MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 13, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:28 a.m., on Tuesday, May 13, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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 style.
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:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, State of Nevada
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of the Clark County Manager, Las Vegas
Merritt K. Yochum, Independent American Party
Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Madam secretary, would you be so kind as to call the roll. [Roll called.] Please mark members present upon their arrival. We will go out of order and begin with Senate Bill 446. The hearing on S.B. 446 is opened. Mr. Krolicki, State Treasurer, I apologize for keeping you waiting. I know you have a busy schedule.
Senate Bill 446: Authorizes State Treasurer to appoint and employ two Senior Deputies in unclassified service of State. (BDR 18-301)
Brian K. Krolicki, State Treasurer, State of Nevada:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I appreciate another opportunity to discuss S.B. 446. I am sorry I wasn’t with you last week. I promise you that I take these opportunities very personally and importantly, but national/state treasury business made me be away. I am happy to answer questions or briefly describe the bill at your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manendo:
If you would like to go over it once again to give us a little reminder of what was needed and why, I am sure that someone will have questions.
Brian Krolicki:
I am sure you are probably right. I don’t know if I introduced myself properly. I am State Treasurer Brian Krolicki.
[Mr. Krolicki continues his testimony.] S.B. 446 essentially creates two unclassified positions. We are eliminating five classified positions as part of our budget approach and trying to be an efficient machine, but the reality of our situation and how the office functions needs to change slightly. The two unclassified positions are very important. They are essentially the same people, I envision, who are currently in them and in our employment. They are doing far more things than their classified designation. That is the difficult thing. We have a very small office; it is very horizontal.
People end up doing lots of different things. If you look at the Treasurer’s Office today, we do, as we discussed earlier in the session, many, many billions of dollars of things: managing cash, investing cash, debting monies, unclaimed properties, college-savings programs, prepaid tuition, Millennium Scholarship programs, and a vast array of things. The technology, the policy, the depth of these programs really make it necessary to have people who have skill sets on top of a variety of things. I just look at it as almost a safety protocol. We need these skill sets.
For example, the person in one of these classified positions, who would become, as proposed, the senior deputy treasurer, is a certified cash manager. That person was a government services person at Valley Bank and Bank of America. Those skill sets are far beyond prepaid tuition, and I’m taking advantage of them. It is not fair to that person to be designated in that way when you are asking him or her to participate in the Treasury as a whole, and she or he is doing many other things.
Going forward, this is how I envision the Treasurer’s Office being deployed and best utilizing these people and being fair to the existing senior staff that are deputy treasurers already. We will have classified people making more than unclassified people, and I don’t think that is necessarily fair. I hope that you look favorably upon this. I think it is a solid request, I think it important for our office, but, more importantly, I think it is important to these people who are doing these things. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer questions.
Assemblyman Williams:
At the presentation last week, your representative talked a little about the organizational chart that was presented at the beginning of the session when you did your presentation. Your representative told us that we could probably look at a new organizational chart today that showed the suggested changes that we are talking about.
Another question is about the prepaid tuition. Is it the prepaid tuition employee who is the one who is looking to be promoted? Is that the Millennium Scholarship employee who is being promoted as well?
Brian Krolicki:
The prepaid director position, which is classified, is one of the people who would be moving into this new area. For the record, I am telling you things that you already know, but it is important to let you know why the situation exists.
We created the college savings plan and the prepaid tuition, and that is where these two positions will live, not the Millennium Scholarship, but these other 529 [references an IRS Code for college savings plans] programs. They were created by the Legislature, but IFC (Interim Finance Committee) actually created the position after you allowed it legislatively. We had to figure out how to do it. For example, college savings had no general funding, so we had to hook up an entrepreneurially sound plan to make sure that we had a plan that could fund before we went to IFC to actually get the position. IFC, as you know, cannot create an unclassified position.
In my mind, these should have been unclassified to begin with, but we just procedurally could not do that. The Millennium Scholarship Director is not one of these people. They would stay where they are. Again, it would be the College Savings person in Carson City, and the Prepaid Tuition person who is in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas position has gotten new duties. This Committee allowed the transfer of unclaimed property to the State Treasurer’s Office. We have half of our office now in the Sawyer Building [in Las Vegas], but we really don’t have a manager of the office. This person would also serve, far beyond prepaid tuition and all of the other things we do down there, almost as a southern office manager. That person is essentially doing that today. That’s how we got into the situation.
In terms of the organizational chart, I’m proud that you have been carrying that chart around for these couple of months. A lot of people who make those things are delighted that someone actually kept that. That’s where the office has been. I came to tell you what we do. This legislation is about where we are going. I don’t assume anything. We didn’t have senior deputies presented in that older chart because they didn’t exist. That is up to you to create. If it is important to draw a picture, I hope my poetry has done that. If you need anything else, I am happy to provide it. I just don’t know how else to answer that question.
Assemblyman Williams:
We talked a little about the organizational chart last week with your staff, the one that was presented at the beginning of the session.
Brian Krolicki:
So, if I happen to have a chart with me, that would make you happy?
Assemblyman Williams:
No. It would give us more of an idea of what is going on here. They said that what could happen was that a new organizational chart could be designed that would show what would happen when these new positions are appointed, if they happen, and where they would go. Quite frankly, the gentleman who testified said he was a little surprised and baffled why this wasn’t done and presented along with the State Treasurer’s budget. Typically, these types of positions, or to seek these positions and make these moves, are usually done when the budget is presented. The question was raised by a few Committee members why it was not done in this process. Nobody really knew.
Brian Krolicki:
We do have, in our budget, the proposals for these positions. There is another process that is going on. In the legislative matters, I am not the most expert. I have been, in my office, aware of situations where we had somebody in an unclassified pay bill, but in Chapter 226, the core of the Treasurer’s duties, those corresponding positions didn’t exist poetically, if you will. There has been conflict. My effort here was essentially to be consistent with what we hope will be in the budget.
Assemblyman Williams:
The Treasurer’s budget is still open in the Finance Committee?
Brian Krolicki:
I have seven budgets, and not all of them are closed. That’s correct. But, one of these positions is in one of those budgets that was closed. There is a budget that is closed, whatever that means. When is closed, closed? That covers this, and I expect that position to show up in the unclassified pay bill.
Assemblyman Williams:
The question of when a budget is closed is a good one. Mr. Arberry says that they are never really closed; they can always be reopened. It would probably give us a little more comfort, at least a few of us, to allow this proposal to also be presented to the budget committees, because the question about that could not be answered the other day. As a matter of fact, the staff kept saying, “We don’t know why this has not been presented to the budget committees.”
Brian Krolicki:
It has been presented to the budget committees.
Assemblyman Williams:
The concept of these promotions and changes?
Brian Krolicki:
Absolutely. The Senate budgets are completely closed that include these two positions as unclassified. We have eliminated five positions in total through our seven different budgets. Five positions have been eliminated; two of those correspond, however, to these positions, which we are creating. We are losing five but gaining two. It has been closed in the Senate budgets and one of the two positions has been closed in Ways and Means. I have a correspondence pile, I don’t have copies, and these are memos to Ways and Means that talk specifically about these positions. We have been asked by Ways and Means multiple times for additional materials on various things, including these positions. I think we have been incredibly responsive, given them strong answers, and the Vice Chairman of Ways and Means made the motion to approve these two positions. I don’t want to speak for the Vice Chairwoman, but that is not an issue, as far as I know, as to why parts of my budgets are not closed.
Assemblyman Williams:
For me, when you serve nine terms here, you create a lot of baggage, and it gets tougher and tougher to explain to my constituents a lot of things. I always say I have more baggage than McCarran Airport. It is real tough to explain, sometimes, things that we do to my constituents. I would feel more comfortable to move on the bill and rerefer to Ways and Means to allow them to rubberstamp what they already supposedly know. If the vote happens, I can justify my vote to my constituents. I always have to explain my votes when I go back to my district, especially when it comes to money, when we say we don’t have any money.
Brian Krolicki:
I respect very much what I just heard. I don’t disagree. We are there anyway, if it makes people more comfortable [to send the bill back to Ways and Means]. Just remember, this is not General Fund money. The college-savings senior deputy position that is generated from there is through contracts and fees we are earning in other states when we sell college-savings programs. When Vanguard sells a contract in New York, we get a fee. That’s how we pay for it.
[Brian Krolicki continues.] The prepaid tuition position, which will grow into this, we hope, is generated from people who participate in the prepaid college tuition program. This is not General Fund money. I have been very proud that we have been able to generate programs with no funding whatsoever. Certainly, the pleasure of this Committee, I suspect I’ll be in Ways and Means until June 2 or 3 anyway, but I just hope this is something that you are comfortable with. I think you should be. It’s fair to these people; it’s fair to the office.
Assemblyman Williams:
I just remember when the prepaid tuition bill came to this Committee, and we were debating having a hearing on it, and Treasurer Seale came in to make the presentation. I remember when Assemblyman Pete Ernaut stood up and put the first money into the college prepaid tuition program. I remember the joy and the light that his face showed; I still remember that. It is not just the fact that it is not General Fund dollars; there are human resources in this state that we want to protect as well. We want to make sure that the program is around so that he can make that last payment. This is something that we have to be very calculated about, because, if we don’t do the right thing in this, we would find it hard to explain.
Brian Krolicki:
As much as I appreciate the look on Peter Ernaut’s face, we have made big business on his growing his family very well and at a steady pace. I have three little girls at home who are all prepaid participants. This program is the heart and soul of my educational program initiatives. I’m not going to do anything in my estimation that would put this in harm’s way. I think this enhances it, I think it is fair, and I urge this Committee’s passage of S.B. 446.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I appreciate the comments. I feel comfortable with the bill as it is, especially with the reassurances that the State Treasurer has given us. Looking at the five positions taken away and the two added and not using General Fund money, I would feel comfortable with this Committee adopting this bill knowing that it has to get through Ways and Means as well. I think that is reasonable, and I think, as you have said, Mr. Krolicki, that is where it is going anyway.
Chairman Manendo:
This bill is not concurrently referred right now. It is not exempt. We would have to get an exemption on it if it would go there. Seeing no further need for questions, is there anything else you would like to talk with us about? You are more than welcome to do so.
Assemblyman Williams:
We still need the pictures of the proposed flow chart. I didn’t get it.
Brian Krolicki:
You have it (Exhibit C).
Assemblyman Williams:
Is this the new one?
Brian Krolicki:
That’s the new one. Does that make you reconsider?
Assemblyman Williams:
I will study this tonight.
Chairman Manendo:
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on Senate Bill 446? Seeing none, I will close the hearing on S.B. 446. I am opening the hearing on S.B. 143.
Mr. Musgrove, what are you doing in Las Vegas?
Dan Musgrove, Director, Office of Clark County Manager, Las Vegas:
There has been a death in my family, and I have to attend a funeral today. I appreciate both your indulgence and Eric’s (Eric Anderlohr, Committee Manager) in making this videoconference happen this morning. I appreciate it.
Chairman Manendo:
Our Committee Manager is awesome. I am sorry about the loss of your family member.
Senate Bill 143 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing public administrators. (BDR 20-419)
Dan Musgrove:
If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman? [The Chair responds affirmatively.] S.B. 143 is a bill that was introduced on behalf of Clark County. In its original form, the bill authorized counties to appoint a public property trustee to perform the duties that would otherwise have been performed by the public administrator of the county. Clark County brought this bill forward in the belief that the functions of the public administrator were better served by an appointed, rather than an elected, officer. That was based on the following:
[Mr. Musgrove continues his testimony.] What we believe are the fiduciary requirements of this office seem to demand that the person holding that office have a basic understanding of probate law. As an elected official, there’s no guarantee that the person will have knowledge of the probate law or fiduciary experience of any type at all.
Because of the value of these estate properties that are under the protection and management of the public administrator, an adequate audit mechanism needs to be in place to ensure that there is no misuse or neglect of estate assets and funds.
I will be very honest with you. This is not a simple bill. It is a two-page bill, but it is not simple. There are two very distinct issues that will be discussed today. I think there will probably be some very different opinions on how this Committee feels about those. The S.B. 143 that you see before you today, in the first reprint, takes a different approach with respect to the office of the public administrator. One allows the office to continue to be an elected position, while addressing some of the concerns that Clark County had, as well as the Senate had, with respect to the qualifications and accountability for this office.
The amendment that was proposed on the Senate side and adopted, maintains the Office of the Public Administrator as an elected official but strengthens two things, the existing statutory language on audits, which is very, very important to us, and it also establishes some minimal qualifications for the office in counties of 100,000 population or more. Again, concentrate on two issues, if you can: the audit portion of the bill, which is Section 1, and the qualifications portion of the bill, which is Section 2.
With respect to the audit and accountability, NRS 244.200 currently provides that the Board of County Commissioners has the power and jurisdiction to examine and audit the fees or compensation that is received by a public administrator. The statute is silent, however, on the accountability for the actual money and property that had been entrusted to the care of the public administrator.
[Mr. Musgrove continues.] To date, in Clark County, in the current fiscal year, the public administrator is managing approximately 734 cases. Of that number, 484 of those are still open and currently being worked on by staff. The assets in those cases approximate $14.2 million worth of assets. Those assets include cash, stocks, bonds, real property, jewelry, vehicles, et cetera. Of that $14.2 million, the checking account is currently averaging a balance of $1.3 million; the investment account is averaging $5.5 million. It is interesting that the Treasurer of the State of Nevada was here today discussing his office. I will get to some points later about the similarities and the uniqueness of the public administrator that is totally different than the Treasurer’s Office.
With the amount of assets that are handled by the public administrator’s office, and with the significant portion of it being cash, and I stress to you “cash,” it only seems reasonable that there should be some accountability. Therefore, Senate Bill 143, in Section 1, amends NRS 244.200 to authorize the Board of County Commissioners to examine and audit the money and property entrusted to the care of the public administrator.
I have to be a realist and understand the reticence of an elected body to post qualifications on another elected office. As I begin to talk about the qualifications in the next section, I want you to maintain a focus on the audit provisions and how important I think that portion of the bill is and needed.
With respect to qualifications, Senate Bill 143 establishes minimum qualifications on public administrators. I want you to understand that these qualifications will only apply to public administrators in counties of 100,000 or more and who are appointed or elected after July 1, 2003. It does not affect anybody who’s currently in office. Those qualifications are as follows:
[Dan Musgrove continues to speak on Senate Bill 143.] These minimum qualifications are intended to ensure that the public administrator has the education and experience necessary to handle these millions of dollars of assets that flow into the office on a yearly basis.
If you, as an individual, walk into a law office, a bank, a brokerage firm, you expect that the person who is going to manage your assets or your estate has the necessary education or experience. A person whose estate is handled by the public administrator’s office should be entitled to that same type of qualified service.
A person who goes to vote for the public administrator should not have to determine whether the candidates are qualified for the office. In 2002, in Clark County, six individuals were on the ballot for the office in the Republican primary, and four individuals were on the ballot for the office in the Democratic primary. The voters should be able to vote his ballot with the knowledge that all of the candidates meet the minimum qualifications, leaving their only decision that of who is the best-qualified candidate.
I understand your reservations about an elected body putting qualifications on another elected office. You, as legislators, have a unique responsibility. You come to your jobs with the wealth of experience you have had in your daily lives to set policy for this state. The public administrator is not in a policy-making position. She or he has an administrative function. It is unique, unlike any other state-elected office except, perhaps, the Treasurer. I think it is even more unique than the position of Treasurer, because the Treasurer has many, many people who are very involved in both the collection of the funds and the spending of that money. As a legislative body, you had Mr. Krolicki before you today asking him questions about the functions of his office. We don’t have the same rights with the public administrator. There is not any accountability that is present other than the electors who make a decision every four years.
We have been very lucky in Clark County as we have a very qualified candidate right now, Daniel Ahlstrom, and we had a very qualified individual in Jared Shafer who served in the office since the early 1980s. I will be honest, though, previous to that, the public administrator was indicted and taken out of office because of misappropriation of funds.
[Mr. Musgrove continues.] I keep thinking about the little boy in the movie, “The Sixth Sense,” who said he saw dead people. Perhaps I’m stretching a little bit, but who speaks for the dead people? Who speaks for those dead people whose estates the public administrator has his hands on? It’s very unique and special, and I think the situation deserves some unique and special consideration.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Dan, you and I have already had this conversation, but I am going to rehash it for my Committee. First of all, did you just insinuate, because you have a college education, you would have greater ethics than those who did not?
Dan Musgrove:
Absolutely not, Assemblyman McCleary, absolutely not. As you will notice, one of the qualifications in this job position allows for work experience rather than a college education. I think that is the key. We are looking for people with experience in dealing with this unique kind of position, dealing with estates, and probate, and fiduciary responsibilities. Unlike the legislative elected body that you serve on that deals with matters of importance for all of the citizens of the state, this position is very unique in what it does. It handles the money of people who don’t have a voice for themselves. Because of that, we think there should be some accountability.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I don’t disagree with some of what you say. I think there certainly should be audit authority for the county commissions to make sure funds are distributed properly and that we don’t get into any problems with that. As far as the qualifications issue, the person who is smart enough to get elected is smart enough to do that. I trust the people, and I am not going to set a precedent here where we start putting educational requirements on elected officials, because it will start with that position, it will move up all the way to the Governor, and who knows where it would go from there. I don’t believe in that. We have had many Presidents of the United States that did not have college educations. We have had unknown numbers of people who have served in Congress and in other state and local government positions. I do not want to exclude anybody from public service who has that fire in his or her belly to do so. I will support Section 1 of this bill, but I will not support the qualifications part, Section 2.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I do have a question. I know there were bills to make the public administrator and the recorder positions nonelected but make them appointed. I’m trying to figure out where S.B. 143 came from. Is this because that bill didn’t go through?
Dan Musgrove:
Assemblyman Atkinson, S.B. 143 was the bill that was the vehicle for making the public administrator an appointed position. This bill had nothing to do with the recorder’s office; it was strictly aimed at the public administrator, and the former public administrator, Jared Shafer, who could not be here today, testified in favor of the bill on the Senate side. He actually is a very strident advocate as to the importance of this job being appointed. The Senate side had some of the same concerns expressed by Mr. McCleary, very eloquently, and I appreciate his point of view. This bill is an amended version to tackle some of the same issues that we had concerns about. The individual has the responsibility of being the public administrator, and there should be either work experience, there should be some education, there should be some lack of criminal behavior that gives the voters the opportunity to pick the most qualified individual in this very specific and unique job position.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
Listening to Assemblyman McCleary speak earlier, I agree with him. First of all, I agree that this position probably should be appointed. The county manager should be appointed. Second, when you start putting requirements on elected positions, I just don’t think that that is right. As Mr. McCleary stated, where does it end? It’s the public administrator today; next session, we will be targeted or what have you. Earlier in this session, we were talking about the same thing for sheriffs; we didn’t agree with it then, and I can’t agree with it now. I do believe it should be an appointed position, because I do believe what you said about the position requiring accounting background, finance, business, and it does need those things. I am not sure how we got that by putting on the requirements for elections. The people decide that when they vote for the individual of their choosing.
Assemblyman Knecht:
What they said, Mr. Chairman.
Assemblyman Grady:
My concern is along the lines of my two colleagues from southern Nevada. As I look at the action by the Senate, and this is a southern Nevada issue, out of nine “no” votes, seven of them were cast “No” by members of the Senate from southern Nevada. Was this along the same lines as we are discussing here, because of the unique qualifications that you are asking us to put on? As Mr. Atkinson said, we did not accept a similar request for sheriffs, so how can you convince us that that one was not good, but this one is?
Dan Musgrove:
Yes. The same reservations being voiced here this morning were voiced by individuals on the Senate side. There is a great reticence to eliminate elected offices, although the state has seen a history of that. The mining inspector used to be an elected official years ago. Sometimes we get entrenched in a thought process; we are assuming that, because an office is elected, it should stay elected. That’s why we brought Senate Bill 143, in its original form, to debate the issue as to whether this is a policy-making position or whether it was administrative in nature. That issue did not gain support.
They did acknowledge that there is a great deal of uniqueness to this job position. There is a great deal of experience needed. The voters may or may not have the knowledge to make the best decision. But, I would never, ever fault our elected process, because, as Senator Care said on the Floor, we have the right to choose a fool or a crook. I agree with him. That’s the voters’ decision. Voters need to make the best decisions on their own to investigate who the candidates are.
What we had hoped to do was to at least set a minimum level to say, “If you are going to do the public administrator job, you will have $14 million of assets in your pocket at any given time. Jared Shafer, the former public administrator said that, on any given day, he could have written himself a check for $1 million and been gone to Tahiti in an hour. That is a scary proposition.
The audit (in Section 1 of Senate Bill 143) is absolutely essential, and I appreciate Mr. McCleary’s comments that he would support that. I hope the rest of the Committee does the same. In dealing with those qualifications, I think I have tried to make the case; I think that you, as an elected body, would have the ability to stop the flow. If the office of the public administrator is a position that you agree should be appointed, or should have qualifications, that’s the decision of the 63 members of this body. If you decide that judges need to be lawyers or to have passed the bar, that is a decision that the Legislature makes. If you decide that the Treasurer needs to be a CPA (Certified Public Accountant), then you would make that decision. I can’t ever imagine that you, as an elected body, would pass something on yourselves that you wouldn’t agree with. It is something the Committee has to debate and decide on your own. I appreciate the opportunity to lay our case before you.
Assemblyman Christensen:
There are a few things said here this morning that I wanted to comment on. I will throw out some of my stream of consciousness to the Committee. I am kind of in and out on this. I agree with part of what Mr. McCleary said. There have been great presidents who didn’t have advanced degrees and were great in their work. I understand and respect that point of view. At the same time, I work with a lot of professionals in the capacity that deals somewhat directly with this in estate planning, especially if it is a very significant estate. Those who have more formalized training are able to execute plans better.
[Assemblyman Christensen continues.] I have to admit that it wasn’t until I was campaigning, a year or more ago, that I even knew what the administrator was. I had no idea. I guarantee that there aren’t many people out there who do know. When they are going to vote for this person, whom I have come to understand plays a very significant role in an estate, a person who is an administrator, I do think it should be an appointed position. I met with the State Engineer this morning. That guy understands water, water law, allotments, and many other things. If that position was placed on a ballot as an elected position, and it turned into a popularity contest, I couldn’t imagine what would happen to the state’s water. It requires someone with those skills and acumen that has been appointed to carry out that very important responsibility. You and I have talked about this, Mr. Musgrove. Obviously we will be talking about this as a Committee.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I have a question about qualifications. In subparagraph (e) of S.B. 143, you have the numbers 1 through 4. Listening to your testimony, I got the impression that there is an “or” missing. How many of these did you intend to have an “or” after?
Dan Musgrove:
Beginning on line 13, “possess,” each one of those are separate and distinct. If you look on line 23, that “or” at the bottom makes all of those an “or.” That is what the bill drafters did to make each one separate and distinct. That’s just the way they wrote it. The intent is, obviously, that you can either have one, or you could have two, or you could have three, or you can have four of those qualifications. It is not accumulative. They are separate and distinct.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I wanted to know, because it sounds like there is some appetite for making the position an appointed one, is it too late to do that?
Chairman Manendo:
It is almost never too late to do certain things, but I don’t think the Chair would entertain that motion. But, we are always open for discussion. I could be convinced.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I agree with my colleague from District 17 (Mr. Atkinson). I think it should be appointed. I actually look at this and don’t understand why it is not a civil service position. I would be interested in making it an appointed position.
Assemblyman Hardy:
In view of my profession, I would encourage my colleagues not to hold their breaths because I do not want to do any CPR. I would ask Mr. Musgrove to clarify his prior answer. On line 13, it says “possess,” so, after number one, it would be “either,” after number two, it would be “either,” after number three, it would be “or.” So, the person could have a Bachelor’s degree in accounting, finance, business, or public administration, and not have to have a law degree. Is that correct?
Dan Musgrove:
Again, yes. A person could have a bachelor’s degree and nothing else. Or, she or he could have the law degree, and obviously would have gotten a bachelor’s degree to get the law degree, or, absent of any of those, if she or he had three years of full-time work experience, which would go to Mr. McCleary’s question as to a college degree, that person could have a high school education, but have worked in this capacity dealing with wills, trusts, and estates, and be qualified to serve.
Assemblyman Hardy:
So someone with full-time work experience would qualify for this including, in subsection 3, someone who is currently a public administrator, as that would be “full-time,” and she or he would have already been an elected or an appointed administrator. Senate Bill 143 would allow that to be counted as that full-time experience?
Dan Musgrove:
Absolutely. An elected administrator would certainly qualify, as she or he would have been elected for a four-year term. That would meet or exceed the qualifications. It is interesting to note, if you look on line 27 on page 4, in the smaller counties, they require that the district attorney serve as the ex officio public administrator. That person would have a law degree and would be able to handle this position.
Assemblyman Hardy:
The wording may have given us a bit of a turn in that any one of those five things could qualify somebody for this service without mandating a degree of any kind.
Dan Musgrove:
Correct. The provisions under subsection 3, lines 6 through12, are mandates. But, in lines 14 through 26, it is one or more of the following, not a combination of.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I will follow up on lines 4 through 12. The requirements that would thus be mandated are not currently in statute such as “21 years of age,” such as “no felony,” such as “no civil action.” Those portions of the bill, regardless of what else we feel, we would probably have a certain comfort level in accepting those kinds of qualifications for office for anything that requires writing checks and being auditable while doing it.
Dan Musgrove:
I would agree with you. Of any of the qualifications for the office, those certainly would not give either committee in the Senate or Assembly heartburn. I think that you have shown that, in the sheriff’s office, you felt that a candidate for sheriff had to be 21 years of age. I think that you want to make sure that these people haven’t been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. Those are all admirable qualities that the public administrator should have.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I look at this as inclusive of qualifications, but not exclusive of someone who may be experienced but may lack a particular degree. The experience would weigh in for that person to be electable or appointable, the way I read the bill.
Chairman Manendo:
I certainly understand where the 21 years of age came into play. A sheriff or constable might need to go into a bar but couldn’t enter to do the arrest because she or he was underage. But, the qualification to be 21 years old in Senate Bill 143 concerns me. Why here? Can you give us an idea about that? Why not 30 years of age?
Dan Musgrove:
Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an answer for that. I think that was something that was kind of grabbed upon by the Senate. They thought it was an appropriate legal age. We don’t have heartburn on it either way. I think we are more concerned about some of the other provisions of the bill.
I appreciate the comments that have been made by the Committee members. I think that I understand your concerns over implementing qualifications on this particular office. As I testified, this office, more than any other, is unique in the state. Everyone else that you have talked about has checks and balances.
[Mr. Musgrove continues.] One legislator has 62 other checks and balances as to the decisions or policies that she or he might try to pass on to the citizens of this state. With the sheriff, you have the court system. If he arrests someone who should not have been arrested, the court will make that decision and release the individual. I think you have judges who, although they have some qualifications, have different divisions to look at their decisions and make a check and balance as to their making proper decisions.
This office, unlike any other office we have, doesn’t have a check and balance system in place other than the electors every four years. There is a lot of misuse and abuse that could happen within those four years.
I want to leave the Committee with those thoughts, and to let you know that I appreciate all that you have talked about and the good will that you have extended regarding my family’s situation. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
I’m sorry. We do have another question.
Assemblyman Collins:
Mr. Musgrove, you said that there is no system of checks and balances. I am just curious about the public administrator in Clark County, Dan Ahlstrom. When he does things like probate, he gets those approved through the District Attorney’s Office, I think. The oversight is done by Dawn Ashworth who is a Commissioner who oversees the area that the public administrator directs. Is that correct?
Dan Musgrove:
It is correct, but my point is that the public administrator already has control over the assets. If someone has died and the coroner says that there is no next of kin, the public administrator goes in and takes all of the property, all of his assets, and now has control over them. Until the public administrator decides to take all of that to the Probate Commissioner, he has complete control over those assets. If a piece of property was a Ferrari, he could drive it away today and be gone tomorrow. Those are “worst case” scenarios, obviously, and we have had excellent, excellent candidates and excellent people who have recently filled the office, but they have a lot of “unaccountability” before it ever goes to a Probate Commissioner or to an audit function.
Assemblyman Collins:
We have a staff employee of Clark County who has the keys to a Chevrolet or a fire truck that can just drive away, too.
Dan Musgrove:
That individual is appointed, not elected.
Chairman Manendo:
Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Musgrove. Is there anyone else speaking in favor of Senate Bill 143? Opposition? Mr. Yochum?
Merritt K. Yochum, Independent American Party:
I am here to express our opposition to this bill. In view of Assemblyman McCleary’s comments, he has already made my case. There is no point in my reiterating what has been said here, as well as some of the other comments of the other Committee members.
As we are all aware, the Attorney General is not required to be a lawyer. The district attorneys are not required to be lawyers, and, sometimes, even judges are not required to be lawyers. The Governor doesn’t have to be, either. If you want to make some qualifications, I think maybe you ought to think about qualifications of the voters. I think that would be more important than these restrictive provisions here. It kind of looks to me like this might be a lawyers’ full employment program. In view of what the Committee members have already said, there’s no point in me repeating that. I just want to let you know that the Independent American Party opposes the bill as well.
Thank you. Any questions? Is there anyone else testifying on the bill? Seeing none, I will close the hearing on Senate Bill 143.
Committee, Senate Bill 359 was a bill sponsored by Senator Titus. David Howard talked with Senator Titus about changing the effective date in S.B. 359. Senator Titus had no problem with the suggested amendment, and the Senate Government Affairs Committee discussed Mr. Griffin’s bill on the same topic, Assembly Bill 408. The Chair of the Senate Government Affairs Committee agreed that they would proceed with just S.B. 359 and add Mr. Griffin’s and Mr. Hettrick’s names to the bill and not process A. B. 408. I have requested a Floor amendment and have received that today. I just wanted to give the Committee a little heads-up since it came out of this Committee. We will be changing the effective date to Senate Bill 359 and adding some names as sponsors of the bill.
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Senate Bill 354. The work session on S.B. 354 is now open.
Senate Bill 354 (1st Reprint): Requires certain subdividers of land to dedicate easements to certain public utilities and franchised community antenna television companies under certain circumstances. (BDR 22-598)
Susan Scholley, Research Analyst, Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Senate Bill 354, in its first reprint, was sponsored by the Senate Committee on Transportation, and heard in this Committee on May 1.
Senate Bill 354 requires a final subdivision map to include any roads or easements of access that the owner of the lot intends to offer for dedication. The map must also show existing or proposed easements for public utilities within the subdivision as well as any easements for community antenna television within the franchise area of a community antenna television company. Further, the measure requires the final map to contain a certificate signed by the landowner granting any permanent easement for the installation of community antenna television cable, along with a statement approving such easement signed by the television company. Finally, Senate Bill 354 also provides that tentative and final subdivision maps must show any easement for community antenna television with the franchise area of a community antenna television company.
Clarifying amendments were proposed by Cox Communications and the Nevada State Cable Telecommunications Association. A mock-up of the proposed amendments is attached (Exhibit D). There was no opposition to the bill, and there is no fiscal impact of the bill.
Turning to the mock-up, on page 1, because the bill now requires certain easements to be granted and shown on the maps, it was felt appropriate to add some clarification that there may be instances in which the subdivision proponent may be excused from providing such easements if they can show that there is not an essential nexus to the public purpose for the dedication, and the dedication is not roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.
If this language sounds familiar to you, it is similar to the language in Dolan v. City of Tigard, the U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the standard to be used in determining the legality of exactions or land dedications.
[Ms. Scholley continues.] On page 2 of the bill, at the bottom of the page, there is again some clarifying language very similar to the language that was in the bill earlier but attempting to make it more clear as to what will be shown on the map and what is required. There are parallel changes on page 4, lines 27 through 33, and on page 5, lines 39 through 45.
The amendments have been reviewed by the persons who proposed them, and, of course, they were drafted by our Legal Division. With that, Ms. O’Grady, Legal Counsel, or I would be happy to answer any questions.
Assemblyman Hardy:
That was a great discussion, and I’m just wondering about, on page 1 of the mock-up, if Ms. Scholley would help those of us who are challenged with words. Please define an “essential nexus.”
Susan Scholley:
As opposed to an “unessential nexus?”
Assemblyman Hardy:
A nexus in whatever context.
Susan Scholley:
Essential nexus is a little bit of a term of art used in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dolan v. City of Tigard. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s wisdom, it defines the legal standard for such dedications. Nexus is “some connection” and “essential” would be something that would be needed. It is a “needed connection.” Beyond that, I would commend the reading of the decision, if you would like further edification on that issue.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I will trust our Legal staff. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Questions, Committee?
Assemblyman Hardy:
When and if you are ready to accept a motion?
Chairman Manendo:
I am.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 354.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins:
I just want to ask for a legal interpretation. Making sure that they are included doesn’t hold up the job for them to get their material in. They have to get there and do it on their own. Just make sure that intent is stated as that has been a problem in some projects, not just the cable, but also somebody.
Chairman Manendo:
I will place the question of Amend and Do Pass.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The motion carries. Mr. Hardy will carry this to the Floor.
Committee, let’s turn to Senate Bill 446 again.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I have a comment about this bill before we move it. I think that the folks who presented this to us were a little disingenuous by telling us that these people were being promoted when, in actual fact, they can work 16 to 18 hours and not be paid any overtime pay.
Assemblyman Williams:
Along those same lines, the deputy treasurer and those positions are defined in statute. These are really not defined in statute at this point. That is probably why the bill was sent here instead of going to the budget committees. I am very uncomfortable with that. Here again, if the budget committees don’t have a chance to review these, I can’t support it. There is something real eerie about it. Even the guy who testified on it last week said that they were also somewhat baffled why the bill wasn’t included in the budget hearings for the treasurer. It never happened that way in the past. They were a little bit confused as to why it happened this way. There are just some things out there that don’t add up. I just can’t get comfortable with it.
Chairman Manendo:
Is that a motion to Do Pass and Rerefer?
Assemblyman Williams:
I agree with Mrs. Koivisto. Do Pass Without Recommendation and Rerefer. How can you really feel comfortable recommending something that seems empty?
Chairman Manendo:
Then it is not a Do Pass. Is it a No Recommendation and Rerefer? Is that your motion? I’ll accept the motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED REREFER WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Being in an unclassified state position, I have, in fact, worked 16 or 18 hours a day at times when there was a deadline. I never felt the worse for it and never regretted it. It comes with having the professional responsibility, and I don’t see that as a problem for these positions either.
Assemblyman Grady:
I am a little nervous passing something out without a recommendation like this. With my colleague who is the Chair of Education Committee, Mr. Williams, I would like to see Senate Bill 446 moved. I will, reluctantly, support his motion.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I was just wondering if the Vice Chairman, Mr. Williams, could just say really quickly, in capsule form, what it is that he is proposing.
Assemblyman Williams:
Because of my concerns with it, that is the reason that I made the motion Without Recommendation. There appears to be some interest in exploring the bill further, which is why I would not move to kill it or anything like that. Because the presenters of the bill couldn’t explain why it was not sent to the budget committee and presented to us in a very extraordinary way, a nontraditional way, that sort of waved a red flag. If, in fact, the budget committees look at it and don’t find anything inappropriate, then so be it. Because, normally, these types of things are presented in a bill to the finance committees and budget committees and this one wasn’t, I would just feel safer letting them look at it. If they look at it and everything is fine, they will move it out.
Assemblyman Christensen:
So this is a motion that says we approve it, and we want to rerefer it?
Assemblyman Williams:
We are not approving it; it is being sent on without a recommendation.
Assemblyman Christensen:
We are just sending it over to them.
Assemblyman Williams:
They could easily send it back to us, after they look at it and give their analysis.
Assemblyman Christensen:
Then, I support that. There were a couple of things that were a little bit “out there.” If we are going to send it over to them, they can look at it there.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Mr. Chair, thank you. Does that make this, then, a bill that would be considered exempt? [The Chair responds with, “No.”] If it is not exempt and Ways and Means doesn’t move it out Friday, it dies?
Chairman Manendo:
Right. It is not automatically exempt if it goes to Ways and Means. They would have to have an exemption placed on it.
Assemblyman Hardy:
So my question would be, do we have it, within our power, or do we even want to exercise that power, to make it exempt?
Chairman Manendo:
Fiscal has to do that.
Assemblyman Collins:
They can look at it as soon as they get it. If we send it out of here, the staff carries it over there, the analysts will say this does or doesn’t meet “exemption,” so we need to hear it before Friday. Or, they could give it back to us. There are a lot of options.
Assemblyman Christensen:
That was a good question by my colleague from Boulder City, Assemblyman Hardy; I guess I assumed that, if we sent it over there to Ways and Means, given our time line, it would be exempt. If we approve this motion today, then we can somewhat quickly get a response from Fiscal?
Chairman Manendo:
As soon as Ways and Means obtains the bill, their staff will look at the bill immediately, generally they do and I don’t see why they wouldn’t in this case as we aren’t referring many bills to anyone right now, and they can automatically place an exemption on it. Or, they might still have time to hear it. I am not sure where they are in their budgets. Or, they could send it right back to us.
I will place the question of No Recommendation; Rerefer to Ways and Means.
THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
Does anyone have anything else to bring to the Committee? We meet at 8 a.m. tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned [at 10:14 a.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Nancy Haywood
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: