MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 7, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 7, 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 Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Vice Chairman (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Concerned Citizens Ms. Juanita Cox/People to Protect America Mr. Dennis Myers/Citizen Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Ms. Carol Vilardo/Nevada Taxpayers Association Ms. Nancy Howard/Nevada League of Cities Chairman Close opened the meeting by calling attention to a letter to the Legislative Commission from Chairmen Close and Giunchigliani as a result of the Elections and Procedures Committee Meeting of March 2nd. See (Exhibit C). Chairman Close asked committee to review (Exhibit D) submitted by Mr. Bob Erickson, Research Director, regarding the Motor Voter Law for possible future discussion. ASSEMBLY BILL 215 - Creates advisory committee on public access to legislative process and related communications. Assemblyman Bob Price, District 17, introduced Mr. Lorne Malkiewich who explained A.B. 215 which concerned relations with the media. The purpose of A.B. 215 was to create an advisory committee on public access and communications which would help Mr. Malkiewich to assist the legislature and the public. The advisory committee would facilitate access, he continued. Committee would have no authority to prove or deny anything. Mr. Malkiewich acknowledged he was a proponent of legislation which would allow the director to make public speeches, issue press releases and perform related duties without approval of the Legislative Commission. Legislative Counsel Bureau, he felt, should publicize the work of legislators on a day-to-day basis. The long-term goal was to improve the public's perception of the legislature and legislators. The people's perception of the legislature was formed from newspapers, television and radio, he conveyed. The press should know what legislature was doing in order to pass information on to the public. He further stated technological advances were growing at a fast pace and should be incorporated to allow committee meetings and floor sessions to be broadcast and people to testify by audio and video at all meetings. Mr. Malkiewich concluded his remarks by citing Subsection 8 was the substance of A.B. 215. Assemblywoman Freeman discussed her service on the subcommittee of the Legislative Commission which recommended A.B. 215. She questioned the fiscal note which Mr. Malkiewich said amounted to $4,000 to $5,000 per year and was for salaries, travel expenses and per diem expenses for members of the committee. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani called attention to page 2, line 1 of A.B. 215 and cited the technology board or similar group which handled telecommunications. Responding, Mr. Malkiewich acknowledged the legislature had a subcommittee on computer applications for the legislative process. The executive branch consolidated telecommunications functions within the Department of Information Services and the Committee/Commission on Information Services. Most of telecommunications for the state went through D.I.S. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she was in favor of having workshops with the press and more interaction with other legislators concerning issues in other committees in order to be informed, but she believed legislation was not needed for these actions. At this point, Assemblyman Price interjected A.B. 215 created a standing committee on access. The office of Director in past years was restrained from being a public access on behalf of the legislature. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked who restrained the Director. Mr. Malkiewich then acknowledged most of the restrictions had been taken away, but if he (Mr. Malkiewich) went too far, he could be making too much policy, and he preferred an advisory committee. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani understood Legislative Commission performed this function and did not understand why a law should be created for this purpose. She felt legislation and a committee was not needed for communication and, further, Mr. Malkiewich was not prohibited by the Legislative Commission from performing those actions. She suggested a plan of action from the Legislative Commission. Mr. Malkiewich believed no restrictions existed on his authority, but A.B. 215 would reflect the area was important enough for a permanent statutory committee. Chairman Close announced his agreement with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's comments and declared people had spoken in favor of reduced government. If problems existed with communication, resolution could come from a temporary committee as opposed to an ongoing committee. Assemblywoman Monaghan expressed legislature was a public body and access was an entitlement. She announced she would support A.B. 215 only if payment, compensation and travel were omitted; and if the committee was solely an advisory, voluntary committee. Assemblywoman Freeman felt media should be encouraged to come to the legislature to review and report to the public. She was not opposed to an advisory committee to assist Legislative Commission with the issue. Assemblyman Price responded to comments from Chairman Close and Assemblywoman Monaghan by discussing the constitution called for 63 Assemblymen and Senators. The number would remain the same, and when a number was selected to be a committee to explore better public assess and assist the public and media to better understand problems dealt with by the legislature, more government would not be created by the process. Mr. Price further discussed payment to the legislators for performance of duties and would consider if reimbursement was not given for performance of committee duties, a backward trend would be indicated. Assemblyman Dini questioned the reasoning for the name of the committee which was, "Committee on Public Access and Communications." Assemblyman Price responded sponsors of the bill were seeking a method to distribute information and allow citizens greater access to understanding work of the legislature and to improve how legislature could better relate to citizens. He then discussed telecommunications methods. Assemblyman Fettic referenced the successful experience of Carson City's Board of Supervisors televised meetings, and confirmed a continual focus was desired to keep the public interested. He felt A.B. 215 had merit. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani requested a fiscal note from Mr. Malkiewich due to the cost impact. She expressed agreement with Mrs. Monaghan, and asked the pertinent section be removed (lines 16 through 24). She suggested possible elimination of other committees if this committee was added so as not to add more government. She stressed her belief that public access was important. Chairman Giunchigliani proposed meeting weekly with the press to inform the press of key issues to be discussed in committees. She thought committee created ways not to communicate with each other and feared A.B. 215 could work in reverse rather than its intended solutions. Summarizing, she challenged committee to come forth with better ideas since government should not maintain a status quo method of operating. Assemblyman Price and Mr. Malkiewich discussed the fiscal note requested by Chairman Giunchigliani and Mr. Malkiewich related budget decisions would be made by the money committees. Further, he believed a fiscal note was prepared, and the general assumption was a five member committee with four meetings in the off- session year and three meetings in a session year which could be increased or decreased. The Commission budget could be passed as recommended without amendment, meaning one less meeting of interim studies which were formed. Ways and Means and Finance would make the decision when passing on the Commission's budget. Assemblyman Dini suggested hiring a Press Relations Secretary to publicize the legislature with the press instead of the committee suggested by A.B. 215. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought a budget could be prepared which would give various scenarios which committee could react to, but conveyed Ways and Means would still have to appropriate or at least know about a transfer of funds from one area to another. Assemblywoman Freeman stated she was not opposed to Mr. Dini's suggestion, but questioned how the suggestion would be embraced by the money committees. Assemblyman Dini remarked the budget could be re-opened. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to A.B. 215. She expressed a concern because a format was in place (the legislature), for determining "some of these things." If the legislation would not increase the Legislative Commission budget, and committee specified it was within Commission's budget, tax cost would probably not be increased. Ms. Lusk then discussed public access which she felt was far more important than media access. She thought a C-Span type approach would give the public a full understanding of the legislature's work. She contended no responsible reporter would rely on a press secretary for information when reporters could watch legislators directly and read the bills. Ms. Lusk made suggestions from a citizen perspective which were to schedule hearings giving sufficient time for citizens who were not paid lobbyists to arrange their work schedules, arrange for child care, and for airline or driving transportation to be able to attend legislature and testify before committees. She discussed scheduling and cancellation of meetings at the beginning of the 68th session was worse than she had ever seen. After meetings were scheduled and when people had made travel arrangements, taken time off from work and flown to Reno, then the meetings were rescheduled two or three days later when the people had to return home and could not be present at the legislature for the meeting. Ms. Lusk continued, advising committee once the hearing did take place, the importance of treating citizens with absolute courtesy was paramount. It was unjustified to treat citizens in a way which would intimidate them, making them afraid to speak their minds for fear they would be "stomped on." The importance of equal treatment to citizens on both sides of any issue was paramount, she asserted. She discussed examples of what she considered to be good and bad (for the public) committee hearings. She suggested legislators be available to citizens through local town hall meetings. She felt telecommunications method used from Carson City to Las Vegas was helpful, but not used to the degree they could be used. She discussed equal access to bill drafting for citizens and felt everybody should go through a legislator to submit bill draft requests. Presently local government agencies and everybody in government had the ability to submit bill draft requests directly to the bill drafters. Ms. Lusk also suggested the number of bill drafts be limited. She thought legislators had to do a better job of scheduling the number of bills to be heard. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani expressed the opinion that interim committees were too numerous and highlighted the concept was to divert legislation or bill draft requests to the legislature from cities and counties. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani further suggested legislators should review subcommittee meetings not being posted and skeleton bills. Too many committees were hearing legislation or concepts with nothing in print that a public person/citizen could access nor give them in writing. She told committee it was important that legislators rectify the problem. Referring to bill draft requests from county government, Assemblyman Dini stated he represented three counties and could receive 40 bill draft requests from county government. Formerly, outside bills were ordered through a legislator, he added, and thought the legislature had tried to improve but had incurred obstacles. Legislative salary and pensions were a controversial subject, he further commented. Assemblyman Dini acknowledged that people who served in legislature did so at a considerable hardship to themselves and to their families. Chairman Close stated many points Ms. Lusk had identified in her testimony were included in the rules of Elections and Procedures Committee. He then thanked Ms. Lusk for her testimony. Concluding her testimony, Ms. Lusk stated she had noted tremendous improvement in the 68th session in most cases in the way committees were run. People did recognize the great sacrifice made by individuals to serve, and she favored a legislator salary increase. Ms. Juanita Cox, representing herself, her family and the People to Protect America, testified in opposition to A.B. 215, saying the legislation was possibly too expensive and another layer of government. She suggested to improve public information reduce Nelis cost, apply the open meeting law to the legislature, or post the meetings a week in advance. Reiterating, she suggested to stop canceling hearings. She discussed how chairmen handled their committees and suggested committees take testimony for the bill and then against the bill. People sitting in the audience should be able to hear both sides of the question, she said. Assemblyman Price addressed Ms. Cox that citizens voted on having the legislative meetings open which was different from the open meeting law. As of 1995 all meetings should be open. Rules of notification were five days, he added, and no meetings should be held without five days notice. He acknowledged canceling meetings was a problem. Legislative hearings on bills with less than five days notice should not be held. Assemblyman Allard discussed cancellation of meetings. He commented he was on four committees which often would get canceled or changed. Cancellation was not done on purpose. Many times the proponent of the bill could not be present to testify. Ms. Cox, responding to Assemblyman Allard, queried, "When you have hired a baby sitter and you live many miles from Carson, you have scheduled and re- scheduled and you come down here and the person that has initiated the bill is not present, like you say, yet the bill has been scheduled for a while, could you not let the public still speak about that bill and re-schedule it for the proponent of the bill or whomever because by canceling those meetings, you are absolutely canceling the public's input. They will not come again. That was my point." Mr. Dennis Myers, citizen, and Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, assumed the testimonial table. Mr. Myers spoke in opposition to A.B. 215. He began his testimony by reflecting on past experiences with television coverage of the Nevada State Legislature. Nine years ago one Las Vegas television station provided daily coverage of the legislature and two other Las Vegas stations provided partial coverage in Carson City. No Las Vegas stations covered the legislature on a daily basis and no Reno stations covered on a daily basis, he said. If the public did not know legislature was in session, they were not going to be interested in what was happening. He thought Assemblyman Dini's suggestion had merit, and he discussed past experiences working with publicists. He stated page 2, line 2 (c) was not in his view a problem. The Legislative Counsel Bureau had always been helpful to him. The chair recognized Mrs. Evans who complimented Channel 5 for its coverage of the legislature. Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 215 although she stated she was involved in the creation of the legislation because it evolved from an interim study in which she participated. The committee had wanted to set up a type of C-Span in Nevada for the legislature. C-Span, however, was not a government channel and was paid for by the cable industry which controlled programming. For government to either fund a news system or to order an industry to broadcast them across the state would be a violation of the First Amendment, and at the committee's request, Mr. Malkiewich researched and confirmed government could not be in the news business. To affect a C-Span type of program would take cooperation between the cable companies in Nevada and the legislature. The aforementioned was one aspect the committee could explore. The other aspect the standing committee could explore was the investigation of Internet. Nevada was one of the few states where the legislature was not on Internet, Ms. Engleman told committee. Public records among other things could be on the Internet. She complimented Mr. Malkiewich on increasing press coverage of Nevada's legislature. To send reporters to cover the legislature costs a great deal of money, and many times the public was not interested enough to read it. Marketing studies showed the public did not wish to hear about legislation until it affected their pocketbooks, Ms. Engleman said. The committee had also wanted to insure public access which Ms. Lusk and Ms. Cox had concerns about, she added. Ms. Engleman had sent a letter to both co-speakers expressing concerns with the agendas and with posting of meetings, she said. She expressed concern the press in the past had not had access to Nelis, and she did not know where there was a Nelis for the public to use. Regarding the position of a public information officer, the Capitol Bureau Press Corp had said they did not want a public information officer because they feared he/she would interfere with their access to legislators. They feel now they have good access to the legislators, she told committee. Chairman Close asked if Ms. Engleman supported the bill, and she answered she was supporting "something along these lines." Ms. Engleman commended Channel 5 and the cable association which was underwriting Channel 5 and the cable station coverage. Chairman Close at this time asked if it was realistic to obtain assistance from the press in the posting of meetings for the public. Responding, Ms. Engleman commended the newspapers in southern Nevada for posting the weekly schedule of the legislature, and then giving a daily update. Assemblyman Close stated press coverage was good during the two weeks in Las Vegas and asked if it could be continued. Ms. Engleman thought so if constituents would call local newspapers to tell the papers they wanted to see the coverage in the papers. Assemblyman Allard stated his belief the legislature was more accessible than ever, and he also believed the decline of public input was not due to the things discussed but due to so much entertainment. Legislature was competing with movies and television. Chairman Close thanked Ms. Engleman for her testimony. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 19 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to authorize legislative review of administrative regulations. Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, discussed and clarified A.J.R. 19. The Legal Division's primary function during the interim was to review regulations at executive branch agencies. In the past Legislative Commission had authority to reject regulation. If the agency did not revise the regulation, the regulation would be suspended until start of the next legislative session at which time the legislature could either approve or reject it. There were constitutional concerns (separation of powers concerns) about that, he said. A.J.R. 19 proposed a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing a legislative suspension of a regulation pending review by the full legislature. Upon Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's clarification A.J.R. 19 could potentially be unconstitutional, Mr. Malkiewich replied an amendment to the statute would be subject to constitutional challenge. By amending the constitution, we would specifically be authorizing review of the legislature. A lengthy discussion ensued between Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Mr. Malkiewich with numerous questions raised as to the separation of powers issue of A.J.R. 19. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Malkiewich to consider and get back to the committee regarding an extreme circumstance where implementation of the law which had been passed by a majority vote, was held up. Assemblywoman Evans questioned Mr. Malkiewich regarding workload and volume and asked his opinion of how A.J.R. 19 would operate. Mr. Malkiewich, responding to Assemblywoman Evans' inquiry, stated the Legal Division spent a vast majority of time during the interim reviewing and revising regulations to make certain the regulations were clear, concise, suitable for incorporation in the Nevada Administrative Code, and doing preliminary review of the authority to adopt the regulation. The difference would be when the Legislative Commission met, instead of the Commission just having the authority to say the Commission disagreed and hoped you amend this, the Commission would say, "If you don't amend this, we are not going to allow this regulation to be adopted." Discussion ensued between Assemblywoman Evans and Mr. Malkiewich regarding a time limit on the adoption of regulations. Mr. Malkiewich said a deadline was not generally set, but thought instances where regulations were essential to the functioning of the statute to ensure the regulations were passed within a certain time or the statute could not take effect, would probably be desirable. Assemblywoman Freeman objected to amending the constitution for the purpose of A.J.R. 19. Legislative intent could be put into the bill. Legislators could work with L.C.B. and with the Legal Division to accomplish this, and, as legislators, that was one of their responsibilities, she asserted. Assemblyman Price stated he supported the concept. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified she philosophically supported the legislation. She did not know if it was necessary to have a Constitutional Amendment, but the legislature should be able to carry out its function in assuring the laws were extended only to the extent you intend. Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, stated her members would oppose A.J.R. 19. Ms. Carol Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in support of A.J.R. 19. The legislature should not be reviewing regulations which it had previously done on a question of separation of powers. She gave examples of her experience which supported her reasoning for supporting the bill. She concluded by saying, "I don't think we are asking for anything more than to give you the right to oversee what you are doing, and that is policy-making for the state of Nevada." She asked committee to be certain they had identified separation of powers properly within the constitution and urged their support. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, asked to go on record in support of A.J.R. 19. Chairman Close stated on discussion regarding A.J.R. 19 calls had been received from Carl Hostman in support of A.J.R. 19 and also from Melvin Grewell from R.P.E.N. who also expressed support of A.J.R. 19. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.J.R. 19. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 5 - Amends Standing Rules of Assembly to allow consideration of resolutions to memorialize, congratulate or commend only at certain time. Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained A. R. 5 which would improve the efficiency of the legislative process. Assemblyman Price stated on occasion when families of deceased people came to hear the resolution and discussion, legislators had to make sure it was received so it could be heard in the Assembly and in the Senate at the same time so the families would not have to go back and forth. Assemblywoman Evans pointed out rules could be waived and she did not think that would be a problem. If extraordinary circumstances arose, it could be done. Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in support of A.R. 5 from the Press Association's point of view which was timely reporting of legislative news. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 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 March 7, 1995 Page