there has to be a compelling reason for government subsidized services to compete, otherwise, market distortion is sure to occur, as it has in Clark County. He noted Washoe County created the Health Access Washoe County Clinic as a public-private partnership.
In response to Senator Neal, Mr. Matheis said he did not support the creation of HMOs and believes combining the insurance function and health care delivery function under a single corporate structure is a failed model. He asserted medical decision-making is shortchanged because the profitability lies on the insurance side. He concluded S.B. 355 would address an essential principle in question by raising the bar to anyone entering competition, public or private, to meet the same standards. Chairman O’Connell clarified for Senator Neal the bill applies beyond Clark County, to all of Nevada.
Flip Homanski, Chief of Staff, Valley Hospital Medical Center, said he feels it is appropriate for Senator Neal to be spokesman for people who do not have access to care and he hopes other health care providers are also aware of that. However, he said, building a QCC next to the Galleria Mall in Henderson does not accomplish it. He reiterated, the majority of QCC are in affluent areas of Las Vegas and are set up to go into the private sector and bring paying patients into UMC at a fiscal advantage because of the $8 million subsidy. He claimed the UMC administrator who came up with the concept of QCC never intended it as a safety-net for the indigent population.
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, said the state of Nevada has “grown up” and many services provided publicly before are no longer needed. She asserted government has a voracious appetite for spending money, and this has created a problem for the private sector, and when competition from the public sector reaches the level of hurting private industry, tax revenue is lost. She pointed out, in the current Legislative Session, there is a concern about limited revenue.
Ms. Vilardo provided a proposed amendment (Exhibit M) to exclude some services which are not likely to be provided through private industry efforts. She pointed out the amendment also suggests a cutoff date of April 1, 2001, after which new goods or services provided by local government would be affected by this bill, to put government on notice to not expand services beyond this point in time. She said there is also an exclusion for hospitals and health care clinics in counties with a population of less than 50,000. In conclusion, she said, “The time has come to move in the direction of helping businesses that generate substantial tax dollars to stay economically viable.” Chairman O’Connell inquired about exemptions for fire and police departments, which were not included in the amendment. Ms. Vilardo stated she had only limited discussions regarding the exclusion of fire and police departments, but it would be acceptable to her.
Responding to a question from Senator Porter, Mr. Barengo said the bill is not specifically directed at UMC, but would affect it as a government entity in competition with private enterprise. Chairman O’Connell clarified for Senator Porter the impact of the bill on UMC is coincidental, and S.B. 355 was originally intended to broadly address every area of the public sector which competes with the private sector. She noted the $8-million subsidy is something the private sector could have used to pay taxes on, and said, “Perhaps we would not be in the situation we are in today as a state, where we’re looking under every stone we can find for a dollar.” Senator Neal commented, “We didn’t look under the gaming stone.”
Senator Porter expressed concern there may be unintended consequences to health care delivery if this bill were passed. He said, UMC is a unique provider of some services, such as treatment of juvenile diabetes, for which funding is currently being sought to continue. Since there are only 500 young people in Clark County who have this disease, he asserted it is not likely the private sector would provide the service. Mr. Barengo reiterated the bill was not aimed at UMC, but, he said, the public mission of UMC was as a safety-net provider, and it has gone way beyond that to becoming a competitive entity.
Senator O’Donnell pointed out, 10 or 15 years ago, the legislature wanted to inject competition into the marketplace for health care delivery and allowed UMC to become competitive. He said they have used that advantage with $8 million in subsidies which would have gone to someone else.
Kami L. Dempsey, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified support for the policy that tax dollars should not compete with private enterprise, and said the Chamber of Commerce is not interested in getting rid of UMC. Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, asserted local governments do some things very well, and the push for privatization has resulted from competition with the private sector. He said laws and regulations that apply to the private sector for the protection of the public create higher operating costs not necessarily incurred by the public sector. In response to Senator Neal, Mr. McMullen said he did not think the intent of the bill was to require QCC patients to go to other service providers. He said the bill goes beyond the provision of health care to the broader issue of operating costs and competition under the same rules.
Pat Fox, Owner, Native Plant Farm and Tree Movers, provided written testimony (Exhibit N), and testified the Nevada Division of Forestry nursery copied a method of producing wetland plants in coir blankets she had introduced in 1995, and subsequently the division contracted with Alpine County to supply these plants. Although Ms. Fox created the method, introduced the product, and created the demand, she said she “did not even get the chance to compete” for a $40,000 contract that “never came to the market place.” As a taxpayer, owner, and cultivator of a 50-acre agricultural parcel in west Washoe Valley, Ms. Fox wanted to know why she and others like her are deprived of the opportunity to compete for work.
Senator Titus said she is “not a big fan of privatization,” and although she has no sympathy for UMC and the QCC, she asserted corporations do not like government getting involved in business unless business receives subsidies, and if businesses provided needed services in the first place, government would not have to.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, referenced a bill for “remote dispensing devices” that is currently before the State Board of Pharmacy. She said this bill was originally brought forward to serve underserved populations in rural areas, but amendments requested by UMC were added to limit the dispensing ability to certain nonprofit organizations, 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code, title 26, chapter 1, subchapter F, part 1, section 501, paragraph [c], subparagraph [3]), and to make the devices available in the Las Vegas Valley. She said this has divided the industry and brought support away from the technology because it limits competition and does not provide service to underserved populations, as originally intended.
