MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 6, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:17 a.m., on Thursday, March 6, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 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.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Harry Mortenson, Assemblyman, District No. 42
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Sisco, Interim Director, Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs
Sara Jones, Administrator, Nevada State Library Association
Ian Campbell, Research Librarian, Washoe County Library System
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Las Vegas
Andrew List, Policy and Research Analyst, Nevada Association of Counties
Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities
Ronald L. Lynn, Building Official, Clark County Department of Development Services, Las Vegas
Wayne Carlson, Executive Director, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool, and Chair, Nevada Earthquake Safety Council’s Policy Recommendations Committee
Chairman Manendo welcomed all Committee members and visitors to the Committee on Government Affairs and called the meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. The roll was called, and he directed the secretary to mark Assemblyman Williams present upon his arrival.
Chairman Manendo asked the Committee to consider the introduction of the following bill draft requests.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 37-534.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-549.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was not present for the vote.)
********
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-449.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was not present for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 214: Establishes requirements concerning state and local government publications issued in electronic form. (BDR 33-1078)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 214 by introducing Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, District 42, who stated that the bill was an excellent bill that the Nevada Library Association brought to him requesting that he submit a BDR for them. Believing in the intent of that proposed legislation, he did so on their behalf. He stated that he strongly favored the bill even though he believed there would be amendments offered to it. He then turned the microphone over to the witnesses who came forward with him.
Scott Sisco, Interim Director of the State of Nevada Department of Cultural Affairs, introduced himself and Sara Jones, Nevada State Library and Archives Administrator. Mr. Sisco appreciated Mr. Mortenson’s bringing A.B. 214 to the Committee on Government Affairs. It was decided many years ago by the State, the Legislature, and the Governor that it was good public policy to make sure that the actions of government, whether it be local, city, county, or state government, were made available to the public and that the public had access to those records. For years there existed a requirement that, when those governments published documents, a minimum of five copies be distributed to the Nevada State Library and Archives who, in turn, distributed them to the state’s publication centers. Over the last several years more and more publications had been changed from print documents to electronic versions of those documents. Mr. Mortenson’s bill established a process to set standards and requirements for those documents to be made available to the State Library and Archives and then made available to the general public. It was his understanding that there were concerns at that time. One was with Section 2, line 3. State and local governments were encouraged to issue state and local government documents in electronic form whenever possible. He thought that “whenever possible” would have been more acceptable had it said “whenever desirable.” The intent was not to force city and county governments to do all documents electronically; the intent was, when documents were printed and created electronically, copies of them would be sent to the State Library and Archives. The second concern was giving the authority to set standards to the state advisory board, which currently set the standards for state government documents and publications. The belief was that the state advisory board would set standards that were difficult for county and city governments to work with. The amendments at that time were agreeable to Mr. Sisco; there was no objection to local governments having input into the setting of standards.
Sara Jones, Administrator, Nevada State Library Association, gave the Committee a historical perspective on the State Publications Distribution Center so that members would have a clearer understanding of the intent of the A.B. 214 and what the State Library and Archives, more specifically the State Publications Distribution Center, was designed to do. (Exhibit C)
In 1861, the Territorial Council and House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution to collect as many of the old records connected with the early history of Nevada and to file them in the archives of the Territory. The documents were sent to the Nevada Territorial Library that became the Nevada State Library with statehood on October 31, 1864. A year later, the Nevada State Library was created in statute. The role as the institutional memory and historical record-keeper was established with our statehood. For 142 years, the Nevada State Library had upheld those roles and remained committed to doing so in the future. In 1971, the State Publications Distribution Center was established with the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 378.150-378.210. The law stated that it was the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute that all state and local government publications be distributed to designated depository libraries for use by all inhabitants of the state; the designated depository libraries assumed the responsibility of keeping such publications readily accessible for use and rendered assistance, without charge, to patrons using them.
The depository system provided several advantages for the state. First, by distributing information statewide, all citizens had access to the information within a reasonable geographical distance. Second, by distributing the information to the different locations, there was more than adequate protection that valuable information would not be lost as it was duplicated in several locations. In 1983, legislation concerning the number of copies of publications required by the State Publications Distribution Center was increased. Twelve copies of publications were required to be delivered to the State Library for distribution as a result. Each city, county, and regional agency, every school district, and every special district was to send in twelve copies of their publications. The distribution was a wide one:
Again, that was set up so that there was wide distribution of the important information, so it was not solely available in just one location in the event of a natural disaster.
Ms. Jones continued to explain that the State Publications Distribution Center had been struggling with electronic publications for many years, essentially since the development of the World Wide Web and the ability for self-publishing became easy and quick. Most recently, more and more state agencies chose to publish only in electronic form and to leave information available on the Web for brief periods of time only, so the state depository system had been challenged in a number of ways. Unlike a document that was printed by State Printing with the requisite twelve copies delivered to the State Publications Distribution Center, when an agency published on the Web, there was no way to know about that document. Therefore, it would not be cataloged or distributed to the depository libraries.
A publication could be published in a variety of formats, Ms. Jones said. Examples would be those published in hypertext mark-up language (HTML). There were several kinds of software to publish using HTML such as Microsoft Front Page, Navigator Composer, and dozens of others with less widespread acceptance. The document could actually look and be different depending on the application used to develop it and which Web browser was used to open it. Increasingly, publications had been done in a Portable Document Format (PDF), which had provided stability. But, while the Adobe Acrobat Reader that was used for PDF was free software, it was not free to publish in PDF. The stability of that standard was dependent on the public company, which certainly would make librarians and archivists nervous.
With Internet publishing, dissemination issues were immediately solved for everyone with Internet access. The publications were available for everyone, not just in Nevada but worldwide. But what was not solved was the second part of the depository program; there were not adequate provisions in place to keep those documents secure and available. To do that with electronic publications, the Web site would need to be mirrored at more than one Web site in order to protect the data. An adequate long-term preservation method such as microfilm would still need to be put into place.
The legislation under consideration represented what was believed to be good public policy. It would help solve one of the largest problems presented to the State Publications Distribution Center program, that of organizing and making available electronic publications today, tomorrow, and 100 years in the future. Ms. Jones wanted to briefly point out an illustration of the difficulty faced by them. She held up a leather-bound state document from 1904, printed on paper with high rag content, as an example of a document with a good longevity rating. What existed today would be a published document, the Governor’s “Final Report on Tax Policy,” as an example, which needed to be bound and printed on much more stable paper and would need to be microfilmed so that in 500 years it would still be readable, as it was an important historical document. It was printed in its current format in color but with limited copies available. One could choose to print it out for oneself from a personal computer but much would be lost, because it would print as a black and white copy.
It was a big challenge, but the State Library and Archives was very willing to step up, Ms. Jones confirmed. They needed the tools to do so, and it was their thought that A.B. 214 would provide those tools.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Sisco about the amendments that had been mentioned.
Mr. Sisco responded by suggesting that those who had concerns about the bill and were working on amendments would be better able to explain the need for them. Mr. Sisco stated that he and Ms. Jones did not have the amendments. When asked by the Chair if he had seen them, Mr. Sisco said that he had seen them, and it was his understanding that what was proposed by Clark County was very feasible.
Chairman Manendo cautioned Mr. Sisco to refrain from discussing the details of the amendment, as the Committee members had not seen them yet. The Chair asked how many amendments there were and was told by Mr. Sisco that he knew of only one.
Mr. Sisco said that, while he had only seen the one from Clark County, he spoke with a gentleman in the audience who brought up the concern previously mentioned about Section 2, line 3, which stated “wherever possible.” An amendment might come forward to change that wording to “when desirable by the local government.” Another possible change would be to state “the legislative intent to … when desirable by the local government.” Mr. Sisco clarified that the State Library and Archives was not trying to force entities to publish in electronic format. Their concern was, when agencies chose to do so, that the documents would be sent to the Publications Center.
Chairman Manendo wanted to know if Mr. Sisco had had a chance to look at the amendment and whether he was comfortable with it. Again, he stated that the Committee had not seen it yet. Mr. Sisco stated he was comfortable with the proposal.
Ian Campbell, Research Librarian, Washoe County Library System, introduced himself and explained that, by passing A.B. 214, Nevada electronic information would be preserved and made accessible for future researchers just as printed publications were preserved for future generations. Tim Skeers, Nevada State Publications Librarian for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, had written a document titled, “Eight Ways that A.B. 214 Will Benefit the Citizens of Nevada” (Exhibit D). With Chairman Manendo’s permission, Mr. Campbell read the document into the record, as Mr. Skeers was not able to be in attendance. When A.B. 214 became law, wrote Mr. Skeers, it would:
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the County Manager, Clark County, clearly stated that Clark County absolutely supported the intention of A.B. 214. Many of the local governments, he said, did a great deal in terms of disseminating information to the public in the easiest and best form possible. He admired the efforts of the state’s archives to store the information and saw it as a huge task for them. However, he did have a slight problem in Section 1 as worded. Section 1 allowed them to set the standard for the form in which the electronic information was to be disseminated to them. As technology was rapidly changing, Clark County’s fear was that some kind of new technology would be developed that all local governments did not have the ability to use or to interact with. The amendment (Exhibit E) allowed the State Library and Archives to set the standards for state government but, in Section 2 as amended, local governments would be given the ability to determine collectively what that electronic form would be. That had been a “work-in-progress” before the Committee hearing, and it was not complete at that time. Mr. Musgrove asked that he and others be given additional time to clarify the language and to meet everyone’s concerns. He believed that a brief meeting would result in an amendment satisfactory to all.
Mr. Musgrove continued by stating that Mr. List would testify that the smaller local governments needed to be considered in this bill so that they remained able to access and disseminate information in the easiest and least expensive way possible. The intent was to be certain that the smaller counties were able to remain in compliance.
Andrew List, Policy and Research Analyst, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), stated that NACO had some concerns about A.B. 214 but fully supported the bill’s intentions. NACO thought it was important that the publications done by local governments be made available to all people.
NACO’s concern had more to do with which publications would be required for transmittal, Mr. List said. He had done a cursory look at NRS Section 378 and there was no definition there of what a local government publication was. He wondered if that would mean every agenda or every agenda plus attachments. He had spoken with John Slaughter, Legislative Affairs Program Manager, Washoe County, who had told him that the Washoe County agendas with attachments were tall stacks of paper. He again asked about the listing of what publications would need to be submitted to the Nevada State Library and Archives. Mr. List agreed to work with Mr. Musgrove and the Committee counsel to put that in so that local government could coordinate that with the Nevada State Library and Archives.
Assemblyman Christensen asked for definitions of terms. He had heard one witness state that he would be comfortable if it could be decided collectively “what format” or “information” would be used or needed.
Mr. Musgrove responded that he wanted to talk about the electronic form, as there were so many. He referred to PDF, HTML, or something new that was coming. He understood, he stated, that there was an existing electronic forms committee that had local government representatives in the state that were members. Perhaps that committee would make sure that everyone would be able to comply with whatever standard was set. That was what he was attempting to clarify; from the smallest city to the largest city, from the smallest county to the largest county, all needed to have the ability to meet the standard that was set.
Mr. Christensen questioned if all of the witnesses were comfortable with the format and the style, however it was presented, and, if all came to agreement, if all would support the general premise of the bill.
Mr. Musgrove reaffirmed that he supported it completely. The fear was that, with the State Library and Archives having the complete authority to set that standard, he had some discomfort that when something came along in the future and small cities such as Panaca or Caliente could not comply, it would be a problem for others as well. He did not mean to imply that the Nevada State Library and Archives would not be open and receptive to making sure that the standard would be acceptable, but he felt that it would be better for all if it were in statute.
Andrew List spoke also to clarify Mr. Christensen’s second question. While he had brought up the electronic form and requested that the Committee process be used to sort out the requirements, Mr. Musgrove was also concerned about what the definitions were for local government publications that needed to be sent and in what form to the State Library.
Assemblyman Collins stated his belief that local governments already sent things to the State Archives. He did not see that A.B. 214 asked for anything that was not already being sent. It only added the option of sending it electronically. He wanted to know if the bill was that simple.
Mr. List replied that he had noticed that in NRS 378 as well. Local governments already did send publications to the State Library and Archives. But “local government publications” were not specified, and that could be a very real concern depending on definitions. If A.B. 214 were to restrict what was being sent electronically to those that were already being archived, that would “be absolutely fine.” However, there was no definition of local government publications in the statutes.
Mr. Collins asked the Chair if the Committee Counsel would give her opinion.
Ms. O’Grady stated that “local government documents” were not defined, but there was a specific definition for state publications. There was confusion as to what constituted local publications, as they remained undefined.
Mr. Collins asked if the legislators would be able to add the word “local“ to the before-mentioned definition of state government documents. He suggested changing the wording to “state/local government documents” in the language Ms. O’Grady had referenced. He remarked that April 11, 2003, was coming up and he wanted to simplify the process and get it done before that deadline.
Assemblyman Grady drew attention to page 3 of A.B. 214, lines 18 through 20. It appeared to him that there was originally a list of publications for a calendar year. That was removed and that might be a source of the problem stated by Mr. List. Had it been left in, it might have solved his concern.
Assemblywoman Weber focused on page 2, line 1. The statement was that “all state and local government publications issued in print be distributed to designated depository libraries for use by all inhabitants of the state.” She believed that it was included in statute already. She asked if that would be at risk in the conversation when discussing the “local government publications.” Her concern was that it was already in statute and that line might put the statement at risk.
Mr. Musgrove responded to Ms. Weber by stating that he did not believe so. Perhaps, he said, they would be better off attempting to create a definition for “publication,” and that would suffice. He had no problem trying to comply, and it was his wish to comply. His county just wanted to be sure that it was in an acceptable format and that all came to agreement as to what that format was. Perhaps the group simply needed to sit down together, work on the bill, and iron out some of the difficulties.
Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, confirmed that the League wished to echo the concern about the lack of definition for what publications were to be sent. They also wished to make sure that all of the entities, especially the smaller cities and counties, were able to comply with the electronic format. She volunteered to work with all others on the bill.
Chairman Manendo then asked if there were others who wished to speak, either for or against, A.B. 214. Hearing no response, he closed the hearing on A.B.214. He directed that those working on the bill keep the sponsor, Assemblyman Mortenson, posted on it and on any amendments. He also asked that he be kept informed.
Chairman Manendo called a recess at 8:51 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:19 a.m.
Assembly Bill 57: Provides for adoption of certain seismic requirements by State Public Works Board and certain governing bodies. (BDR 28-206)
The Chair opened the work session on A.B. 57, a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson. In his absence, Assemblyman Hardy presented the bill for him.
Assemblyman Hardy, Assembly District 20, was honored, he said, to present the bill on behalf of Assemblyman Anderson with whom he had spoken before the Committee meeting. He was in favor of the proposed amendment to A.B. 57. The members of the Committee had a handout that was highlighted and that stated that the bill had been originally heard on February 19, 2003. The proposed amendments were contained in a color mock-up of the bill so that Committee members would see the bill and its amendments as one document. A second mock-up was without any colors, just black and white, and two pages long, for those challenged by green/red color blindness.
Mr. Hardy introduced two witnesses at the table with him, who were support and resource people, to explain any concepts or words which might have been unfamiliar to the Committee and its members. Ronald Lynn was the Building Official in Clark County; Wayne Carlson had many initials after his name, but all had to do with insurance and earthquakes. Both had been support staff to the subcommittee that had worked on the bill after its first hearing. Ron Lynn would speak first to define “liquefaction,” according to Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Lynn defined “liquefaction” as late Holocene alluvial deposits subjected to an inundation of water that were subject to some seismic influence. That could be from either natural or from man-made causes such as nuclear explosions. In other words, the solid material, which everything was built on, could suddenly become “not solid.” It would re-form in a different type of alignment, and, as one could see in Mexico City, everything would fall down. That was “liquefaction.”
Chairman Manendo directed Mr. Lynn to present that in writing to the Committee. Mr. Lynn agreed to do so.
Mr. Carlson, Executive Director, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool and Chair, Nevada Earthquake Safety Council’s Policy Recommendations Committee, introduced himself. His agency, he stated, wrote earthquake policies for rural Nevada’s public entities.
Assemblyman Hardy directed the members of the Committee back to the mock‑up of the bill with its suggested amendments. The easiest way to understand that for himself, he said, was to note that the stricken words and lines were no longer part of the amendment. If words, phrases, or sentences were underlined or in bold blue or in black that was readable, it was in the proposed amendment to the proposed Assembly Bill 57. He chose then to deal with each line separately. (Exhibit F)
Mr. Hardy focused on page 1, line 3. The word “repair” was deleted to clarify the bill, as it would apply to new construction only. What happened within the working group of the subcommittee was that various members of the construction industry were present to assist the group: architects, engineers, builders, contractors, home builders, lobbyists, and assembly people including Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, the true shepherd of the bill, and Assemblyman Tom Collins. Mr. Hardy thanked Research and Ms. O’Grady for the assistance they each gave to help the process along. Mr. Hardy continued with his explanation of the changes in the bill and amendments.
Mr. Hardy asked Committee members to look at Section 1, page
1, line 5, “We adopt this by regulation,” allowing the International Building
Code to be adopted
by the State of Nevada Public Works Board by regulation. That amendment addressed a concern by them
so that proposals could be publicly heard and discussed in public
meetings. On lines 8 through 10, the
Division of Emergency Management was taken out of the role of adopting
standards for investigation of seismic hazards, as they requested. In lines 11 and 12, the responsibility of adopting
investigation standards was shifted to the Public Works Board, as they
requested. Copies of the guidelines
proposed by the Earthquake Safety Council, entitled “Guidelines for Evaluating
Liquefaction Hazards in Nevada” (Exhibit
G), had been provided to Committee members. A second set of guidelines was also included and was titled,
“Guidelines for Evaluating Potential Surface Fault Rupture/Land Subsidence
Hazards in Nevada” (Exhibit
H). Those guidelines would be
attached and used for the regulation sections of A.B. 57.
Turning to page 2, the language in lines 20 through 25 was deleted as the group agreed it was unnecessary and did not conform to the current practice or terminology. Parenthetically, the Uniform Building Code had been supplanted by the International Building Code and was a constant work-in-progress. It would be referred to as it allowed for an ongoing process to take place in seismic regulation. On page 2, lines 29 through 31, the subcommittee felt that that section was consistent with the earlier amendment; the Division of Emergency Management had been taken out of the role of adopting standards for investigation of seismic hazard. In lines 31 through 33, the responsibility for adopting the investigation standards at the local level was shifted to the local governing body consistent with the change made at the state level to shift the adoption of standards to the State of Nevada Public Works Board. Lines 34 through 42, beginning on page 2 and ending on page 3, showed language that was suggested to be deleted consistent with the elimination of the Division of Emergency Management’s role.
Finally, the effective date of the bill had been changed to address the concerns with the timing and phasing in of the new seismic provisions. On pages 2 through 3, beginning at line 42 on page 2, the effective date of the bill was July 1, 2003, for purposes of authorizing the State of Nevada Public Works Board and local governing bodies to adopt the seismic provisions of the International Building Code and the investigation standards. However, the newly adopted seismic provisions and investigation standards would not be effective until July 1, 2004. Mr. Hardy stated that he and his colleagues were open for questions.
Assemblyman Goicoechea questioned Wayne Carlson. On page 1, Section 1, lines 3 and 4, the proposed change stated, “For the purposes of the design and construction of buildings.” He asked when a major retrofit was required such as was needed for some of the major historic buildings in Eureka, if it would be correct to assume that those would not fit in this section.
Mr. Carlson responded that the International Building Code did have provisions that addressed the major retrofits situations, but it was not the intent of this legislation to require retrofit consistent with them.
Mr. Lynn stated that the International Building Code had provisions for a situation that required repairs be undertaken. A repair of the building that would put the building back in compliance with the code of its original construction would not require that it be brought up to current standards unless the owner wished to do so. The only other option would be a legislative mandate as there was after the MGM fire in Las Vegas, which required some retroactive standards imposed upon hotels, casinos, and large assembly areas. That was not the intent of A.B. 57, which was the reason why “repair” on line 3 was removed.
Mr. Goicoechea remained concerned about public buildings and what codes would apply. Buildings constructed in the 1860s and 1870s were constructed with fairly lax building codes. What kind of code, he wondered, would be followed if a major retrofit were to be done, and if the code was clearly defined for a local government or someone in the private sector to follow.
Mr. Lynn clarified that those provisions were provided for in the code. If a building was built to a standard that was not currently available, there were certainly challenges. One would need to carefully inspect every aspect of the building to be certain that whatever the repair was, it was consistent with the original architectural and structural intent. If a building had stood for 100 years, to some degree, it had already withstood certain environmental tests upon its structure, stated Mr. Lynn. Through exposure or repair work, if there were deficiencies found, both the owner and the public entity would probably want them corrected for the safety of its inhabitants or visitors. Mr. Lynn further stated that the standards developed by the Association of Engineering Geologists under the auspices of the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council were to be noted as guidelines only. They did not have to be adopted literally. They were meant for local jurisdictions and the state to use in the promulgation of their adopted standards.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Hardy and the other witnesses and called for a motion for action on A.B. 57.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 57.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Prior to the vote on the motion, Assemblywoman Koivisto asked why a vote would be needed at all if that bill and its amendments were only suggestions.
Mr. Hardy responded by stating that the bill and its amendments allowed a newer standard to be held. The Uniform Building Code was outdated and was deemed inadequate. The International Building Code allowed for a higher and safer standard. It also provided the opportunity to bring the guidelines to the attention of the public through public hearings. It was the intent of the subcommittee to highlight the regulations as an ongoing, technologically sound process that could be upgraded as the state grew. He stated that there were already standards in existence; those would be higher, updated as a result of the passage of A.B. 57. The codes now reflected the Uniform Building Code, which was being updated and replaced by the International Building Code.
Assemblyman Collins, referring to page 2, Section 2, line 26, brought attention to the words, “A governing body shall amend its building codes to include…” As new information was brought forward, codes were constantly amended, added, and improved. The bill would require the adherence to the regulations with the flexibility of using the regulations that were appropriate to a particular type of industry.
Chairman Manendo, hearing no further discussion, placed the question.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chair restated that the bill was Mr. Anderson’s bill, and he requested that Mr. Hardy back Assemblyman Anderson up if needed. He thanked all who had worked hard on the bill for their time and efforts.
Assembly Bill 65: Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. (BDR 23-659)
The Chair opened the work session on Assembly Bill 65. Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst, would take the Committee members through the entire bill, section by section. A work session document (Exhibit I) was given to Committee members by Ms. Scholley that she would use as she assisted Committee members to move through the bill and its proposed amendments.
Ms. Scholley reminded the Committee that the sponsor of the bill was the Committee on Government Affairs. The bill provided for collective bargaining for certain state employees. Based on the amendments proposed when the bill was heard on February 20, 2003, and March 5, 2003, a mock-up document, printed in color codes, was available to the members. Only the first ten pages were printed to use as little paper as possible. Those ten pages contained the amendments; the remainder of the bill was not affected.
Ms. Scholley also made clear that Mr. Wally Tarantino, on behalf of the Nevada Corrections Association and the Nevada Highway Patrol, withdrew his proposed amendment to Section 32. The mock-up was only printed through Section 27.
Ms. Scholley briefly explained the amendments. The first proposed amendment was on page 3, Section 10, and was proposed by the Teamsters Union to redefine a managerial employee. Ms. Scholley cautioned the Committee and the audience that the final language of the redraft by the Legal Division might not be precisely the language as presented in the mock-up. That was always the case with proposed amendments to bills.
The language on page 4, printed in green and underlined, was proposed by the Peace Officers Research Association, which added “discipline and discharge” to the list of items that would be included under “terms and conditions of employment” in Section 17.
Ms. Scholley had the members of the Committee turn to page 9, Section 27, lines 37 through 40. The State of Nevada Employees Association proposed that amendment, and it added two bargaining units; one was the Nevada State Printing division of the State of Nevada Department of Administration, and the other was for the employees of the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Ms. Scholley stated that the Committee had heard the sum of the actual text amendments that the Committee had heard previously. She returned to the cover sheet of the mock-up and stated that there was considerable testimony by both the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, commissioners, and others, on the concept of merging the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, which was a Board in existence already by statute that currently dealt with collective bargaining for local employees, with the new proposed Board that would handle collective bargaining for state employees. In the bill, that Committee was referred to as the Board for Labor Relations for State Employees. Merging those two boards would be accomplished by adding two board members to the current three-member Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board whose current members were appointed by the Governor. Of the two new members, the Senate Majority leader would appoint one, and the Speaker of the Assembly would appoint the other. The reconstituted board would then oversee collective bargaining for local government employees, as it did now, under the provisions of Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). There would be no change to the oversight of the collective bargaining issues for local government employees. That reconstituted board would also oversee collective bargaining for state employees in accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill 65. Essentially, the unified board would be a single board with a dual system. The board would adhere to the NRS Chapter 288 provisions that currently applied to local government employees. The newly constructed board, with the amended A.B. 65 placed under NRS Chapter 288, would oversee state government employees’ collective bargaining under those slightly different provisions.
On the cover sheet, Ms. Scholley had summarized the comments of those who had testified at previous hearings in opposition to the bill and reminded the Committee of the numerous concerns of Carole Vilardo from the Nevada Taxpayers Association that she had brought to the attention of the Committee at a previous hearing. Ms. Scholley believed that Ms. Vilardo was not opposed to the intent of the bill, only to the language of the bill as drafted.
The bill would have a fiscal impact. Based on the proposed merger of the two boards, the fiscal note would change to one with lesser impact. Based on testimony received at a prior meeting, the cost of operating the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board was 34 cents per member per month. Half of that cost, 17 cents, was paid by the employee organization. Costs associated with the addition of the two members to the existing board were not available at that time.
Chairman Manendo thanked Ms. Scholley and Ms. O’Grady for their work on the amendments to A.B. 65. He then asked for questions from Committee members.
Assemblyman Grady reiterated his understanding of the bill and suggested that, if passed and placed in NRS Chapter 288, it would probably reduce the fiscal note substantially. If the bill were to stand on its own, he wanted clarification as to the need to refer it to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means because of the fiscal note.
The Chair stated that there was a fiscal note on the bill. If the bill passed out of Committee and was sent to the Floor, the Chairman of Ways and Means would probably take the bill back to his Committee. The Chair had asked the Research Division to look into the fiscal impact; that request was presented at the meeting held March 5, 2003. Scott MacKenzie and others brought up the cost of litigation, and the Chair noted that the Committee needed to look at the ultimate cost or savings to the state if A.B. 65 were to pass. The information was not easy to get, so the information would not reach the Committee immediately. The Committee might not even be able to obtain that data, but it had been requested.
Assemblyman Collins referenced a national study that suggested that, as organized labor declined, the legal costs had risen seven times the percentage. Each time someone was unable to use collective bargaining as a grievance/arbitration procedure, there was seven times the cost in litigation for workers throughout the country, shown in a four- or five-year-old study. He confirmed his belief that the bill would actually reduce the cost to both the state and the labor organizations and would bring them together to function more cooperatively. The intention was to have cooperation in Nevada.
Assemblyman Goicoechea stated his understanding that the cost would be approximately $4.28 per employee, a far greater savings if A.B. 65 were placed in NRS Chapter 288, the local governing bargaining unit. The fiscal note was written at over $1 million. To place A.B. 65 back under NRS Chapter 288 would lower the cost to $150,000, considerably less than the fiscal note for the bill if it were to stand on its own.
Assemblyman Hardy asked if Carole Vilardo’s concerns, from testimony given on March 5, 2003, were taken into account as far as consistencies within the statute, time lines, and other concerns.
Ms. Scholley confirmed that the Committee staff had not taken her concerns into account, as there were no specific amendments proposed in writing. “We were not able to do so,” she stated.
Assemblyman Christensen asked if the bill would need to be moved out of Committee on that day. He, too, was concerned about the comments and concerns of Ms. Vilardo and Mr. MacKenzie given in testimony the previous day. If the vote were taken immediately, he would not have the comfort level to vote in a positive manner. He wished a few more days’ delay were possible.
Chairman Manendo stated that the day before, March 5, 2003, several people had discussed the bill with the Committee. The Chair had instructed the witnesses to bring any proposed amendments to him in written form by 5 p.m. of that day. Some arrived in time, and they were included in the document the Committee members had in front of them. There came a point in time when deadlines needed to be set, he affirmed. The Chair, he said, had been quite lax on nearly every bill, but the time comes when the Committee must move; the 120-day session demanded action in a timely manner.
Assemblyman Atkinson had intended to advocate for movement on A.B. 65, which had come to the Committee early in the session. He, too, believed that the time had come for action.
Assemblyman Goicoechea confirmed that the effective date for the bill would be July 1, 2003. It clearly would not affect the budget under consideration during the current session as no salaries would be considered under A.B. 65 until 2005. All that would be put into place would be the opportunity to settle some grievances, discipline actions, and other difficulties. That would certainly give members of the Committee an opportunity to see how collective bargaining would work before the legislators had to deal with salary issues.
As Assemblyman Knecht left the meeting, the Chair conferred with counsel and asked if there were any further thoughts for discussion. Hearing none Chairman Manendo stated that the Chair would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN MC CLEARY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 65.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Koivisto disclosed that she was an employee of the State of Nevada, but she believed she would be retired before A.B. 65 would affect her. For that reason, she chose to vote.
Chairman Manendo restated that several Committee members had made disclosures, including the Chair. He stated his belief that, once a disclosure had been made, it stood in effect for the entire session of the Legislature.
Assemblyman Hardy had spoken with Mr. MacKenzie on the day before. He appreciated that input. He did not currently have the comfort level to vote for the motion. While he did support the concept of paying state workers, he was not convinced that A.B. 65 was the vehicle to accomplish that.
Assemblyman Collins shared information that, when the vote to move A.B. 65 out of Committee was taken, Committee members had the right to go to the Chair if they wished to change their vote later. It would be a few days before the bill arrived on the Floor because of the amendments. He stated he saw no reason why there would be discomfort with the bill, but, for those who were not ready to go quickly in a quick session, there was that option.
Chairman Manendo again stated that, in a 120-day session there was not much time, but that was what the constituents wanted the Legislature to do.
Assemblywoman Weber echoed previous comments. She stated that she had a discomfort with A.B. 65 as it stood at the current time. She believed that state workers, as every employee of every company everywhere, should be treated fairly. It was a shame that avenues to accomplish that had to be created. At the current time, she was not in favor of the bill.
The Chair repeated the concern heard from several Committee members that, if the motion were carried, members be able to receive the amendment tomorrow. Chairman Manendo thought it would not be ready then. There was a process, he explained, that dictated that staff could not begin writing an amendment if the bill were not passed.
Assemblyman Collins again reiterated the rules for bill action. When the amendment came to the Floor, if concerns still existed, it could come back to the Committee. Those options were clearly out there should someone have additional concerns.
Chairman Manendo placed the question of “Amend and Do Pass” of A.B. 65.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. CHRISTENSEN, MR. GRADY, MR. HARDY, AND MS. WEBER VOTING NO. (Mr. Knecht was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo stated that the bill passed with eight votes in favor and four votes against with one absent. Seven votes in favor were necessary for passage of a motion in the Committee on Government Affairs.
Before adjournment, Assemblyman Collins recognized the father of his foreman, Toby Bishop, to the Committee and introduced a bit of humor by announcing that “Dizzy Lizzy” had just given birth to her first calf, a heifer. He thanked the Chair for his indulgence.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the meeting at 10:06 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
________________________________________
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: _________________________________