MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-First Session
February 27, 2001
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operationswas called to order by Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, in Room 2144 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 Jon C. Porter, Chairman
Senator Mark A. James, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Johnnie L. Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janelle L. Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Daniel Grimmer, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage Incorporated
Senator Porter requested the committee review the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations Standing Rules (Exhibit C). He said the rules are the same as they were for the last session with the exception of item 11, which states that audio and video recordings will be available in the Publication and Gift Shop on the main floor of the Legislative Building. As before, he added, the committee minutes when transcribed by the secretary and signed by the chairman, will be available in the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ADOPT THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS STANDING RULES.
SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAWSON AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Porter indicated the regular time for the committee meetings is normally at 3:30 p.m., and asked whether the committee would prefer to move the time for meetings to 2:00 p.m.
Senator Raggio said he would prefer to have the meetings at 2:00 p.m. and the other members of the committee agreed.
Senator Wiener reported that the subcommittee of the interim committee on the Study of the System of Juvenile Justice in Nevada had concluded it would need another two sessions to complete its study of juvenile justice in Nevada. She said that, as a result, the subcommittee is requesting a committee bill draft to create a legislative committee on juvenile justice that would only exist for two sessions. Senator Wiener reiterated the subcommittee concluded it was necessary to have the committee on juvenile justice extended to ensure the tasks and policies developed by the study committee are completed.
Senator Porter introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) 17-572 to the committee.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 17-572: Creates legislative committee on juvenile justice. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 262.)
SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 17-572.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said legislative counsel is recommending the committee request a BDR to address two regulations the Legislative Commission objected to during the interim. Although those regulations were suspended, he added, the Legislature must take action through a concurrent resolution to ensure the regulations do not become effective. Mr. Wasserman explained that one of the regulations is the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) regulation that addresses recovering past costs, and the other regulation has to do with employee benefits in regard to large groups. Mr. Wasserman said the issue of employee benefits would be reviewed by the Legislative Commission later in the week so there may not be a need for that issue to be addressed in the BDR.
SENATOR JAMES MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE REQUEST A BILL DRAFT FOR A RESOLUTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Wiener asked whether there would be one or two resolutions needed.
Mr. Wasserman said both issues will be addressed in the same resolution, but the wording of the BDR should wait until after the Legislative Commission meeting to determine whether there is a need to include the regulation on employee benefits.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Robert E. Erickson, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, referred to his handout, “Committee Brief for Legislative Affairs and Operations” (Exhibit D). He said the handout is a summary of the legislative affairs committee activities, especially last session’s activities. He called the committee’s attention to page 3 of Exhibit D and said the effort to have bills cosponsored by both houses has been particularly successful.
Mr. Erickson said each house of the Legislature designates topics for additional study during the interim period between sessions. He noted that the 1999 Legislature approved seven such interim studies, plus nine additional measures requiring the appointment of legislators and significant staffing by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Erickson said that last session the Nevada State Senate designated three such studies, and the Nevada State Assembly designated four such studies.
Mr. Erickson explained the studies approved by the Senate last session were for the air-quality control program in Clark County, the long-term care study in Nevada, and the study of methods to encourage corporations and other businesses to organize and conduct business in the state.
Mr. Erickson noted the Legislature would decide how many studies it wants in the next interim period.
Mr. Erickson explained that pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit D outline some of the BDRs that are likely to come through this committee this session. He said a number of those BDRs will start in the Assembly and may not make it to the Senate.
Senator Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 65.
SENATE BILL 65: Makes various changes to provisions relating to legislative committee to study distribution among local governments of revenue from state and local taxes. (BDR 17-698)
Janelle L. Kraft, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said Senate Bill (S.B.) 65 asks to extend the existence of the committee to monitor the distribution of local revenue for another 4 years. She said the committee’s existence needs extending to monitor the activities and implementation of deregulations of chapter 601, Statutes of Nevada 1999, and try to equalize the fiscal effects on local governments.
Ms. Kraft said S.B. 65 also asks that the name of the study committee be changed to reflect the committee’s expanded role as set out in the bill.
Senator Porter asked whether this legislation would be in addition to the existing role of the committee. Ms. Kraft responded the committee continues to have ongoing duties that were not completed during the interim and this bill will include the deregulation issue.
Senator Porter asked whether all the utilities were included in the bill. Ms. Kraft responded that all the utilities are included in this legislation.
Ms. Kraft explaining what the committee had addressed in past interims, said the committee originally started by studying revenues that were distributed from the state to local governments. She further explained the committee’s responsibilities were expanded as the issues became more complex. Ms. Kraft said the committee studied such items as room tax, and fuel-tax distribution. She commented the committee has studied almost every issue that has an effect on state and local government.
Ms. Kraft said the “member-mix” outline for the Legislative Committee to Study the Distribution Among Local Governments of Revenue From State and Local Taxes is in section 5, chapter 601, Statutes of Nevada 1999. She said S.B. 65 does not change the committee member selection requirements.
