MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 9, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 9, 1995, Chairman Giunchigliani 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 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: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Ms. Janice Goodhue/Citizen Ms. Janine Hansen/State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Ms. Jan Gilbert/League of Women Voters of Nevada Ms. Barbara Morgan/for Ms. J. Gilbert, NV League of Women Voters ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 11 - Amends Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly to provide for enforcement of constitutional requirement that all meetings of legislative committees be open to public. Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the genesis of A.C.R. 11 which came from a study of the structure and functioning of Legislative Counsel Bureau. A.C.R. 11 was an amendment to the joint rules to provide a procedure for bringing to the attention of the legislature alleged violations of the open meeting requirement and a procedure for investigating; and, if necessary, remedying violations. He introduced Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, who recommended changes to A.C.R. 11. No process existed for issuing a complaint for a violation of the open meeting requirement at the legislature, she said. In the past when a problem existed, she had sent letters to leadership. Lobbyists, rather than make the complaint, would speak to Ms. Engleman regarding complaints, and Ms. Engleman felt a process should exist for lobbyists to file a complaint about a violation of open meetings. Next, Ms. Engleman recapped each section of the bill with scenarios and examples. Referring to punishment on page 2, line 12, she recommended committee add punishment of a public apology on the floor of the Assembly. She requested another option in the event the Agenda was not posted in a timely fashion and a complaint was filed, this option being a letter to Mr. Malkiewich saying, "Yes, this is true. We did not post the agenda in a timely way, and we have re-scheduled the meeting for a future date." The issue then would have been taken care of and there would be no reason for a hearing. Assemblyman Allard asked if caucus meetings would be affected by A.C.R. 11. Mr. Malkiewich thought the opinion of the Legislative Commission counsel would be A.C.R. 11 referred to a legislative committee, not the caucus and not the body as a whole which was covered by a separate constitutional provision. Assemblyman Allard asked if A.C.R. 11 would pertain to subcommittee even though they were not standing committees. Ms. Engleman responded in the affirmative. Assemblyman Close referred to subsection 2, line 15, and asked for the rationale. Mr. Malkiewich responded he was also concerned because the wording was not the intention of the subcommittee. He thought the wording should be changed to say, "If the complaint alleges a violation by the Committee on Elections and Procedures". Assemblywoman Lambert referenced page 2, line 5, noting if the Elections and Procedures Committee was notified within one legislative day and had to have a hearing within three legislative days of the filing of the complaint, committee would be in violation of Assembly rules for notice. Ms. Engleman assumed the hearing would be looked upon as an emergency meeting which was an exception to the constitution as the rules of the Assembly were set up. Ms. Engleman was agreeable to making the time longer so committee would be in compliance. Mr. Malkiewich suggested to make A.C.R. 11 consistent, the period would be extended and the Assembly rules on posting would allow adequate posting of the meeting. A.C.R. 11 should read "Five or more legislative days after receipt of the notice." The main factor was the meeting would not be postponed until session was over. Ms. Engleman expressed another reason for the three days was a concern a lobbyist who would lose in a bill would try to play games in some way to delay legislation. Assemblyman Perkins communicated concern if a complaint was brought by a citizen or a group of people from another part of the state who actually wanted to attend the hearing. He did not think swiftness was as important as the sureness that the hearings were going to occur. He suggested abiding by the regular rules of 5 days on posting for the convenience of the public. Mr. Malkiewich discussed lobbyists, for less than honorable reasons, trying to delay a bill, and, he conveyed, rules would allow committee to suspend the rules and have a hearing quickly if committee felt the complaint was frivolous. Assemblyman Perkins referenced subsection 6, lines 10 through 12 and asked if a forum took up the complaint and made the decision on the voiding, it might be a technical violation, but not a substantive violation. Ms. Engleman emphasized the language came from Nevada's open meeting law which applied to all public bodies. If the violation was a technical violation, it could be addressed by a letter or a quick re-scheduling. If a meeting was in violation of the rules and action was taken, the meeting might be called a technical violation if it was posted one day in advance and you voted out an important bill, but a lot of other people would consider the violation more than just a technical violation. Assemblyman Allard discussed frivolous charges which A.C.R. 11 could bring about. Ms. Engleman responded any lobbyist could speak to any member of the press telling them they were violating the open meeting law, or a meeting held that was not posted within time limits, but Ms. Engleman did not think the legislation would bring that type of response and most lobbyists would not bring charges. Assemblyman Allard commented once formal charges were brought before committee, more weight and credence were given than a lobbyist going to the newspapers and saying a person broke the open meeting law. A person who came before a body on formal charges was more newsworthy than a lobbyist going to a member of the press to say "so and so broke the open meeting law." Assemblywoman Monaghan expressed the same concerns previously expressed, and, in addition, she asked who was complaining to Ms. Engleman other than lobbyists. Ms. Engleman admitted complaints this session were not as numerous as last session which had many. She received calls from the public who came to the legislature to attend a meeting because the meeting was going to be held at a certain time, and, when they arrived at the legislature, they discovered the meeting had been held in the morning instead, and they missed the meeting. Chairman Giunchigliani called attention to section 4, line 26, and noted the term "alleges" had been used throughout. She suggested the wording also be used on section 4, line 26, to read "alleged violation." She pointed out conference committees would come under A.C.R. 11 also. Ms. Engleman told committee both Speaker Dini and Majority Leader Raggio spoke to her regarding their concern about following rules toward the end of the session when legislature would get into conference committees. A good answer had not been arrived at, and she noted there was a suspension of rules at the end of session. Responding to Chairman Giunchigliani's question if both houses did not adopt, Mr. Malkiewich said A.C.R. 11 would not become a part of the joint rules unless both houses adopted it. Mr. Malkiewich cited the constitutional provision, "all meetings of legislative committees must be open to the public except meetings to consider the character or confidence..". Chairman Giunchigliani added A.C.R. 11 was a guideline on how to parallel committees to the open meeting law. Discussion ensued between Chairman Giunchigliani and Mr. Malkiewich regarding a definition of legislative days. Mr. Malkiewich said each day the house met was a legislative day. Ms. Engleman clarified the open meeting law did exempt the legislature, but only when legislature was in session. The remainder of the time legislature would fall under Nevada's open meeting law. Discussion ensued between Assemblyman Allard and Ms. Engleman regarding mitigating and flagrant circumstances when a meeting would have to be canceled. Assemblywoman Freeman expressed concern regarding legislative days in regard to the Senate. Senate's days were Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and Assembly met five days per week. Mr. Malkiewich acknowledged the committee might wish to amend and change to calendar days and extend the period. Chairman Giunchigliani announced she and Assemblyman Close had outlined some ideas and would go through some of the concerns. Chairman Giunchigliani told committee Ms. Lusk had to leave the meeting and could not testify, but Ms. Lusk would be back on Tuesday, March 14, and committee would be happy to take her testimony at that time on the bills on which she wished to testify. Ms. Janice Goodhue, citizen, supported the concept of open meetings and stated it appeared section 6 would protect everyone. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified she was in favor of the concept of open meetings and the concept of making it easier for the public to attend the meetings. She discussed the public who planned to attend the meetings only to find the meeting was canceled without good cause. She discussed proponents were allowed to speak and not enough time was reserved for the opponents. Citizens felt alienated from the process because of agendas being posted late and meetings being canceled. Sufficient notice was important because of the sacrifices citizens made to come to the hearings at the legislature. She asked committee to make the legislative process more user friendly for the public. Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, testified in support of the intent of A.C.R. 11 and looked forward to seeing adjustments to make it amenable to the committee. She spoke in honor of Esther Nicholson, deceased, who formerly was a volunteer lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of Nevada, and who worked for good government. Ms. Gilbert addressed Mr. Allard and stressed notice of the meetings was very important. She quoted from the League of Women Voters, "The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens at all levels of government. The League further believes the government bodies must protect the citizens' right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible." Assemblyman Allard referred to Ms. Hansen's testimony regarding people not being able to give testimony pro and con, and said many times members of the committee must leave meetings to go to other meetings. If the legislator did not leave the meeting, stayed at the first meeting, and the other committee meeting, which had also been posted, did not have a quorum, the second meeting could not convene. Ms. Gilbert agreed with Assemblyman Allard and noted a committee which had twice as many people sign up than could testify. She did not think citizens objected to not getting to testify because of the time element if they did not have anything new to add. But oftentimes the Chairman would say those people who had to leave or go out of town could testify first. Ms. Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum, also at the speaker's table with Ms. Gilbert, discussed a procedure used by one of the Senators which had been helpful. He would take a small amount of testimony for the bill and would alternate back and forth, taking testimony against the legislation and taking testimony for the legislation. The entire time of the committee was not spent on just one side of the bill. Assemblyman Allard concurred and stated he understood the intent. Assemblywoman Monaghan agreed a lot of the concerns brought forth were indicative of how a committee meeting was conducted, and A.C.R. 11 did not address how a committee meeting was conducted. Discussion ensued among Assemblyman Allard, Assemblywoman Monaghan and Ms. Gilbert regarding open meetings and agendas being posted in a timely fashion. Chairman Giunchigliani added Elections and Procedures put in the Standing Rules of the Committee to alternate and thought a suggestion to both houses to review their internal committee rules could be suggested. Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.C.R. 11. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 20 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for commencement of regular legislative sessions in March. Mr. Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained A.J.R. 20 was a recommendation of the Interim Study Committee studying the structure and function of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Instead of having the legislature convene on the third Monday of January, it would convene on the first Monday of March after each election which would allow more time for preparation of the budget and more time to get the bill drafts prepared. Assemblyman Close questioned if A.J.R. 20 indirectly would limit the length of legislative sessions. Mr. Malkiewich thought the intention of the committee was the session would be closed by the end of June and the session would be shortened, but A.J.R. 20 would not necessitate the sessions would be shorter. Assemblyman Close stated if the start date changed, the voters should have a guaranteed close date. Mr. Malkiewich outlined several proposals which were the length of session, meeting in an even numbered year to allow more time for bill drafting, more time for review of the budget, and more time to prepare for the start of session thereby having a much more efficient legislature. Mr. Malkiewich, responding to a question regarding the effect of having limited bill drafts, stated theoretically if bill drafts were limited and the time for submitting the bill drafts was limited to well in advance of March, a vast majority, if not all, of the bill drafts could be completed. Chairman Giunchigliani declared she liked the concept, but had a concern about budgetary time even though legislature could go beyond July 1st the way A.J.R. 20 was written. Assemblyman Allard asked Mr. Malkiewich if the constitution would allow the interim finance committee to meet prior to the sessions starting in March to go over the budget and speed up the process. Mr. Malkiewich said the Legislative Commission voted to allow the joint money committees to be formed as a subcommittee of the Commission to meet the week before the 68th session. Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means met jointly to review the budget. Nothing would stop the Legislative Commission from taking action of that type or even building something into the statute, he answered. Assemblyman Fettic and Mr. Malkiewich discussed the functions of the Interim Finance Committee which Mr. Malkiewich said was by definition in the statute composed of members of the past sessions Ways and Means and Finance Committees, the people who approved the budget being modified by the Interim Finance Committee. The role of the subcommittee, created with the designated new members of Finance and Ways and Means, would be preliminary to the review of the budget for the next session and not the role of their own finance which was to make adjustments to the budget for the previous session. Chairman Giunchigliani expressed conceptually A.J.R. 20 was a good idea but had a lot of rough edges. She called attention to the question of appointing people if a session was not convened. Mr. Malkiewich said mechanisms were in place and the possibilities were infinite, but would have to be addressed in implementing the legislation. Assemblyman Close announced his support of A.J.R. 20 although he did not feel it was a solution by itself. It could improve efficiency by looking at past practices in different ways. Mr. Malkiewich reiterated the intention was to allow more preparation time so that when a session convened, legislators could begin acting immediately instead of spending a few weeks just to become familiar with a document. Mr. Malkiewich clarified line 7 at the request of Chairman Giunchigliani, stating line 7 was a reference to the other provision in the constitution which allowed the Governor to call a special session at any time, and one of the options would be to call a special session to convene the third Tuesday in January to avoid the holiday and have organization. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in favor of A.J.R. 20, but wanted a definite ending time. The summer could be a hardship for citizens to attend meetings, she added. Ms. Jan Gilbert testified in favor of the legislation and the financial committees meeting before hand, but would like to see they were paid. Chairman Giunchigliani informed legislators were paid for interim committees they were assigned to. It would have to be a special session in order for legislators to be paid. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. Assemblyman Bob Price, District 17, prime sponsor of A.J.R. 21, distributed (Exhibit C) which he said was three different documents relating to annual sessions. Assemblyman Price called attention to the interim study included in the middle of the booklet entitled, "Prospect for Greatness" a study presented to the 1975 legislative session. He specifically pointed out Recommendations numbers 9, 11, 12, 19 where it was recommended legislators be limited to serving on two standing committees instead of four or five. He recapped the study which included public opinion polls and the legislative calendar of various states. Assemblyman Price, referencing line 7, page 1, stated he would ask for an amendment of A.J.R. 21 requesting 60 days of legislative sessions each year. Assemblyman Price called attention to A.J.R. 21 language on page 1, lines 7 through 10, which stated any legislative action taken after midnight on the 60th day (Mr. Price planned to propose 60 days) after legislature started would be null and void. He discussed the former practice of covering the clock when language said "on midnight of whatever day, that you had to adjourn sine die," and that happened many times until tested in the courts which properly ruled covering the clock would not change the constitution, and anything done after the twelfth hour was null and void. Chairman Giunchigliani questioned Assemblyman Price regarding line 18, "February". Responding, Assemblyman Price stated he had been a proponent of moving the start of the legislative session forward which would give time for bill drafting and pre-filing. He would propose the 60 days would be from February to March and March to April. Assemblyman Close called attention that A.J.R. 21 did not describe the pay for legislators during the time. Assemblyman Close explained if legislature met 60 days every year, that would be a 100% pay increase. Responding, Mr. Price referenced the chart in (Exhibit C) giving years of Nevada's legislative sessions and cost per day. The majority of the cost of operating the legislature was not in the pay of the legislators; it was the staff and the operations, he expounded. The $130 per day which legislators received was just a small part of the total daily cost. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Assemblyman Price and Mr. Malkiewich to confirm the constitution read 60 days regardless of whether it was annual or biannual. She asked for confirmation that legislative salary would be less of the cost and the operational cost was the key (the start up and the number of staff) and further that Legislative Commission salary would be less of a cost. Assemblyman Fettic and Assemblyman Price discussed interim committees which Mr. Price said in those states which had annual sessions, the states still had interim committees. In annual sessions, the same leadership would be in place for the two years and the same people on the same committees. Returning to (Exhibit C), Mr. Price called attention to the third part of the booklet entitled, "History and Commentary," written by a constituent for a college class. Page 15 of (Exhibit C) discussed annual sessions, and Assemblyman Price, stressing the interesting and informative booklet on annual sessions, requested committee read the articles. Ms. Janice Goodhue, citizen, testified in favor of A.J.R. 21 and submitted (Exhibit D), a newspaper article entitled, "Someday Assemblyman Bob Price Will Be Heard". She thought annual sessions should be shorter. Her opinion was annual sessions would do away with the Interim Finance Committee. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of annual sessions, and supported A.J.R. 21 with two additions: limiting to 60 days and legislative action after midnight would not be valid. She was pleased the sessions would be limited to 60 days. She suggested consideration of Wyoming's method where one of the annual sessions was limited to budget items only. She suggested limiting the total number of bills. Barbara Morgan, testifying for Ms. Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters, who had to leave the meeting, reminded committee the League of Women Voters was again in favor of annual sessions. Chairman Giunchigliani reminded Mr. Price if A.J.R. 21 was amended for 60 days, he might consider the third Monday in February was a legal holiday and consideration might be given to a week earlier or a Tuesday so legislature was not on a holiday. Committee should try to send a message to the Senate that intent was to at least allow the public to have an opportunity to vote which had been blocked for many years. Assemblyman Dini recommended committee ask staff to assure staffing was adequate for an annual session because many things had to be done between sessions. Procedurally, 60 days sounded like sufficient time, but he thought a special session would be called because of things that happen. He discussed Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico which had short sessions, but added special sessions. He asked committee to particularly notice New Mexico's budget process. He thought committee should study the operations of other states. Assemblyman Dini also thought Nevada's budgetary process was more open and more in depth than many other states. He was of the opinion the recommendation would be a regular session of 90 days and the one on the odd year would have 30 days to review the budget and other important matters. He thought committee should consider and debate all alternatives, gather material for consideration, and then get a consensus from committee. Responding, Chairman Giunchigliani conveyed the budget was partially driving the issue and if one session was limited to only the budget, the problem would still exist. She suggested exploring starting in March rather than February to allow time for doing the N.R.S.'s and prefiling additional bills. She asked Mr. Price to work with staff on the ideas suggested. Assemblyman Price stated he agreed with the budget session and any of the combinations. He had reviewed them all, he declared, and added when other states were having a budget session, they would always have a rule that by permission of two-thirds or three-fourths of the house, another bill could be drafted because everyone was there. Chairman Giunchigliani then asked Assemblyman Price to put together a list of objections that had been raised so committee was prepared to deal with the objections if committee chose to process the legislation. Assemblyman Dini explained Interim Finance was created because it was needed between sessions. He conveyed reasons the Senate had not taken up annual sessions was the fear that over a two year period annual sessions would increase the costs, and legislature would spend more money by having a budget opened up every year to allow more spending. Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.J.R. 21. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 5 - Amends Standing Rules of Assembly to allow consideration of resolutions to memorialize, congratulate or commend only at certain time. Assemblyman Dini stated the biggest problem with A.R. 5 was people could not come, particularly on a Friday. You always try to schedule on a day the whole family could get together. Chairman Giunchigliani thought the rules could be suspended for emergency consideration. The intent of A.R. 5 was to streamline the process so that when important bills were on General File, and the press and public were present, legislation would take precedence. The rules could be suspended for the purpose of doing the resolution. ASSEMBLYMAN CLOSE MOVED TO ADOPT A.R. 5. ASSEMBLYWOMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN DINI AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN VOTED NO). ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 10 - Urges Supreme Court of Nevada to examine judicial accountability. Chairman Giunchigliani read the amendments to S.C.R. 10. See (Exhibit E). That was the testimony that was brought forth to try to clarify the intent on this. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND ADOPT S.C.R. 10. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE). ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Assemblyman Humke submitted (Exhibit F) an amendment to A. B. 99 and asked for committee's support. Committee discussion ensued with numerous questions raised regarding a Nevada delegation attending The Conference of the States and the possibility of the Conference becoming a Constitutional Convention. Chairman Giunchigliani outlined her observations of committee's discussion which were a concern to at least have a delegation go to the Conference to be present to monitor what was occurring, but to say the delegation was not permitted to participate in a Constitutional Convention if one were to be called. She stated a concern was made by the committee that those bodies would not be counted for the convening of a Constitutional Convention, but neither amendment in (Exhibit F) addressed that concern, she said. Chairman Giunchigliani announced she would not support A.B. 99. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for suggestions in writing from Assemblyman Close, Assemblyman Dini, Assemblyman Humke and Assemblyman Price by Tuesday, March 14. Assemblyman Dini stated he was going to make a motion to hold A.B. 99 until May 1, 1995, to find out what was happening throughout the country and obtain additional comments from other states which would give everybody a chance to write language which could be of help to the committee. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO POSTPONE A.B. 99 UNTIL TIME CERTAIN MAY 1. NO ONE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION DIED. Chairman Giunchigliani made a ruling that she would not take action on A.B. 99 until language was in writing for the committee. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 19 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to authorize legislative review of administrative regulations. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.J.R. 19. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 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 9, 1995 Page