Bjorn (B.J.) Selinder, Manager, Churchill County, expressed concern with unintended consequences the bill might have on Churchill County. Lynn Pearce, Board of Commissioners, Churchill County, provided written testimony (Exhibit O), and described a telecommunications company in Churchill County which has been owned and operated by the county since 1889. He said a proposal for privatization was defeated by a public vote in the 1960s. Chairman O’Connell informed testifiers an amendment, (Exhibit D), had been proposed to exclude operations of local governments not supported by ad valorem taxes. Senator Neal requested the testimony be heard since it was being presented on the basis of the original bill, and not the amendments.
Mr. Pearce said rural communities in Nevada are faced with serious financial issues and Churchill County needs to operate the telecommunications company to help control the tax rate and assist with the maintenance of basic governmental services. He said S.B. 355 is viewed as a danger to this kind of system, in Churchill County, and other areas that provide public services. He recommended the committee reject the bill, or approve an amendment to exclude local governments providing such services (Exhibit O).
Pat A. Zamora, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified support for the amendment to exclude school districts, as proposed by Carole Vilardo (Exhibit M).
Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool, said a risk pool was created as a result of 1985 legislation that addressed a gap in services provided by private insurers. He asserted the proposed amendments would not address the kinds of services provided by the insurance pool, which competes with the private sector in some areas, but not all areas. He said S.B. 355 would affect the insurance code wherein risk pools are exempt with the exception of worker’s compensation pools, which have specific regulatory oversight. In cases of competitive bidding, he said, it is possible for private industry to not bid well, and not provide the same scope of services the insurance pool provides. Often, he said, equipment is shared among local governments because they cannot afford for each to have their own, and these arrangements are very cost effective for the taxpayers. Mr. Carlson suggested there may be ways to craft the bill to achieve some of the public policy objectives, but, he warned, there are cases where lawsuits have been filed against governments with regard to unfair competition, when government was originally the only service provider.
Mr. Spinello testified a large number of individuals and businesses support UMC and benefit by the services provided. He asserted the competition is not well defined in the bill and could create litigation that could interfere with the provision of services. He claimed the implication that all public services could be put out for bid would tie the hands of public government in providing good and fast service. Further, he said, the advantages of the public sector have been a little “overworked.” He claimed there are far more rules and restrictions that apply to the public sector than apply to the private sector.
Mr. Spinello asserted the proposed amendments do not address all the issues which should be addressed. Currently, he said, there is a bill in the Legislature to allow counties to provide ambulance service through fire departments, just as cities currently do, to alleviate the loss of service due to economic difficulties. He stressed representatives for Clark County would like to be at the table when amendments to the bill are reviewed, and stated respectful opposition to the bill.
Robin Keith, Lobbyist, Nevada Rural Hospital Project Foundation, said she is unclear whether the proposed amendments would cover Carson-Tahoe Hospital or not. She expressed concerns if new equipment were purchased, or new services were added, they might not be grandfathered in for exemption and it would be difficult to separate out these kinds of things. She said her preference would be to exempt hospitals in counties with populations of less than 100,000.
Ms. Keith explained Carson-Tahoe Hospital is considering privatization already because there is no ad valorem tax benefit, although it is tax exempt. However, she asserted, the advantages of being a public entity are not worth the costs of being a public entity. She said although the capability exists for Carson-Tahoe Hospital to create a hospital district similar to the one in Clark County, it was not the chosen option.
Mary C. Walker, Lobbyist, Carson-Tahoe Hospital, testified several options were reviewed, including a hospital district, non-profit status, county ownership, and affiliation with other private health care providers. She said, at this point the Carson-Tahoe Hospital Board of Trustees have decided to go with non-profit status, potentially, and the Carson City Board of Supervisors is reviewing the options right now. She said concerns with the bill include, paying property taxes to “ourselves,” and how to delineate taxable areas from non-taxable areas when a variety of services are provided with the same facilities, vehicles, building materials, or equipment.
Ms. Walker asserted when the public sector provides services, charges can be kept low to ensure equal access, and this is particularly true for youth programs that can be seen as ways to keep youth off the street and get them involved in the community. She said if taxes were to be paid on the community pool in Carson City, they would amount to about $45,000 which would in turn require a fee hike of about 40 percent, which would limit access. In response to a question from Senator O’Donnell, she said the state would get about 2 percent of the taxes. Senator Neal asserted the bill deals with philosophical questions and some people do not believe anything should be held in common.
Steve Kastens, Director, Carson City Parks and Recreation, testified the broadness of S.B. 355 affects parks and recreation programs that would be difficult to provide in smaller cities and counties. He said, in Carson City, taxes on the community pool would close it down, and youth recreation programs are viewed as crime and truancy prevention. He told the committee of an attempt to get the private sector to provide a skateboard park, but they could not afford the liability insurance, so government had to step forward. He suggested parks and recreation programs can have a positive impact on private industry which can provide equipment for such programs, and asked the committee to use caution on the broadness of the bill.
Scott A. Morgan, Community Services Director, Douglas County, and Legislative Liaison, Nevada Recreation and Parks Society, testified the public review process is a good one that allows public debate on all services provided. He said, through elected officials, citizens consider the value of services provided and whether there should be government subsidies. In many instances, he said, local governments provide “like services” rather than being in direct competition with private industry, such as Meals on Wheels as compared to Denny’s Restaurants. He claimed the concerns of private industry regarding “in-house” projects of local governments are misdirected when such projects create efficiencies and fiscal responsibility on behalf of taxpayers.
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, testified the bill is too broad and will create instant lawsuits with regard to landfills, street maintenance, lease of space, parking lots, ballparks, city parks, skating rinks, ski areas, senior centers, meals on wheels, landscaping, bus service, and other services. He said he would like to see some work on this bill, because otherwise it would have a detrimental effect on local government.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), echoed Mr. Grady’s comments. He said, “This is public policy. The services being debated differ throughout the state and there needs to be room for differences based on what communities want and the availability of resources. [There is a] need to maintain the ability of local government to have input.” Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, gave examples of services, such as parking, event centers, and Internet, provided by government, which could create “court scenarios” under this bill.
Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, testified many fire departments that are tax exempt, are doing emergency medical transport (EMT). If they were to pay taxes, he said, it would go right back to them because the public already pays taxes to support fire departments. Mr. McAllister reported, in Southern Nevada, fire departments are dispatched along with private ambulance companies and they work in conjunction to keep costs low based on the first respondent on the scene canceling the other entity if not needed. He said, recently, a new fire station was built without general fund resources, because of the EMT services the fire department provides.
Continuing, Mr. McAllister asserted most city charters in Nevada require the provision of public safety, and if private service providers pull out of an area due to lack of profit, and the fire department does not have the ability to immediately pick up the slack, the public suffers. He claimed there is a movement across the country for fire departments to do more EMT services because they are centrally located and can often respond more quickly. In Las Vegas, he said, the fire department is the first responder 60 to 65 percent of the time, and often, fire department staff provide back up in the ambulances, without receiving any remuneration.
Mr. McAllister said that currently, in Las Vegas, the fire department goes out on all automobile accidents through an agreement with private ambulance companies, and those are the only calls where service is billed for transport. He claimed the fire department is not in direct competition, but works in conjunction with private industry for EMT services.
Toni M. Weeks, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriff and Chiefs Association, testified support for the amendment to exempt law enforcement, due to the nature of the service provided. Stephanie D. Garcia, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, echoed the testimony of Mr. Grady and Mr. Hadfield. Kimberly J. McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, also echoed the testimony of Mr. Grady and Mr. Hadfield. She testified opposition to S.B. 355, and said, “The goal is to provide effective and useful programs for the community, not to compete with the private sector.”
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 355 and opened the hearing on S.B. 365.
SENATE BILL 365: Makes various changes relating to Indian affairs. (BDR 18-719)
Richard Harjo, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission, testified this bill would enhance the authority of the Nevada Indian Commission (NIC). He provided Exhibit P, which contains the bill and amendments; and Exhibit Q (Original is on file in the Research Library.) which consists of various reference materials. He said appropriations were withdrawn from the bill and it would revise the membership of the NIC to require all five members be Indians. Other sections would authorize assessment fees, allow certification and training for tribal officers, and address the disposition of human remains, he said. Mr. Harjo explained there are 492 sets of human remains in the Nevada State Museum that have been inventoried under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and this does not count any shipped out of the state or out of the country.
Mr. Harjo said the bill would affect unaffiliated remains, which are not easily identified with particular tribes because they are usually bone fragments. He explained the National Park Service oversees repatriation of human remains, but there are no laws that affect unaffiliated remains, and the tribes in Nevada are looking to reclaim some of these unaffiliated remains. Mr. Harjo stated the bill would also create an advisory committee on Indian education to review why Indians are not progressing through the public education sector at the same rate as others. He suggested cultural differences, such as right-brain processing versus left-brain processing, may be relevant.
Continuing, Mr. Harjo stated the bill would also reposition the Native American liaison within the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources, which, he said, has been underutilized. He reported the proposed changes received input from NAGPRA attorneys and tribal attorneys, to avoid encroaching on anybody’s territory, and subsequent loss of federal funding. He described the first section as more of a resolution to reaffirm sovereignty. New language under section 3 of S.B. 365, he said, would strike the “department of Indian affairs” and set up the commission as a stand-alone agency with no external oversight, but with budgetary support services from another entity, as assigned by the Governor, or recommended by the commission.
Mr. Harjo explained to Senator Raggio the oversight from the Department of Human Resources has been so stringent as to constrain the commission from getting anything done. He said the budget is $112,000, which is very little compared to others, yet there are many demands for service because the commission has done a good job. He claimed if there were better support from the Department of Human Resources, the commission could stay where it is, but the relationship has been very difficult.
Continuing his review of the bill, Mr. Harjo said section 7 would require the Governor to appoint one member from each of the following tribes: Northern Paiute tribe, Southern Paiute tribe, Shoshone tribe, Washoe tribe; and one member who represents Indians living in urban areas outside Indian country. He said the biennial report and the strategic plan would be continued. Also, he said, travel and per diem fees would be assessed to agencies for field studies, as requested by those agencies. Mr. Harjo explained the commission was only given $1700 for travel and subsequently, he has had to spend his own money to accomplish the work of the commission. By law, he said, he is supposed to receive per diem allowances, but the funds are insufficient. He suggested the language on pages 8 and 9 of the bill could be amended to make it clear the fees would only be assessed for travel and per diem, and only to those agencies which request service from the commission.
Mr. Harjo said a series of meetings were held with law enforcement agencies to review training issues for tribal officers. Legal jurisdiction issues were removed because there have been chronic problems in this area, and types of trainings were separated to allow post certification, he said. He noted the tribes already pay for their own training, so that would not change, but the tribes would provide a resolution to participate in the training.
With regard to the disposition of unaffiliated remains, Mr. Harjo stated, unless there are funerary objects to identify a tribe, it is difficult to make a determination. He reported the NAGPRA attorneys who have reviewed the proposed language thought is was some of the best they had read, in terms of trying to get access to these remains. However, he said, the Nevada State Museums are attaching a fiscal note for $117,000. With regard to the fiscal note, Mr. Harjo questioned why this proposal for repatriation is any different from the guarantee that eventually the remains will be repatriated.
Senator Raggio expressed concern for cases when it is contested as to whether remains are Indian remains or not and whether they can be tested. He said the bill appears to propose it would be entirely up to the commission to make a determination, and it is not just the commission or a tribe that has an interest in this issue, but scientists also have an interest if they contend the remains may predate those of Native Americans. Mr. Harjo said the state would have to open discussions with tribes, which is not currently happening, and the commission would not have veto power over the decision-making process. He suggested the language on page 16 of the bill could be amended to allow museums to help make determinations on repatriation.
Mr. Harjo explained a majority of the unaffiliated remains inventoried do not have funerary objects associated with them, because they are just bone fragments, but he said the Indian community maintains these remains are Indian, because of the locations in which they were found.
Continuing, Mr. Harjo said the bill would create an advisory committee on Indian education that would be required to meet four times per year. He reported, in recent meetings with Indian social workers, they contended they did not have sufficient access to funds which are supposed to be available through the Department of Human Resources. Mr. Harjo asserted federal resources and economic development efforts within Indian communities are insufficient to provide for the basic needs of health, education, and welfare for Indian populations in Nevada.
Rick Collet, Chief Executive Officer and President, Native American Pharmacies, testified help is needed from the state to offset the shortcomings of federal resources and limited opportunity for economic development. He said Native Americans in Nevada support local economies through private spending, but nothing comes back into the reservations. He asserted economic development, other than gaming, is needed on reservations and it is also critical that they maintain their sovereignty. Mr. Collet testified complete support for S.B. 365.
Richard P. Clark, Executive Director, Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission, testified support for the bill, particularly section 17 related to the provision of training and certification of tribal officers. He reported, currently, the commission has no authority to issue certificates or check on training records of tribal officers, due to sovereign issues. He said this bill would allow post certification through inter-local agreements with tribes for their mutual benefit.
Mr. Clark recommended some minor language changes to correct what he said appear to be typographical errors in the bill. Under section 17, the reference to NRS 289.150 should be a reference to NRS 289.510, he said, and the introduction refers to “the Police Officer Standard Training Commission,” but should read “the Peace Officer Standard Training Commission.”
Robert DeSoto Holquin, Concerned Citizen, referenced his involvement in Indian educational and drug prevention programs and his membership in the western tribe of the San Gabriel Mission Indians. He stated he would provide Senator Raggio with a copy of a proposal for the maintenance of the Native American Heritage of the Stewart Indian School.
Mr. Holquin testified support for S.B. 365, and said he has strong feelings about “grave-robbers,” whether as a licensed scientist or a spiritualist. He asserted it is a desecration to code and classify Native American remains, and it is important the NIC have the independence to deal with all shareholders in a responsible way. Mr. Holquin urged:
The Nevada State Museum is not a mortuary and the bodies of our ancestors do not belong in any governmental hands, other than the sovereign tribes that they belong to. . . . We want to work together spiritually, but feel very uncomfortable knowing where our ancestors are laying tonight. . . . As Americans, we need to face up to our past and present, and join together constructively to stop the desecration.
Ronald M. James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Museums, Library and Arts (DMLA), provided written testimony (Exhibit R), and said he shares the frustration of the Native American community with the slow development of NAGPRA regulations regarding unaffiliated remains. He expressed concern with the amendment on line 3-42 which reads “as requested” and does not limit who could make a request, because a literal interpretation could result in the assessment of fees.
Mr. Harjo responded it is not the intent of the commission to charge outlandish fees to anyone, but there needs to be a means of providing per diem costs. Mr. James asserted there is no guarantee the fees would be limited to per diem, as the bill is currently drafted.
Mr. James clarified for Senator Neal, if unaffiliated remains were repatriated based on their proximity to an existing tribe, there may be a conflict with federal law. He said a majority of the unaffiliated remains in the Nevada State Museum are part of federal collections and fall under federal rules still being drafted. He explained affiliated remains are repatriated as soon as possible, depending on the response of the National Park Service and the tribes in question. If the museums are in a position of state-forced repatriation of unaffiliated remains, he said, it would be in conflict with federal law, and consequently, the ability of museums to curate federal collections and accept donations would be jeopardized. Mr. James estimated tens of thousands of dollars in federal funding would be jeopardized, the museums could lose accreditation, and existing federal collections could be transferred out of state, and almost certainly would be.
Eugene M. Hattori, Curator of Anthropology, Nevada State Museum, reported that nationally, there are over 200,000 sets of affiliated remains recorded by the National Park Service and approximately 10 percent of those have been repatriated to tribes. He claimed the slow progress is the result of difficulties at all levels of the process. Mr. Hattori explained the Federal government is under the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which requires they curate all remains in federally approved repositories, which the Nevada State Museum is, and they are making strides in repatriating remains to tribes.
Responding to a question from Chairman O’Connell, Mr. Harjo said the issues raised in the bill resulted from a grassroots effort in Nevada that has not been brought to the federal level.
Mr. James expressed concern with the language in section 27, which reads, “A person who discovers or disturbs . . . .” that would require the Nevada State Museum to hand over federally owned artifacts and remains, causing federal agencies to transfer them out of the state. He claimed this could mean a loss of revenue of from $30,000 to $100,000 per year for the museum. He said the department wants to do everything possible to address the spiritual needs of the Native American community, but there are legal and financial ramifications to the requirements of the bill. He said with unaffiliated remains, for both ethical and spiritual reasons, they must avoid turning them over to the wrong group. Under NAGPRA, he said, current discoveries of unaffiliated remains may be repatriated based on geographical location. But for remains discovered prior to 1990, the federal regulations are still being drafted.
Continuing, Mr. James said the language in section 27, under the reference to NRS 383.170, could be interpreted as a “takings” and would place private property owners in the position of violating state law if they do not notify the state of every discovery of a burial regardless of the intent to disturb or excavate. He said section 27.4 adds the language “or disturbance” which means the Native American assertion that a burial exists on a property would be sufficient to stop development of the property, should the tribe in question refuse to grant permission to excavate and remove a burial.
Mr. James called attention to the fiscal notes submitted by DMLA, and he said they did not include the prospect of revising the many more projects associated with land that might be regarded as containing burials, which could be virtually unlimited. Also, he said, the fiscal note of the Nevada State Museum did not take into consideration the amended language involving funerary objects or the identification of “all chemical and toxic materials or substances applied for any purpose to the remains and funerary objects,” which may require destructive testing. He said new fiscal notes would be needed from both the State Historic Preservation Office and the Nevada State Museum. In clarification for Senator Raggio, Mr. James said the fiscal note for the museum is $345,919 for fiscal year 2002, then $5200 every year after, all of which would be general fund money. He concluded the federal government pays for these activities already and would not pay for them twice.
Janet Reeves, Executive Director, Nevada Urban Indians, expressed concern with language under section 13 that she suggested appears to create another bureaucratic state agency that would make all contacts, defeating the purpose of tribal sovereignty and self-determination principles outlined in the preamble. She asserted creation of such an entity is somewhat reminiscent of the “Indian Agency Era.” She expressed support for an interim study which would assess the needs of the tribes and all Indian organizations and how the NIC can best address those needs, before assigning new staff members and funds. She stated the Nevada Urban Indians would like to be invited to participate in such an assessment process.
Lois Whitney, Concerned Citizen, Western Shoshone Nation, said she came to protest S.B. 365, but should be supporting it. She said she was appalled the state of Nevada has Native American taxpayers who do not benefit, and she expressed concern the Nevada State Museums hold the remains of “our people.” She also expressed concern the NIC director does not receive sufficient support from the state. She claimed tribes were not given sufficient opportunity to comment on the bill draft, which combines too many issues in one small document. Ms. Whitney asserted the commission is needed, but she stressed there are many different issues and different points of view about them.
Mary McCloud, Concerned Citizen, Western Shoshone Nation, submitted a copy of her written testimony (Exhibit S), and said she is opposed to the bill, but is not against the NIC. She said the bill is overwhelming with too many important issues that should be addressed separately. Also, she said she would prefer “Indian Commission” to “Department of Indian Affairs,” which can be confused with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. She expressed concern the NIC has not accomplished a lot in 35 years. Further, she said, the bill needs to be explained more clearly and it may infringe on sovereignty. She suggested more representation for urban and rural Indians, and said, “My ancestors in the museums are not at rest.”
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 365 and opened the hearing on S.B. 552.
SENATE BILL 552: Makes various changes relating to assistance to finance housing. (BDR 25-1448)
Charles (Chas) L. Horsey III, Administrator, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, testified, since its creation in 1975 to supplement private sector lending for low- to moderate-income families, the Housing Division has, for all practical purposes, become the primary lender for these families. He said the Governor’s fundamental review committee recommended privatization, and the drafting of legislation began. Then, he said, the Governor asked how many of the goals could be accomplished if the division remained a state agency, and it was estimated 75 percent of the goals could be achieved by amending chapter 319 of NRS. Mr. Horsey reported the governor suggested increasing flexibility and lending authority through these amendments and then to try it out for a few years.
Mr. Horsey said one of the prime catalysts for the changes (Exhibit T) is the burgeoning senior citizen population in Nevada, which has not been substantially addressed previously, and needed services are currently limited by statute. He explained the bill would expand the supervisory functions of the State Board of Finance rather than creating a board of directors. Also, he said, the functions and authority of the administrator are expanded.
Lon DeWeese, Chief Financial Officer, Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, testified the goals are to modernize and remove certain provisions that were burdensome or limited the ability to address housing needs throughout the state. He said common new definitions were incorporated related to current financial markets, and the definition of “eligible family” has been broadened and addresses strategic populations the division has been asked to address.
Mr. Horsey pointed out this year’s priority populations may not be the same as next year’s, so the proposal would delete references to specific groups and put in a broader definition of other special needs groups. He said hearings would be conducted every year to receive public input on which groups need assistance most. He clarified for the committee this language is in subsections 7 and 8 of sections 8 and 10, and also in sections 12 and 18 of the bill.
Mr. DeWeese stated the second area of modernization is to allow for the inclusion of modern rate-reduction instruments and contracts, as used in most other states to prevent rates from running high. He said another provision was for “no personal recourse after 30 days” under section 7, and obsolete references and definitions would be deleted from various sections. Mr. DeWeese pointed out additional changes, including the removal of operational limitations regarding personnel under sections 3 and 42, the broadening of eligible veterans under section 10, new definitions under subsections 7 and 8, section 10, and exemptions from the Department of Information Technology and the Purchasing Division. He noted there were letters of support from developers and contractors (Exhibit U), and said the State Board of Finance would serve as a quasi board of directors. The last change Mr. DeWeese reviewed was on rate reduction contracts. If doing variable-rate taxable bonds, he said, it would be the board’s responsibility to approve a rate cap contract.
Responding to committee questions, Mr. DeWeese drew their attention to the last page of handouts (Exhibit T) which shows amendments to NRS 319.020 to add “or other persons and families with special housing needs,” and under NRS 319.260 to replace existing language on reduction of risks to read “pursuant to section 5 of this act.” He clarified for Senator Neal the language changes were suggested by attorneys. He said the underwriting principles the division operates on now are not intended to change, but the new language would move toward reliance on the ratings of bonds and security being provided by collateral and the types of earning coverage, rather than specific instruments of guarantee or insurance. He said currently, almost all of the division’s non-real estate collateral is held out of state by third-party banks and all of the reserve funds are held under guaranteed investment contracts with Wall Street or international banks, which does not make sense in light of the kind of operations almost all state housing finance agencies currently have. Mr. DeWeese said the new language provides for a lot of the same powers the division currently has and there are specific modernization provisions in section 37 to incorporate all new Uniform Commercial Codes (UCC) for security.
Ms. Guinasso clarified for Senator Neal this provision of the UCC, which governs secure transactions, contains an exception to article 9, chapter 104 of NRS, stating the article does not apply to transfer by government or governmental unit. She said it is designed to be consistent in terms of the UCC throughout various states that include this in their body of law, and it exempts any transfer by any type of governmental unit, including lease-purchase agreements, or any kind of transfer, from the provisions of the UCC.
Mr. Horsey testified the Housing Division receives no general fund appropriations and is entirely self-sufficient. He said each time the division enters into financing, it is made clear the state has no obligations. Further, he explained the division has no taxing power and no liabilities extend to the state, and the revenues or pledge of the state are not used in any way, shape, or form. He said the division was created in 1975 to assist in these types of financing, but no taxpayer funds were provided to support the division. He emphasized the division has a “triple A” credit rating which is independent of the state’s “double A” credit rating.
Chairman O’Connell asserted the bill would give the division extremely broad authority that appears to allow them to do anything they want. Mr. Horsey said the goal is not to remove the division from the state system, but the bill was created by working backward from the initial suggestion of privatization. He stated S.B. 552 would create greater flexibility for the division to add staff and give them the ability to compete with the private sector for accounts, similar to the flexibility given to the State Gaming Control Board and the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Horsey said it would result in the division having about three-quarters of the flexibility other housing finance agencies have and does not go to the extent of privatization.
Continuing, Mr. Horsey pointed out the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson, and Reno all have ambitious renovation plans and the City of Las Vegas has asked for assistance from the division in accessing national bond markets, which could not be done under existing statutes. He said 39 out of 50 housing agencies in the country have more authority than what is proposed by this bill, and the Nevada Housing Division is one of six or seven fully regulated state agencies.
Daryl Mobley, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission, testified in support of S.B. 552. He said, by removing old language regarding veterans’ eligibility, all discrimination has been removed, and he recommended the language requiring 6 months’ residency remain. Ronald Kruse, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission, supported Mr. Mobley’s statements.
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, testified as a member of the State Board of Finance, which would encompass some of the new responsibilities proposed. He said he believes the State Board of Finance would be well equipped to serve in this capacity, noting the composition of the board is five members, including two appointed by the governor, one of whom must be active in banking in Nevada. In response to a question from Senator Titus, Mr. Krolicki said he did not have the background to comment on whether some of the modernization could be done without going as far as the bill proposes.
Ms. Vilardo testified S.B. 552 does not move toward privatization, but gives a government agency more authority. She expressed concern regarding the need for better delineation on low-income, affordable housing, and said the reference to special housing needs is not clear. She claimed that the division has a “triple A” rating because of federal mortgage backing and because the bonds are insured, and noted the state enjoys a very good rating of “double A.”
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified the division has done great work over the years and the issue of special needs housing was raised because of the growing senior population and the increasing cost of homes in Southern Nevada. She expressed concerns about the broadness of the bill and said she hopes the primary emphasis will remain on home financing assistance to low- and moderate-income populations.
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Nevada Organization of Building Officials, clarified for Chairman O’Connell that low-income housing also needs to comply with soils testing, salt standards, and structural provisions which are increasing the cost of all homes. Ms. Porter noted the new term is “attainable housing,” rather than “affordable housing.”
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 552 and opened the work session with S.B. 163.
SENATE BILL 163: Makes various changes to provisions relating to enforcement of building codes and zoning regulations by cities and counties. (BDR 22-240)
Mr. Lynn provided a cleaned up version of amendments for the bill (Exhibit V). Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said he did not think he had the latest amendment, and expressed concern for rural areas because the bill does not address part-time building officials and there may be added liability for local governments.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, reported the chief building inspector was very supportive of the bill and felt it would be good for the industry and the profession. Mr. Grady said that most small rural areas do not have full-time building inspectors, and he also expressed concern with who would monitor the requirements of the bill. Mr. Lynn said section 3 of the bill specifies application to counties with a population over 100,000, which effectively removes the part-time issue.
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, NACO, testified he did not allow the bill out of draft for NACO because there was no consensus or agreement. He said he would need to stand by the commitment made to the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, and said, “Until they’re satisfied with the bill, we will not support it.” He said the language regarding populations of 100,000 or less appears to enable action through resolution. Mr. Lynn clarified for Mr. Hadfield different jurisdictions can establish whatever criteria they feel is appropriate. He said professional development hours can be anything deemed suitable, and the oversight of inspectors, officials, and plans examiners is for the bare minimum, as these people need to at least try to keep updated on the codes.
Mr. Lynn clarified for Senator O’Donnell, he does not send anyone out in Clark County who is not certified in the specific areas required. Also, he said, there is a provision for newly hired people to gain appropriate certification within one year of hire. He said his inspection staff is the largest in the state with over 150 inspectors. Mr. Lynn also noted that S.B. 163 would help builders in getting points to contribute toward insurance discounts. In response to questions from Senator Care, he said the bill does not guarantee inspection, but the problems that have occurred in other areas with inspectors assuming similar floor plans at similar stages of construction do not require individual inspection, do not occur in Clark County.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 163.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 265 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 265: Requires city or county to pay just compensation or authorize alternative location for certain structures or uses of property under certain circumstances. (BDR 22-156)
Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Nevada Outdoor Media Association, testified that amendments were drafted to address concerns about the broadness of the bill; under the work session document, Tab B (Exhibit W) is from the Nevada Outdoor Media Association, and Tab C (Exhibit X) is from local governments. He said the difference is, local governments want to use amortization schedules to avoid paying just compensation, which is not acceptable to the Nevada Outdoor Media Association. He explained the amendments do limit provisions to outdoor advertising and only effect existing billboards, or those approved for the future without expiration dates. In response to a question from Senator Raggio, he said the bill does not impact the City of Reno’s ordinance to preclude additional billboards. He added, if the City of Reno determined to require removal of existing structures, compensation would have to be paid, or relocation would have to be allowed.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 265 WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM THE NEVADA OUTDOOR MEDIA ASSOCIATION.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 279 and S.B. 280 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 279: Prohibits cities in certain counties from exercising certain powers of zoning in certain circumstances. (BDR 22-497)
SENATE BILL 280: Prohibits certain cities from creating island by annexation of land. (BDR 21-498)
Senator Raggio said he met with representatives from the City of Reno and Washoe County, and the respective concerns were these bills would impede the city’s existing authority and adequate notice of hearings is not always given to county residents. He reported assurances were made by the city that adequate notice would be given in the future, no involuntary annexation would be done, and islands would not be created.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 279 AND S.B. 280.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 317 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 317: Revises provisions governing local government finance. (BDR 31-353)
Chairman O’Connell said Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, provided testimony at an earlier hearing and there was no opposition.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 317.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 363 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 363: Authorizes use of proceeds of certain taxes for certain highway improvement projects located wholly or partially outside boundaries of this state. (BDR 20-1049)
Senator O’Donnell requested the bill be held until Senator Porter could be there; Chairman O’Connell agreed to the request and opened S.B. 383 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 383: Revises voting procedures for certain regional planning commissions. (BDR 22-1162)
Neal H. Cobb, Concerned Citizen, provided written testimony (Exhibit Y) in support of S.B. 383. He said more representation from unincorporated county residents is needed on both the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency and the Regional Planning Governing Board. Gary Sayer, Concerned Citizen, provided a copy of his testimony from the March 30, 2001 hearing, with additional comments included (Exhibit Z). He said he has not seen a retraction from the City of Reno regarding articles in the Reno Gazette Journal about the city’s annexation plans, and as a citizen of the unincorporated area of Washoe County, he believes he is being deprived of meaningful participation and representation in the process. He also provided a copy of testimony from Richard Hobbs (Exhibit AA), who was unable to stay and provide oral testimony.
Emily Braswell, Director, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, provided written testimony (Exhibit BB), and stated her opposition to the bill as the agency is in the midst of a regional planning process which will address many of these issues, including spheres of influence and annexation. She stated an opportunity for the process to work is needed. She reported phase one of the process has been completed successfully, with public involvement and broad support for the five regional planning principles and vision, as well as the fundamental assumptions. She said the process should be completed by June 30, 2001, and all public hearings for the process have had public notice and everyone is given the opportunity to speak.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, City of Reno, said she believes the process is moving in the right direction, with adequate public input, and the city is encouraging everyone in the region to become involved. She said a lot of good agreement has been reached and the city has agreed there will be no involuntary annexation of the unincorporated area. She said the newspaper articles referenced in earlier testimony only addressed certain portions of a very extensive document the city has prepared as part of the overall plan. She assured the committee the citizens would have adequate opportunity for input and all issues would be properly considered through the review process. It is expected that a package for regional planning legislation will be brought to the Legislature in 2003, she said.
In response to a question from Mr. Sayer regarding involuntary annexations, Ms. Henderson said the county commission would control density levels, but the city will not go after individual homeowners, or people on 40-acre parcels, for involuntary annexation. She noted the governing board can override recommendations of the regional planning commission.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 383.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 395 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 395: Transfers certain territory from Clark County to Nye County. (BDR 20-1220)
James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, reported he has spoken with both Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, and Assemblyman P.M. “Roy” Neighbors, Assembly District No. 36, and has been on record with both positions. He said the board would meet the day after the deadline to determine the county’s official position, and Senator McGinness has promised he would not push for a bill in the other house, if both counties did not approve.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 395.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell stated the committee would need to hold S.B. 426 for more information.
SENATE BILL 426: Establishes requirements and procedures for strategic planning for state agencies. (BDR 31-429)
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 470 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 470: Makes various changes relating to bonds issued by local government for local improvements. (BDR 21-1155)
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 470.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 556 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 556: Prohibits reprisal or retaliatory action against officer or employee of local government who discloses improper governmental action. (BDR 23-793)
Senator Titus suggested it would be easier to apply the state whistleblower law to local governments. She claimed the amendment from Washoe County for a 30-day time frame was too short, and said she would accept an amendment with 60 days, applying the state whistleblower law to local government.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 556.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 560 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 560: Makes various changes to provisions relating to employment practices and prevailing wages for public works. (BDR 28-559)
Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner, Office of the Labor Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry, testified in response to questions from Chairman O’Connell and Senator Neal on S.B. 373, the intent was to put minimum wage in regulation rather than in statute so it would be easier to keep current.
SENATE BILL 373: Makes various changes to provisions relating to labor commissioner. (BDR 53‑558)
Currently, Mr. Johnson said, the statute states the minimum amount to be paid to a minor is 85 percent of the amount established for adults. He agreed to find out for Senator Neal whether the differential amount for minors is in conflict with federal law.
Regarding S.B. 560, Mr. Johnson said he talked with everyone who had previously testified on the bill, except a gentleman from the carpenter’s union who was concerned about public agencies keeping records for 2 years instead of 1 year, and, he said, this has been addressed through proposed amendment (Exhibit CC).
Mr. Johnson explained prevailing wages are required to be posted on site, but there is no oversight to see that it happens. Public bodies do have job foremen and superintendents on the job who would be in the best position to ensure posting, he said.
With regard to the amendment from the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities to increase the wage to $250,000, Mr. Johnson said the problem is not increasing limits, but getting contractors in rural jurisdictions to participate in the wage survey so their wages more accurately reflect those paid in the communities.
Mr. Johnson said the amendments would change the penalties to 3-year disqualification for the first violation and 5-year disqualification for the second violation, meaning public works contracts could not be awarded for those periods of time. By regulation, he said, fines would be based on a sliding scale, depending on the severity of the offense, not to exceed $5000. He reiterated the amendments were reviewed by everyone who testified at the March 30, 2001 hearing, except Mr. Sala, of the carpenter’s union.
Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors, testified she was delighted with the progress on this bill and her concerns were addressed where possible. Senator Titus said she cannot support raising the level of projects to be exempt from the prevailing wage.
Mr. Johnson stated, with regard to the proposal to increase the limit to $250,000, this issue was discussed in the Assembly and was indefinitely postponed. He expressed concern about going in circles if attempting to proceed on that level, and noted there is also a concern with the $250,000 limit, the wages were not reflective of what is being paid in the communities and would require an exemption. He said the key to getting wages to be more reflective of community wages is to participate in the survey, and there are other ways the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities can ensure the rates. He expressed concern, to attach the $250,000 limit would result in inaction on the whole bill, when it is not the real problem. He said he cannot support the amendment from Mr. Grady either.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 560 WITH THE AMENDMENTS FROM MR. JOHNSON AND MR. GRADY.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (CHAIRMAN O’CONNELL AND SENATORS NEAL, TITUS, AND CARE VOTED NO. SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 560 WITH THE ONE AMENDMENT FROM MR. JOHNSON.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell opened S.B. 563 for discussion.
SENATE BILL 563: Makes various changes relating to telecommunications. (BDR 20-1334)
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 563.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
Chairman O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Laura Hale,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: