MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session February 28, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:35 p.m., on Tuesday, February 28, 1995, Chairman Close presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack D. Close, Chairman Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41 Justice Bob Rose, Nevada Supreme Court STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Howard Barrett/Research Director, Nevada Taxpayers Association Mr. David Howard/Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Mr. Eric Cooper/Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Ms. Barbara Talley/Citizen, Las Vegas (testified via audio) ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 7 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly for 68th legislative session to establish waiting period for voting on general appropriation bill. Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41, sponsor of A.C.R. 7, explained the genesis of A.C.R. 7. He thought legislators needed a brief period after the bill was introduced to study legislation before voting. He gave a history of prior legislation being introduced where little time was given before a vote was taken. The General Appropriation Bill was from the Assembly and was primarily the bill which spent general fund money, he explained. The General Appropriation Bill could be 15 to 20 pages long and was filled with numbers, he continued, adding legislators and the public needed an opportunity to examine the legislation. Assemblyman Spitler stated he would like A.C.R. 7 to read, "A period of at least three calendar days must elapse between the introduction of the general appropriation bill and a vote by its house of origin." The house of origin would be the Assembly, he explained. Chairman Close, at this time, asked for questions from the committee. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Spitler for confirmation that A.C.R. 7 allowed for amendments. She called attention to people discussing or taking hearings since 1991 on bills which did not exist. When constituents would call to speak with a legislator about a particular bill, no paper trail existed to send to the constituent. Continuing, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani queried if A.C.R. 7 did not pass in the Senate, and the Senate did not agree to amend the joint rules, did a back-up exist. If a back-up did exist, was it prepared to amend Assembly rules for the Assembly to be responsible for dealing with the Appropriations Bill. In responding to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's inquiry, Assemblyman Spitler said the concern could be addressed in an Assembly Resolution where the Assembly amended its own rules which existed only in the Assembly. He explained his reason for using a Concurrent Resolution was, if government was opened up, legislators had the responsibility from both the Senate perspective and the Assembly perspective. He preferred to attempt to move the legislation using an A.C.R. first. Should something happen in the other House to preclude the passage of A.C.R. 7, Assemblyman Spitler assured he would work immediately for an Assembly Resolution. The public was demanding openness in government and to fail to be responsive was negligent on the part of legislators, he asserted. Assemblywoman Evans discussed from her perspective the history of the General Appropriation Bill previously given by Assemblyman Spitler. She clarified Mr. Spitler's proposed amendment allowed the bill to be assessable to legislators, lobbyists, public interest groups and the public. She hoped the Senate would see the merit of the legislation. Assemblywoman Freeman conveyed she had often felt frustrated on the floor because time was not available for questions. She offered her support for A.C.R. 7. Responding to a question from Assemblyman Price, Assemblyman Spitler clarified he was proposing only three days for the House of origin which would be the Assembly. Chairman Close at this time spoke to Las Vegas, asking if anyone wished to testify via audio concerning A.C.R. 7. No one wished to testify on A.C.R. 7 from Las Vegas. Mr. Howard Barrett, Research Director for Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in favor of A.C.R. 7. He had covered all legislative sessions in several capacities since 1959 with the exception of 1985 and 1987, and, he added, the procedure had opened up regarding the General Appropriation Bill. In the 1960's and 1970's, the bill would be introduced, would pass and the legislature would adjourn, frequently in the same day, sometimes within hours, he cited. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Barrett said Nevada Taxpayers Association supported A.C.R. 7 because the Association believed the procedure could be and should be opened up to a greater extent to allow the public, legislators who were not on the finance committees, and state agencies involved to have an opportunity to see the bill in print and to be able to ask questions. Mr. David Howard, representing the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, was present and asked to go on record in support of A.C.R. 7. Mr. Eric Cooper, representing Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, asked to go on record in support of A.C.R. 7. Ms. Ande Engleman, representing Nevada Press Association, testified in favor of A.C.R. 7. In addition to legislators, she expressed A.C.R. 7 would give the press an opportunity to read the budget. She hoped all bills introduced at the end of the session would have three days from introduction to passage to allow everyone a chance to read the bills. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT A.C.R. 7. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN DINI WAS ABSENT). SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10 - Urges Supreme Court of Nevada to examine judicial accountability. Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, spoke on behalf of the Commission to Review the Compensation of Certain Elected Public Officers. He explained the nine- member Commission was an independent group formed after the Sixty-Seventh Session of the Nevada Legislature because of a legislative act. The Commission was asked to study the salaries of all elected officials and make reports to the Sixty-Eighth Session. Legislative Counsel Bureau was asked to be the staff for the independent Commission, and he was the lead staff on the study, Mr. Erickson explained. Mr. Erickson explained three bills resulted from the work of the Commission: S.B. 84, which dealt with legislative salaries and county officials' salaries; S.B. 16, which dealt with salaries of Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges; and S.C.R. 10, a side issue considered by the Commission, which was if recommendations of the Commission regarding salaries of the Court were to be approved, some members felt the Court should examine accountability within the system to ensure accountability was taking place, and as such, the Committee recommended this Resolution be drafted. Chairman Close recognized Justice Bob Rose of the Nevada Supreme Court. Justice Bob Rose, in his opening statement, told Committee he was the overall Chairman of the Urban Corps Workload Assessing Commission, studying courts in Washoe and Clark Counties, a joint effort by the legislature, the counties of Washoe and Clark, and the Nevada Supreme Court. The Commission felt strongly there should be no additional compensation for judges and that judges should be given relief from continually running in open elections. The Commission had also requested "the Nevada Plan." Justice Rose advised the Commission felt there should be substantial accountability on the part of the Judiciary. The Commission recommended, he continued, the Nevada Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission who would evaluate the judges periodically and specifically before any judge was up for election, and, he declared, the results would be made public. Justice Rose suggested other measures to increase judicial accountability. The measures were the keeping of more comprehensive statistics which would be uniform, statewide, and public. Statistics would permit court administrators, the public and those reporters covering the courts to look at statistics and see how hard a given court level was working, how the court was processing the work, and where the court could improve. A judge could be trying too many non-jury trials which could be an indication the judge should be attempting to settle cases in having more extensive pre-trial settlement conferences in order to bring people together in an arbitration settlement fashion as opposed to going to trial. A judge could not be having any trials which would be another indication of a different kind. Therefore, statistics would be helpful, he declared. The Commission recommended statewide statistics be kept and the Supreme Court insist they be kept, and the legislature provide the Supreme Court with the means to assure statistics were kept. Therefore, the Commission recommended a Division of Planning and Analysis be established at the Nevada Supreme Court. In the next few months, attorney discipline proceedings would be open once a probable cause hearing had been established. Supreme Court's administrative agenda docket had been opened to the public, he added, and, starting April 1, all administrative agenda docket matters would be open to the public. Justice Rose, continuing the discussion on judicial discipline, stated his position was that judicial discipline should be open once complaints were preliminarily screened to make sure the complaints were not frivolous or brought up for improper motives. Chairman Close referred to those states which had the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, and asked if those who sat on the Commission were judges, chief justices, appointees, or a mixture. Justice Rose, responding to Chairman Close, described the make-up of the Commission, as was stated by the Workload Assessment Commission, was more non-lawyers than lawyers. Assemblyman Humke asked if the Judicial Evaluation Commission was coupled to the change seeking to go to the modified Missouri Plan. Discussion ensued among Justice Rose, Assemblyman Humke and Assemblyman Price regarding the Missouri Plan and the Nevada Plan which required each judge must be in an open general, non-partisan election and thereafter, after having one full scale selection, would then revert to a retention only. Assemblyman Price stated the plans were not as unpolitical as presented, and continued with a discussion on open meetings. He asked Justice Rose if the courts would have a problem with having all of their meetings open for accountability. He pointed out to Justice Rose that his branch of government was still having some closed meetings. Justice Rose answered Assemblyman Price's question by explaining he did not know if there was a problem, but there was no great desire to open the meetings. After preliminary screenings, Justice Rose stated he favored opening of judicial discipline, and the court went as far as opening it up after a probable cause determination, and the administrative docket was opened, which was no easy chore in convincing the court to agree. But no appellate court, which Justice Rose knew about, opened its deliberations, its decision-making process, Justice Rose said, and added he would not be in favor. The hearing was a separate matter from the deliberation, and candid discussion of the case should be confidential and private in the judgement of Justice Rose. He felt appropriate steps had been taken to open up the process sufficiently to allow the public a much better idea of what the courts were doing and how they were doing it. Mr. Price emphasized if the people voted the meetings would be open, it would be legal and constitutional for those requirements to be imposed upon the court. Justice Rose agreed if the people voted as a Constitutional Amendment, the Court was obligated to follow the law even if the court felt the people were wrong and opening the meetings would do damage to the judicial process. Justice Rose concluded his testimony with a short discussion regarding running for office, campaign contributions, and campaign contributors who appeared before the Justices which gave an appearance of impropriety. Chairman Close, at this time, asked for testimony from Las Vegas. Ms. Barbara Tally, citizen, testified in favor of S.C.R. 10. She addressed committee via audio from Las Vegas concerning her experiences with the courts. See (Exhibit C). There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Jack D. Close, Chairman Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures February 28, 1995 Page