Senator Raggio asked why it is necessary to extend the authority of this special committee beyond 2003. Ms. Kraft responded that members of the committee felt the work would not be completed until 2005.
Senator Wiener said that last session the section on telegraph was deleted from Nevada law and wondered whether it should be deleted from S.B. 65. Mr. Erickson responded he believed the word “telegraph” was removed from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) everywhere that it existed, but that it may need to be researched.
Senator Porter asked how often the committee met. Ms. Kraft replied it met as needed. She said the technical part of the committee meets almost monthly, and depending on the urgency of the issue, the full committee has met quarterly.
Senator Porter asked why the advisory committee is only three members, and commented he did not think all the local governments could be represented with only three members. Ms. Kraft replied that all meetings are open to persons from all local governments, who may speak on the issue being heard, even though that person may not be a formal member on the advisory committee. She said the committee makeup was left the same because that mix seems to have worked well.
Senator Porter asked Ms. Kraft to explain the change on line 36, page 3, of S.B. 65 that reads “One member who represents a board of trustees for a general improvement district appointed by the legislative commission,” the wording being changed from “who is a member of” to “represents.” Ms. Kraft responded the current technical subcommittee has a person who represents a trustee on the committee, so that change in the language reflects “cleanup language.” She said she did not know the reasoning for the trustee, but the chosen representative named a trustee and that person has been attending the meetings regularly.
Senator James said S.B. 65 changes the focus of the original committee from a study committee to a committee that directs policy. He indicated he wonders whether this bill is to set up a tax committee. Ms. Kraft replied that the committee is to be a study committee and said specific language may need to be added to the bill. She said the technical advisory people will meet and present recommendations to the legislative members who will then decide what action may need to be taken by the Legislature in order to equalize the effects of deregulations on local governments.
Thomas J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said one of the duties the subcommittee has assumed at the request of the full committee is looking into the problems of rural Nevada in regard to the distribution of revenues in some of its cities and counties. He said to address those needs is part of the reason the committee needs to be extended.
Mr. Grady said the subcommittee visited Mineral County and will visit other counties to assess how the revenues are being distributed. He noted the technical committee has done a great deal of work for the full committee.
Mr. Grady explained the smaller cities and counties do not have the financial expertise that the larger cities and counties have. He said the committee is calling on the larger entities to help the smaller entities with technical problems. Mr. Grady said the technical subcommittee and the subcommittee on local government finance have many of the same members, and those subcommittees are reporting their findings to the full committee on rural and urban Nevada.
Senator Porter asked where the committee on local government finance originated. Mr. Grady responded that the committee had three members appointed by cities, three members appointed by counties, three members by the school trustees association, and two members by the Nevada State Board of Accountancy.
Senator Porter asked whether that committee was a legislative committee or if it was established by local governments. Mr. Grady replied the committee on local government finance was established by the Department of Taxation through the Nevada Tax Commission. He said the committee began as an advisory committee and has been given increasingly more authority as need has arisen. Mr. Grady said in the beginning the committee met once or twice a year, but now is meeting much more regularly.
Senator James asked what is the intent of the wording in S.B. 65 section 1, subsection 4, paragraph (e), subparagraph (1), that reads: “Does not create substantially more or less revenue for local governments, in the aggregate, than would otherwise be available if the system of taxation were not changed.” Mr. Grady responded he believed that wording came from the Nevada Taxpayers Association. He explained that section was intended to prevent local governments from making a change to legislation that would give that government a “windfall” of revenues that was not originally intended.
Senator James asked why are there so many parameters around legislation that limits what the committee could study. Mr. Grady replied the technical committee would report to the full committee, the full committee could then ask for legislation to implement what the study recommended.
Senator James asked who wrote the language that set out the parameters of the committee. Mr. Grady replied he believed the technical committee advised the full committee to ask the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to draft the legislation. He said he could check to see where the wording in the legislation came from and get back to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.
Senator James asked whether S.B. 65 is on behalf of the interim study committee concerning distribution among local governments, and whether the bill is one of the recommendations the legislative committee decided, which includes the decision on the language. Mr. Grady replied, “Yes.” The Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities were asked to pool its cities for support to continue this study.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the bill needed a technical correction. He said the title of the bill needs an editorial change, and the first reference to the committee should be Legislative Committee to Study Distribution Among Local Governments of Revenue from State and Local Taxes.
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said the subject the committee is dealing with is very complex. He said that because of the complexity of the issues even those who are very experienced in these areas have trouble developing strategies for handling these issues. Mr. Leavitt explained the subcommittee tries to come up with a formula that it feels results in a fair conclusion of the issue at hand for everyone involved. He said formal hearings are not a productive way to work out difficult financial matters. Mr. Leavitt added that he would welcome more legislative involvement in the process.
Senator James asked whether it would be appropriate to have a fiscal analyst from the Legislative Counsel Bureau and someone from the Executive Branch of state government on the proposed committee. Mr. Leavitt replied that the LCB fiscal division does provide staff for both the technical subcommittee and the full committee. He said one of the members of the technical subcommittee is the executive director of the Department of Taxation who represents state administration.
Mr. Leavitt said that in some areas of the state there are severe financial problems. He said if a financial solution is not found for some of the rural counties and cities, in about 3 years these entities could be unable to provide services to their citizens. Mr. Leavitt said there are presently no other committees or organizations addressing these financial problems, and without some possible solutions being found, these counties are going to be financial disaster areas.
SENATE BILL 57: Requires employers to grant leave for legislators to attend certain meetings during legislative interim. (BDR 17-157)
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, said because Nevada’s Legislature is a part-time legislature it allows participants from “all walks of life,” and this needs to be protected. She said the interim studies tend to be complicated, and a good deal of time is required to attend them. Senator Carlton said this bill allows legislators to take time away from their professions to represent the citizens in his or her district, without losing that profession. She said sometimes in those interim meetings some of the votes could be very close. Senator Carlton said all votes are vital to decisions that concern constituents.
Senator Carlton said S.B. 57 is not asking that employers pay legislators who are taking the day off. She said S.B. 57 asks for the protection of the employee’s position during the interim while the legislator attends the varied kinds of meetings necessary to his or her position as a legislator.
Senator Carlton noted there had been some questions regarding section 1, subsection 3, paragraph (d), and explained that line is included to cover meetings such as the Governor’s Steering Committee to Conduct A Fundamental Review of State Government and the Advisory Board on Maternal and Child Health that she sits on as part of her legislative commitment.
Senator Raggio asked whether there were incidences, in which people who have served the legislature were fired or had their position threatened. Senator Carlton replied this bill is needed for the same protections that a legislator has during the session. She said there have been cases where a legislator has been denied time to go to meetings or has had a difficult time convincing the employer there is a need to attend meetings. Senator Carlton said she had not heard of any dismissals, but if a legislator is not allowed to attend meetings then that legislator’s constituents are denied representation at those meetings.
Senator Carlton said this bill tells employers it is important that anyone elected to the Nevada Legislature should attend meetings, whether it is during session or during the interim.
Senator Raggio asked how a small employer would handle the need to have one of his two or three employees gone to meetings such as a National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which last for a week. He asked whether this could be a potential hardship for such an employer. Senator Carlton said that yes, it could be a hardship, but the employer should know the employee is running for office and would know that person may become a legislator. She pointed out that to have a legislator working for you should be an asset to any employer. Senator Carlton said she would hope legislators would want to commit as much time as possible to their employment.
Senator Raggio said if a legislator takes off a week for a NCSL meeting, that would require a small employer to have a temporary employee fill that position, and he said he wonders whether that is fair to the employer. Senator Carlton replied the employer would have to fill the position during the 4 months legislators are in session. Senator Raggio said employers are prepared for that. Senator Carlton said that once this bill becomes law, the employer would also be prepared for interim leave. Senator Raggio pointed out this issue would not cause a hardship for a large employer, but could be a potential problem for a small employer.
Senator Porter asked whether this legislation could cause an employer to try to prevent an employee from running for office, if the employer perceived that legislative leave might be a problem. Senator Carlton replied she did not think of this legislation as a basis for discrimination as there are safeguards built into the law for serving during session. She said the work done during the interim is just as important in some ways as the work done during session. Senator Carlton said if an employer were truly going to discriminate against someone, that employer would probably be more worried about the 120 days every other year than a few days during the interim. Senator Carlton pointed out that those 1 or 2 days a month during the interim would be less of a burden than the 4 months during session.
Senator Porter said possible problems inherent in this bill need to be taken into consideration. Senator Carlton replied that no one from the small business organizations had contacted her to voice a grievance with this legislation. She said she would certainly have taken into account any such contact and would have tried to work out a solution, but since she did not hear anything, she had not considered there could be a problem.
Senator Carlton said that an amendment was brought to her attention regarding the employer paying the legislator when taking a day off to attend legislative duties.
Daniel Grimmer, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage Incorporated, referring to the proposed amendment to S.B. 57 (Exhibit E), said the proposed amendment adds the word “sole” to section 1, subsection 3, line 15 so that it reads “A public or private employer who employs a person who is a member of the legislature shall grant leave to the employee, with or without pay at the sole discretion of the employer, . . .” He said the hope is to clarify the language so there is no question whether an employer is required to pay an employee who is on legislative leave from his or her regular job. Mr. Grimmer said the change of language would clear up any misunderstandings that may occur in future references to this legislation.
Senator Carlton said the intention is that the discretion is with the employer regarding whether to pay an employee on legislative leave. She said legal counsel indicated that changing the language is not a substantial change and that the intent of the word “discretion” is not changed by this change of language.
Senator Porter said he believes the word “sole” may give more comfort to employers.
Senator Porter adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Johnnie L. Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman
DATE: