MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments
Seventy-Second Session
March 21, 2003
The Committee on Constitutional Amendmentswas called to order at 12:11 p.m., on Friday, March 21, 2003. Chairman Harry Mortenson presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Harry Mortenson, Chairman
Mr. Bob McCleary, Vice Chairman
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle L. Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Sheila Sease, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Nadeau, jnadeau associates, Reno, Nevada
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Andrew Alan List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), Carson City, Nevada
John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly, Reno, Nevada
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Janine Hansen, Independent American Party, Sparks, Nevada
David Schumann, Vice Chairman, The Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, Sparks, Nevada
Chairman Mortenson:
Good morning, and I welcome all of you to the Constitutional Amendments Committee. We’ll open the hearing and if the secretary will do a roll call. [Roll called.] There are five present and zero absent. We have a quorum. Before we begin, I’d like to advise everybody to turn off any audible alarms, cell phones, pagers, etcetera, and make sure they remain off during the hearing. Remember the meeting is being audio recorded and it’s also being broadcast on the Internet, so anything you say in this meeting room may be on the Net. I encourage testimony before the committee, but I need to say that all statements to the Legislative Committee must be truthful or you may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor. I also say I’m not a stickler; you may address any assemblyman directly instead of going through the Chair.
Anybody who is interested in the bill should be sure they have signed in on the attendance roster, if you want to talk on the bill. If you just want to be informed of the next meeting in which this bill is being heard, you may want to sign in also, without showing that you wish to speak.
Also, remember to turn on the mike when you’re testifying. State your name for the record so that the secretary has it on the recording.
Assembly Joint Resolution 1 of the 17th Special Session: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise certain provisions relating to system of county and township government and compensation of certain elected officers. (BDR C-27)
We will open the hearing on A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session. Ms. Van Geel will give us a brief introduction on the resolution.
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:
A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session proposes to add new language to the Nevada Constitution to establish a 7-member citizens’ commission on salaries for certain elected officials and it sets forth the appointment procedures, qualifications for membership, and the terms of office for the members of the commission. The measure requires a commission to study the relationship of salaries to the duties of Nevada’s constitutional officers, members of the Legislature, the Supreme Court justices, and district court judges, and fixes the salaries of these elected officials.
Further, the commission may increase but not diminish the salary of an elected officer during his term of office. It requires the commission to file the initial salary schedule with the Secretary of State no later than January 1, 2005, and before filing the schedule, the commission must hold at least 4 meetings that are subject to Nevada’s open-meeting law to receive public testimony. The measure requires the LCB [Legislative Counsel Bureau] to include in the Nevada Revised Statutes a copy of the most recent scheduled salaries. A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session also proposes to amend the Nevada State Constitution to specify that members of the Legislature shall receive a salary that is set by the citizens’ commission on salaries and shall be paid for each calendar day of service during any regular or special session of the Legislature.
Finally, the proposal repeals the requirement in Section 9, Article 15, of the Constitution that the Legislature fix the compensation of certain elected county officials and authorizes the Nevada Legislature to provide for either their election or appointment. The resolution also proposes to amend the Nevada State Constitution to remove the requirement that the system of county and township governments be uniform throughout the state and specify the board of county commissioners of each county shall determine the compensation of county officers, including the compensation of county commissioners.
Jim Nadeau, jnadeau associates:
I couldn’t figure out whether I was for or against the resolution. We’re probably for it, if we amend it, but against it, if we don’t.
I believe you have a copy of the amendment that we submitted on behalf of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association. (Exhibit C) [Chairman Mortenson explained that he had not had a chance to review the amendment and asked Mr. Nadeau to do so.] To give you the concept of the amendment, the idea is to remove the county commissioners and county elected officials from the position where the county commission would set the salaries and basically place them under the citizens’ commission. Therefore, the citizens’ commission would then be setting those salaries, also, rather than the county commissioners. I would obviously defer to your legal and research staff as to the exact language and how it would fit into the bill. I gave some suggestions and hopefully I followed along with the ideas of what it would do. If you would like me to go through each amendment as I saw it, I can do that. Otherwise, we can just defer to your counsel. The only other change is on page 4, on lines 1 and 2, there’s an additional segment that says “…or their appointment,” and we are asking to delete that language from the bill.
Assemblyman McCleary:
On that last proposal on page 4, line 2, I thought that referred to a vacancy occurring and that they had to be appointed.
Jim Nadeau:
I believe that the concept is that currently the county commissioners, in the case of a district attorney and the sheriff, will appoint them when that’s a vacancy. I believe this language is putting that under the Legislature. I may be mistaken, but I think that’s what was happening. Currently, in the case of my sheriff, Dennis Balaam, that office was vacant due to the resignation of the sheriff. His appointment was by the county commission. I believe that this language would then put that appointment in the hands of the Legislature. [Assemblyman McCleary stated that perhaps he misunderstood.]
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas, Nevada:
In a short version, if the Committee goes with the salary commission, we feel that the elected officials down through the sheriff, the clerk, and the district attorney should be part of that, but we should allow those offices to remain elected offices and not appointed by the commissioners. There’s a real need to have separation of powers, but they need some independence from the bodies that they are advising and working with, so they wouldn’t really be beholden to another set of elected officials.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
This question isn’t really for Ben Graham, but more for the Legal Division. The way I read the bill, on page 4, lines 1 and 2, is that these people could be either elected or appointed by county commissioners. I’d like a legal opinion on that from LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau). [Chairman Mortenson indicated that we certainly would get that.]
Andrew List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), Carson City, Nevada:
[Introduced himself, stating his affiliation, adding that he also represented other elected officials on this matter.] We do support this A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session with the amendments proposed by Mr. Nadeau. I would like to point out the clause on page 4, line 4, dealing with the appointments. On rare occasions when I do have to wear my legal hat, I do that on behalf of the counties. I did look at this bill and I have to agree with Mr. Gustavson. I do think that what this would do would be to give the Legislature the power to appoint these elected officials. I do believe they need to be elected by the people. The reason I think that’s the way it should be read is, if you think about the way the NRS[Nevada Revised Statutes] is written, there’s already sectionsin there that provide for appointment when there is a vacancy, which would make this language completely superfluous in that instance. So we would like that taken out and we do support the bill as amended by Mr. Nadeau. Thank you.
Assemblyman Sherer:
How do other states do this with the county salaries?
Andrew List:
I would have to refer that to your Research Division. I don’t know that right offhand.
John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly, Reno, Nevada:
[Introduced himself and his affiliation with the volunteer organization, stating that it should not be confused with the Legislature.] This bill has some merit, but for the most part, I don’t like it at all. I don’t like the idea of an independent commission to be determining salaries. I think that the voters of this state elect you people to do that, and we trust you far more than we do an independent committee. We can have salaries set like they do in Congress, where every time they get a pay raise, they have the ability to veto it if they want to, but nobody ever proposes doing that. So I’d much prefer you to set your own salaries. As far as the county commissioners, I feel they should set their own salaries, too, and then they can face the voters and justify it. I believe they deserve a raise and I believe you do. I don’t think you’re being paid nearly enough as you should be. I think, during special sessions, you should get compensated for that as well. I believe, if a laborer is worthy of his hire, you people definitely deserve a pay raise, but I think you should do it on your own and not have somebody else to shovel it off on to.
Also, I believe in keeping the other officials elected—the sheriffs, county recorder, etcetera—I prefer to keep them elected by the people. Then they are accountable to the people. If we get somebody that’s a bad apple, we can get rid of them by the voters. Otherwise, I think there’s going to be too much collusion between the different facets of government. Thank you for your time. [Chairman Mortenson thanked Mr. Wagner and stated that he thought Mr. Wagner had brought up a very valid point.]
Assemblyman Horne:
Mr. Wagner, don’t you see a potential problem with the quirkiness of having elected officials have the power to have their own raises? This would eliminate that and have an independent overseer to be able to do such a thing. It seems more likely that this is the fox guarding the chicken coop now. We’re supposed to put an independent body in place to make those decisions just to avoid improper raises.
John Wagner:
I believe that that’s what the voters are for. If the voters get too unhappy, they have recourse. The next time around, you vote them out of office. I think this is the court of last resort for the voters. Again, I much prefer to trust you for this than I would an independent group, because they have nothing to lose. They could oppose anything they want and basically, you accept it. If it comes back, you can say, “They did it.” I think the accountability is better when it’s the elected officials actually setting salaries, including their own. I know it seems to be self-seeking. No matter what you raise it to, someone is going to complain that you guys are getting rich. If they saw how much you are getting, they’d find out that you’re not getting rich, even though we joke about the big bucks that you do make. I fully trust all of you people more so than I would an independent commission.
Assemblyman Horne:
Do you recall the City of Las Vegas recently entertained the idea of raises to come to parity to other bodies within the jurisdiction? This also included a car allowance. But they thought it better not to give themselves raises at this time because of the political climate. While it may have been justified to bring them up to parity for the rest of the state, they were gun-shy to do so. Government didn’t work in that case.
John Wagner:
I’m not familiar with the Las Vegas case, because I live here in Carson City. But, yes, I would be gun-shy also in raising salaries, particularly if I saw some of the raises that they proposed for the sheriffs, and for the sheriffs down in Clark County. I think it went from a $100,000 to $157,000. That’s a pretty good‑sized jump all at once. If the commissioners down there had to vote on that salary, I don’t think they would. They’re hoping that the Legislature does it, and that way they can say, “You guys did it. We didn’t do it. We’re just accepting the money that was forced on us.” As far as the commissioners down there needing a salary increase, I think that they should be able to justify that to the voters. If they’re asking for 33 percent increases, when the average worker is getting 3 percent and 4 percent, they may say, “That’s an awful big raise. Can you justify that?” You may have to take it, for example, if you set the salaries for them for 2 years, or whatever it is. This way maybe they can say, “We’ll take 8 percent this year that we can justify, and next year they’ll look at it again.” When the economy is really rough, like it is now, everybody looks at every penny, myself included. I’m retired so I take a really good look at it and try to save pennies here and pennies there. You people get to talk about real money—the thousands and millions. I think you people are the best qualified to set your salaries and also the commissions as well. If they feel a little heat from the voters, well, so be it, if it’s not justified. [Chairman Mortenson thanked Mr. Wagner for testifying and giving his point of view.]
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Las Vegas, Nevada:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify. [Stated her name and affiliation.] I must speak in opposition to most of the provisions of this bill. This seven-member commission, first of all, would be appointed by the very people whose salary they ultimately set. Right there, you create an appearance of nonindependence, even though we’re calling it an independent commission. If you look on page 2, lines 28-34, you’ll see that the commission is to receive compensation, plus per diem, plus a travel allowance, but I don’t see written in it who pays that compensation. It did make me wonder why there was no fiscal note attached, because clearly this is not going to be a cost-free commission. That’s not even taking into account the resulting salary changes, which will undoubtedly be increases and not decreases. So, I don’t understand why there’s no fiscal note.
I want to point out that the duties of the commission include studying the relationship of salaries to duties, but then on line 43 of page 2, it indicates that they’re to compare positions with similar qualifications, as well as elected officers. As you probably realize, most elected offices have no specific qualifications. They do not require that a person have any particular education. They merely require that they need a specific minimum age and residency requirements. So, if that’s what you’re comparing to, then you’re not going to come up with a very high salary.
Moving to the top of page 3, this unelected body is required to fix the salaries of all the named elected officials. We have real problems with vesting this kind of authority in an unelected body. It goes on to state that the commission may increase but not diminish the salary of an elected official during their term. That has a very high appearance of self-serving. That’s because the commission could go through all these studies and no matter what they find, all they can do is increase. They can’t diminish. I don’t expect that they would desire to diminish, quite frankly, but just the very inclusion of that creates the appearance of self-serving.
Again on that same page, page 3 at line 15, it states the Legislature shall provide by law for setting apart from each year’s revenue a sufficient amount of money to pay such salary. What that says is that the Legislatures’ hands are bound. They absolutely must provide these monies regardless of the condition of the state budget or the budget of any entity that those salaries would be coming from. We have grave concerns with the Legislature giving away the responsibility that the people elect them to fulfill.
[Lucille Lusk] Moving on to the county commission setting its own salaries, that’s an area that some people think is best, as you heard Mr. Wagner testify. Others would argue not. It’s not an area that we have a strong opinion on.
But moving on to page 4, the statement that the Legislature shall provide for the election or appointment of these various offices creates a tremendous concern that we would perhaps lose the right to vote for our sheriffs and district attorneys, as well as these other offices. There is one part in this bill that we, in fact, do support. That part you’ll find on that same page in Section 33 with regard to legislators being paid for every calendar day of service.
If you have a desire to process this bill, I would recommend that it be amended to address only that issue, and that you keep it clean. I think as a matter of fairness, most people think that people should be paid for the days they work. If it were kept clean in that way, I believe you would find public support. If it’s mixed in with all this other stuff, I believe that, ultimately, you will not find public support and that, therefore, even the meritorious portions will fail. A lot of money will be spent in the meantime, because it’s very costly, not only to process these bills here, but to put them through the entire election process.
Finally, the repealed section is the portion that states that the change in salary and compensation for an elected official will not change during their term of office until they have been reelected. We would oppose that repeal. We believe that salary changes should take place after a reelection so that there is no appearance of self-interest in those decisions that are made.
Chairman Mortenson:
Ms. Lusk, did you similarly testify before the Committee last year on this matter?
Ms. Lusk:
I’m trying to remember. I certainly would have if I’d been aware of it. I’m trying to remember what happened with regard to this. It says “of the 17th Special Session.” Did it come out of the Special Session?
Chairman Mortenson:
I must admit that I was on the Constitutional Amendments Committee and I don’t even know where it came from. Ms. Van Geel will shed some light on this.
Michelle Van Geel:
I’ve got a brief history here. It had come up during the 71st Session, I believe in Government Affairs. Then it didn’t get passed again, so it was brought back to the 17th Special Session with the other bills that passed between midnight and 1:00 a.m. It had also gone through the Elections and Procedures Committee as A.J.R. 14 [of the 71st Session]. That would have been the bill number during the regular session. I think that it hadn’t come through this Committee when we put together the history on this, if I recall correctly.
Lucille Lusk:
As best as I could recollect, we had opposed similar provisions, but I was confused by the 17th Special Session provision. I was not at the Special Session. I thought that was going to be a very limited agenda, and I was very surprised to see some of these kinds of things come up.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
The front of the bill states that it was a Committee of the Whole, so that the entire body would vote rather than break up into separate committee meetings, as I vaguely remember. This was during the Special Session. It was presented to us as a bill and rushed through the process. [Chairman Mortenson thanked Assemblyman Gustavson.]
Michelle Van Geel:
When we had put together the history on this, it was all the history from A.J.R. 14 of the 71st Session. As Mr. Gustavson said, there weren’t any hearings for testimony during the Special Session.
Chairman Mortenson:
I am quite sure—I received this information from the Research Division—that it was amended during that Special Session. That’s where the big fuzz came in. I don’t think I would have ever voted for this with the provisions that were amended in during that Special Session. It’s a blur to me where a couple of these provisions came in, and I think they were amended in during that Special Session. That’s one of the reasons I mentioned to this Committee that I am going to avoid like the plague having meetings behind the bar. It’s really hard to know what’s going on in these very fuzzy, quick, fast meetings.
Lynn Chapman, State Vice President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee. [Introduced herself.] I’m going to be speaking to Section 32. I’m a home-school mom, so I’m here to give a little bit of history lesson. I’m going to talk about the county government.
It’s the largest unit of government in our state. The concept of counties came to America through our British heritage. Counties serve as units to national government in England. In America today, we have small counties like New York County, which is only 23 miles. And we have large counties, like San Bernardino in California, which are over 20,000 miles.
The functions of county government vary from state to state. But in all parts of the country, counties play an important and considerable role in local government. The functions are geared towards serving the citizens: maintaining jails, making peace, having libraries and public buildings, operating school systems, leveling and collecting taxes, assessing property for tax value, maintaining roads and bridges, having permits and marriage and death records, conducting elections, caring for the needy, and public health. Some counties also provide sewer, water, fire, and medical services. With this much power, the local citizen and taxpayer should have a say in his everyday life. Please don’t take away our voice to make decisions for our own families. With Section 32 “…by appointment,” that’s exactly what would happen. So please reject A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session. [Chairman Mortenson thanked Ms. Chapman.]
Janine Hansen, Executive Director, Independent American Party, Sparks, Nevada:
[Introduced herself and explained that today she was representing the Independent American Party.] I want to point out just a couple of things. Many of the things that have been stated already, I certainly agree with. One, because this was passed in the 17th Special Session, none of us had the opportunity to address it. I think that’s an important issue of what you’re doing today. Also, I think if you check, you’ll see that once a proposed constitutional amendment has been passed, it cannot be amended, because if it’s passed in one session, it has to be passed in identical form in the next session, and then it goes on the ballot. So if you determine to amend this, essentially you kill it, which is what we’d like you to do anyway. I just wanted to point that out. You can’t amend it and then it proceeds onto the ballot because it has to pass in identical form in two successive legislative sessions. [Chairman Mortenson pointed out that it didn’t really kill it, it just puts it off for 5 more years.]
One of the things that we’re very concerned about, which has been mentioned, is the accountability of these unelected people who would be making the pay raises. We’re concerned about that. Article 4, Section 32, of the Nevada State Constitution guarantees that the Legislature shall provide for their election and it’s talking about all these county offices, including county clerks, county recorders, auditors, sheriffs, district attorneys, and public administrators. What this particular piece of legislation does, as we have seen, is, instead of being elected, they might be appointed. We are very concerned about that. It also fixes the responsibility on the Legislature for setting their duties and compensation. If you think about the fact that they might be removing all these offices [Ms. Hansen listed again the offices affected.] so that they could be appointed instead of elected causes us great concern.
In fact, in the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, guarantees the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government. What does that mean? It means that they have a representative form of government in which they get to vote. This resolution diminishes that guarantee in the United States Constitution and in the Nevada State Constitution that we have a right to vote for these important county officers, as has been stated previously.
[Janine Hansen] The Independent American Party participated in the election process this last election period in 2000, and we had 4 candidates running for county recorder in different counties. We had 3 for county clerk or auditor. We had 2 running for county sheriff, one for district attorney, and 2 for public administrator. We were participating in this process.
I’ll tell you a little story about public administrator and just how important it happens to be. In Washoe County, where I was, there were a whole lot of positions that had nobody running against them. There was only one person on the ballot, either a Republican or a Democrat. So the Independent Americans created a situation where there was actually a choice. Otherwise, there would have been only person for county clerk, one person for public administrator, etcetera. My 86 year-old mother was the oldest person on the ballot and ran for public administrator. She really got into this office. She found all about it, went campaigning at all the campaign nights, and campaigned everywhere she went. She was just having a wonderful time. She was on the radio. She explained all about what the public administrator did.
And what happened? As a result of her campaign, all kinds of people came to her and started talking about problems in that office. There were numerous people, and she had no awareness that there were problems there when she ran. Those people felt free to come to her and discuss some of the problems and situations that had arisen in the office of public administrator. They came to her and told her about it. What did this do? She received over 26,000 votes in Washoe County for that particular office. Those people had no voice if that had been an appointed position. They wouldn’t have been able to vote for anybody else. That basic right to participate in an election would not have been accomplished. Had there been an opportunity, perhaps, to expose some of what was going on, that situation might have been changed.
So what does the opportunity to vote for these people do? It helps to hold them accountable because in an election, information comes out about what that person is doing. It comes out about you as legislators. It comes out about other people. This is an accountability process. You would be denying the people the right to hold these people accountable. It’s very important that we maintain these as elected officials. We encourage you to remove, in particular, the portion that would allow those positions to be appointed. But there are other serious problems that have already been mentioned with regards to no accountability in the setting of the salaries, which I will not repeat.
Chairman Mortenson:
Thank you, Ms. Hansen. Please remain there for one minute. Ms. Van Geel solved the mystery for us. This bill went from this Committee to Elections, Procedures, and Ethics, where it was amended. Did you ever recall this bill being in that committee and did you testify? [Ms. Hansen indicated that she did not remember.]
[The Chairman then asked Ben Graham if he remembered it being in Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and maybe testifying? Mr. Graham responded that those involved did not really realize what had happened.]
[Chairman Mortenson thanked Ms. Hansen for her thoughtful testimony.]
David Schumann, Vice Chairman, The Nevada Committee For Full Statehood, Sparks, Nevada:
[Mr. Schumann introduced himself.] I’d like to focus in on this Section 32 again. It’s going to be a little bit repetitive. I just got an education. I was going to ask that you strike the “… or their appointment,” because I like the part about “…the board of county commissioners of each county shall determine the compensation of those county officers in its respective county.” That makes a lot of sense to me, that they should be held accountable for the elected officials in their county. I think that’s the way it’s done in at least two states, California and Pennsylvania. But now I understand that kills the whole bill.
I represent the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, and the sheriffs’ offices are of vital importance to us because the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the U.S. Forest Service operate under something called F.L.P., the Federal Land Practices and Management act. The U.S. Congress, in writing these laws, Title 43, Section 1701, specifically said that when law enforcement is to be done, the director shall—it didn’t say “may”—contract with local law enforcement to carry out the enforcement. That means that due process will be observed.
[David Schumann] When they come to seize a bunch of cattle, the sheriff would then go to the county judge there and say, “Here’s my evidence that the place has been overgrazed.” The sheriff could look at that and get experts and say, “This is good evidence. Go do it,” or “No, this isn’t sufficient. Go away.” That’s not currently done. These agencies wrote their own code of Federal regulations, rules that give them permission just to swoop in and do this. There are a few sheriffs, like Ken Jones in Clark County, who have stood up and said, “No, you can’t do this in my county without coming to me.”
That’s what we’re interested in—being able to elect sheriffs who know the law and will tell these fellows, “Your CFRs are in conflict with the U.S. Code on this. You will do it the way the U.S. Code says and not the way of your CFRs.” We consider that having elected sheriffs, who are responsible to the citizens of the county, is a vital part of being a citizen of the State of Nevada and can help our economy by stopping this disobedience of the U.S. Statutes by the BLM and Forest Service. [Chairman Mortenson thanked Mr. Schumann.]
Chairman Mortenson:
I would like to share with the Committee that I have a lot of problems with this bill myself. I had a conversation with Tom Grady, who has been with the League of Cities for a long time, asking some opinions about this. I personally felt strongly that the county commissioners setting the salaries of the sheriffs, the clerks, and so on, makes them beholden to the county commissioners when they are independently elected. They actually provide some balance of power. Mr. Grady agreed with me that it would be good to have some other method of choosing their salaries, other than the county commissioners. He also agreed that their “appointment” has to go. I know of no one who likes that provision in this bill—or no one has testified to that.
We have a lot of amendments to go on this bill. I think we should just run down the list a little bit and make note of the things that have been suggested that we change.
We need to decide whether
· We want the citizens’ commission on salaries or go back to the old way where the Legislature makes that decision.
· To remove the “…or their appointment.”
· The board of county commissioners determines their own salary or if it’s determined by the Legislature or by the salary commission.
· There should be a uniform system.
[Chairman Mortenson read the section that was referenced.] “The Legislature shall establish a system of county township government which shall be uniform throughout the state.” That was in there and was struck out. I talked to Mr. Grady about that and he felt very strongly that there should not be a uniform system. If you have a very poor county with commissioners serving there for a very short time doing very little business, their salary should not be as great as a huge county with a lot of business. That’s another issue that we need to decide upon.
· To retain the provision that was struck that essentially says you can change a salary within a term. Do we need to reinstate the old language that says “There will be no salary changes during a particular term of office?” We need to decide on that.
In a work session, we will just go through this bill step by step and see how the Committee votes on each of these particular amendments.
Lucille Lusk:
Can we get copies of the suggested amendments, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Mortenson:
Yes, they have to be drawn up. Ms. Van Geel will take care of that and she will have copies in my office, and my committee manager will be happy to provide you with the copies of the amendments, when they’re available. That may not be too soon because the Legal Division is still way, way behind on amendments.
Assemblyman Horne:
I’m uncomfortable right now. I haven’t heard any testimony as to the need for this. Even the recommended amendments seem to be lukewarm at best. I don’t have any information on why this was even presented. I wasn’t here in the last session. What’s the rational for these changes? I would like some history on it.
Chairman Mortenson:
Mr. Horne, I would be happy to present what I believe was the reason for this. Certain county officials were very miffed that their salaries were not being raised. It was the responsibility of the Legislature to do that. So they asked, I believe, for some other method that they thought was fair and that the citizens would agree to. If we amend this bill and keep in the provision that there will be a salary commission, then this bill may go forth, depending on what this Committee votes. I don’t think we want to kill it at this time. We want to have the Committee decide whether or not there should be citizens’ commission on salaries. That is the one amendment that would keep this alive.
Assemblyman Horne:
I would like to go on record that I am a little disappointed that those county officials didn’t come here to defend this or give us information on it.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
If you plan to take this to a work session, that would be fine, although I agree with Mr. Horne. There are so many different things in this bill that we really need to take a look at. If we do salvage this bill, it might just be one or two more lines. If that’s the Chair’s intent, we could go into a work session and do that. Otherwise, I could propose a motion today.
Chairman Mortenson:
I don’t want to take a motion today, Mr. Gustavson. I think we should all reflect on this. We’ve got a lot of freshmen. You and I are not. There’s a lot of history behind this proposal. I think we should all reflect on it a little bit and just bring it up in a work session. Then maybe we’ll kill it, maybe we won’t. Ms. Van Geel has said that she will provide a lot of good information to the Committee from what other states do in this situation. Let’s be reflective about this and we’ll take it up in a work session.
Does anyone have any more comments on this resolution? If not, I will close the hearing on A.J.R. 1 from the 17th Special Session.
Is there any other business to come before the Committee? If not, we are adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sheila Sease
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Chairman
DATE: