MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 14, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 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. Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Jan Evans (Excused) Mr. David E. Humke (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No. 16 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Lamar Marchese/President, Nevada Public Broadcasting Association Mr. James R. Pagliarini/CEO, General Manager, KNPB Channel 5, Reno Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Concerned Citizens Mr. Tom Axtell/General Manager, KLVX-TV Channel 10, Las Vegas Ms. Janine Hansen/State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Ms. Juanita Cox/People to Protect America Mr. David Gordon/Acting Station Manager, KUNR-FM, Reno Ms. Sandy Rizzo/Citizen Mr. Robert S. Hadfield/Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties Ms. Nancy Howard/Nevada League of Cities Mr. Ben Graham/Nevada District Attorney's Association Ms. Ande Engleman/Nevada Press Association Ms. Betsy Fretwell/Clark County Administrative Services Ms. Kathy McLean/representing Clark County Ms. Mary Henderson/Office of the County Manager, Washoe County Chairman Giunchigliani asked for a motion to adopt minutes of February 21 and February 28, 1995 Elections and Procedures Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 21 AND FEBRUARY 28, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED. Chairman Giunchigliani asked for committee introduction for the following Bill Draft Request: B.D.R. R-1813: Amends Standing Rules of Assembly to add two members to Standing Committee on Health and Human Services. ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN EVANS AND ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WERE ABSENT) ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22 - Urges Congress to maintain current level of funding for public radio and public television stations. Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, District No. 24, prime sponsor of A.J.R. 22, stated she introduced the legislation because of her concern for the future of public radio and television. Studies had shown a high level of support throughout the country for public radio and television, she added. She then introduced Mr. James R. Pagliarini of Channel 5 in Reno, Mr. David Gordon of KUNR-FM in Reno, Mr. Lamar Marchese of KNPR, Mr. Tom Axtell of KLVX-TV and Ms. Pamela Van Pelt of KUNR. Mr. Lamar Marchese, President of Nevada Public Broadcasting Association, which represents Nevada's public radio and television stations, stated he was also President and General Manager of Nevada Public Radio which was a non-profit corporation which owned and operated KNPR in Las Vegas, KTPH in Tonopah and KLNR. Mr. Marchese, testifying in favor of A.J.R. 22, addressed the committee reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). Mr. James R. Pagliarini, C.E.O. and General Manager of KNPB Public Television, Reno, testified in favor of A.J.R. 22. Mr. Pagliarini told committee he had served on the Board of Directors for the past three years of Public Broadcasting System in Washington, D. C. and would share with committee the local and national perspective of funding for public radio and television stations. Mr. Pagliarini addressed the committee from prepared text (Exhibit D). He concluded his presentation by asking committee's support of A.J.R. 22. Assemblyman Close asked Mr. Pagliarini if federal funds were taken away would KNPB survive. Mr. Pagliarini conveyed the station would not survive in a non- commercial operation and believed deregulation of the station would occur. A middle ground would be to sell commercials in the evening but not during the day, he added. Assemblywoman Freeman complimented Mr. Pagliarini on coverage of the legislative meetings in Las Vegas and questioned results of public television and radio coverage in the rural areas if federal funding was lost. Responding to her inquiry, Mr. Pagliarini explained because rural stations depended upon the flagship stations in Reno and Las Vegas, they would lose their service. Programs would not be available for broadcast in rural communities. Assemblyman Allard commented on federal hearings on C-Span which alluded that public broadcasting had a liberal bias, and he asked Mr. Pagliarini for his comments. Responding to Mr. Allard's request, Mr. Pagliarini acknowledged some people had perceptions public television had a liberal agenda, but he did not understand the perceptions. He highlighted specific programs in the public affairs genre denouncing the theory which were McNeill-Lehrer News Hour, Wall Street Week, Washington Week in Review, and William F. Buckley. Documentary productions done by independent producers tended to produce according to the administration in Washington. In independent surveys, most Americans neither perceive public television as being too liberal or too conservative, he added. Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 22. The issue was not whether public television was good or bad, conservative or liberal, whether programming was good or bad, but a principle of liberty which she asked committee to consider. She financially supported and liked public television, but believed no one had the right to force another person to pay for television that was not voluntarily chosen by that person. Mr. Tom Axtell, General Manager, Channel 10 in Las Vegas, stated approximately 14 percent of Channel 10's $14 million per year budget came from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Responding to the previous question from Assemblyman Close, Mr. Axtell stated if federal funding were eliminated, Channel 10 would not go out of business. However, a large variety of services would be eliminated, he assured. He outlined public television station services to the committee which were the P.B.S. schedule, the adult learning service, subscription to the national instructional satellite service, and the P.B.S. elementary and secondary service. Channel 10 also operated an eight-channel, closed-circuit educational television network which provided programming to kindergarten through high school and was in the process of expanding the service to prisons, health care centers and fire stations in the Las Vegas area. A wide variety of education programs were also produced which currently enrolled 150 students in rural schools in Clark, Lincoln, Nye and White Pine Counties. In one case, the instructional foreign language programs allowed a school district to maintain its status as an accredited high school because they could bring in foreign language instruction which served a small number of people in a cost-effective manner. Channel 10 also produced professional education courses for the University of Nevada Las Vegas which were distributed on a closed circuit channel. Over 300 teachers had received certification in teaching English as a second language. "Homework Hotline", a 1« hour program, was delivered every night at no charge to prime cable which distributed the program to homes of subscribers and was also available in all schools which had Safe Key Programs after school for assistance to middle school and high school students who wanted assistance with their homework. Students could call in and talk to one of the eight instructors which Channel 10 paid. Students' questions were answered on the phone and the most frequently asked questions were answered on cable television. Many of the students were home alone and had been told by their parents to do their homework. During the 1« hour time frame, students had access to an educational supplement also funded by public television. Mr. Axtell continued his presentation stating an additional 20 hours per week of the General Education Programming, the G.E.D. certification, was broadcast. No other station was broadcasting in the market of Channel 10. He explained for those who did not graduate from high school, G.E.D. was a ticket to a job, and many of the listeners could not go to a high school or a college to obtain a G.E.D. due to babysitting or transportation problems. A significant amount of election and legislature coverage was also broadcast on Channel 10. KLVX-TV currently had 11,000 financial contributors and served over 300,000 viewers per week. It was accessible to people regardless of their financial ability. Service was seen on 29 translators throughout Clark County and six other counties in Nevada. Significant maintenance costs for remote translators on remote mountain tops were incurred, he told committee. He concluded his testimony by asking committee to support A.J.R. 22. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in opposition to A.J.R. 22. She commented she, too, was a fan of the P.B.S. stations, but was concerned public broadcasting was not an essential function of government to preserve life, liberty and property. She expounded upon waste and duplication and said 75 cents of every dollar was spent on overhead. She discussed programming and money earned by the programs. She explained millions of dollars, which could be returned to the taxpayer, were diverted to private parties with non-profit entities fronting for profit-making enterprises. She told committee another opportunity existed to improve the situation for taxpayers which was acquisition by leading telecommunications firms. Organizations and leading telecommunications firms were interested in participating and would assist in underwriting some of the cost. Since federal subsidies amounted to only 14 percent of overall spending in public broadcasting, the various components of public broadcasting could make up for the subsidies by better-written contracts, spin-off licenses, by more advertising in a genteel guise, and by better financial management and overall privatization. She then discussed advertising alternatives and an experiment on public broadcasting. Ten thousand interviews were conducted with virtually no negative viewer response to advertising on public television. Ms. Hansen discussed salaries of public broadcasting executives. She continued her presentation from prepared text which she submitted (Exhibit E). Ms. Juanita Cox, representing herself, her family and The People to Protect America, opposed A.J.R. 22. She stated she loved public radio and television and personally financially supported public radio and television, but did not support urging the government to fund programming where everyone was not participating. Certain personalities gained at the expense of the public. "When the federal deficit is beyond our means, we must draw the line somewhere," she declared. Ms. Cox referenced the Libertarian Party's lawsuit in Las Vegas and said sometimes public television and radio was not so public. She concluded her testimony by asking committee to reject A.J.R. 22. Mr. David Gordon, Acting Station Manager, KUNR-FM, Reno, testified on behalf of A.J.R. 22 from prepared testimony. See (Exhibit F). Ms. Sandy Rizzo, citizen and proponent of A.J.R. 22, testified with all the junk on television, public television was the only educational program, and if congress cut funding for public television and radio, it was a sign that congress did not want an informed and educated public. She urged the committee to pass A.J.R. 22. Assemblywoman Freeman asked meeting attendees from radio and television how they would respond to some of the comments made by people who opposed A.J.R. 22. Mr. Lamar Marchese, KNPR, Las Vegas, discussed the privatization issue. Commercial broadcasting has had the opportunity all along to provide children's programming of quality, public affairs programming debates and all the programming that public television and radio provide. Commercial broadcasting did not provide them. If funding went away and they were forced to survive as commercial media, classical music would not be heard and National Public Radio news would not be heard on their radio station. The public would hear what was commercially viable which was what commercial radio and television did, he declared. Public radio did something different; it provided a public service which was not necessarily marketable. He addressed the issue of lobbying congress with federal money. He stated they were not allowed to lobby; it was against the law as public radio and television were regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, he declared. No regulation existed against using private funds, however, and eighty-one percent of their budget was private money. Mr. Jim Pagliarini, General Manager, KNPB, Reno, assumed the speaker's table again and spoke in response to Assemblywoman Freeman's request. He referenced Ms. Hansen's testimony, and said there was no such thing as "genteel" commercialism. The reference to the temporary commission on alternative financing was correct, he declared, and under former President Reagan's administration, a similar inquiry was held as to whether or not public television could become privatized unless dependent upon federal funding. After the study, congress concluded public television could not exist and provide the same services if it became commercial. In his 19 years in public television, three programs only had commercial viability, and he described the programs as "Barney", "Sesame Street", and "The Civil War". Public television had barely enough money to buy the broadcast rights for those programs, he said. When public television paid for the programs, they were buying the permission to air the programs. Mr. Pagliarini responded to the comment that public television did not contribute to the life or liberty of the people in the United States. Television was an incredibly powerful educational tool, and contributed to the lives of children every day by offering the programs children see on public television which had a sensitivity and respect for children. He concluded by saying commercial television and radio stations used public airwaves for free and that was a billion dollar indirect subsidy of commercial television. At this time, Chairman Giunchigliani submitted a "Resolution Declaring the Las Vegas City Council Support of Continued Funding by the Federal Government for Public Broadcasting". See (Exhibit G). Assemblyman Price and Mr. Pagliarini discussed the open meeting law which Mr. Price noted by virtue of receiving funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, public television must operate under. The dates of the Board of Trustees meeting were published in the program guide each month and KNPB also used the air to inform people the date of the meeting, inviting them to attend, Mr. Pagliarini said. This was a requirement for every C.P.B. station. F.C.C. had open laws which allowed people to come into the office and inspect F.C.C. files. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 273 - Revises provisions governing candidacy for party nominations. Assemblywoman Dianne Steel, District No. 16, prime sponsor of the legislation, explained her reason for sponsoring A.B. 273 which was a need to close a gap in the bill to protect the integrity of all political parties. To have the same rules for all candidates was only fair when in a political arena, she emphasized, and stated currently non-partisan candidates could change to a party affiliation at any time. There were no restrictions because non-partisan candidates were encouraged to be involved in the political process. She informed a partisan candidate must change his party prior to September 1, directly preceding the closing of the candidate's filing date the following June which was nine months. The nine months would give a candidate time to decide if he/she wanted to be a Republican, an Independent American, a Democrat or whatever party the candidate might select. In the past election, some people used the non-partisan affiliation to make a loop- hole in the law. They were of a party affiliation on September 1 and decided they did not like that party affiliation after September 1 so they went into the non- partisan loophole, then jumped from non-partisan after September 1 into another party, thereby avoiding being of a party for nine months prior to running for that party's positions. A.B. 273 would close that gap. There being no questions, Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.B. 273. ASSEMBLY BILL 279 - Limits number of requests for legislative measures which may be submitted by local governments. Assemblyman Jack Close, District No. 15, sponsor of A.B. 279, began the hearing by stating A.B. 279 was intended to limit the number of Bill Draft Requests submitted by local governments. He explained his rationale for proposing the legislation was an attempt to limit government, to hopefully reduce the length of legislative sessions, to save money, and to improve the legislative process by attempting to facilitate prioritization of all Bill Draft Requests. He submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit H). Assemblywoman Freeman and Assemblyman Close discussed the latest figures on the costs of Bill Draft Requests which Assemblyman Close, using information from Mr. Malkiewich, confirmed averaged $600 to $650. Assemblyman Perkins discussed Nevada's local governments responding to their own electorate. Home rule was not a true concept in Nevada. The legislature had not given up the reins. Legislators controlled every facet, particularly the county since the county was a creature of the state, and they control the cities as well, he continued. Assemblyman Perkins further stated he would not want to tie their hands to the point where they were not able to properly respond to their electorate because we (the legislators) hold all the cards. Assemblyman Perkins declared that was his biggest concern. Assemblyman Close agreed with Assemblyman Perkins and noted ten (page 1, line 7) was not a magic number. Assemblyman Close had met with various representatives of the counties and cities in regard to the situation and told them he was not locked into the number of ten as a method. No one had said they were not willing to adjust because what they want is less government and a reduced number of bills. Assemblyman Close said legislators were willing to focus and prioritize. Therefore, legislators, county governments, city governments and various entities also had to prioritize. Assemblywoman Monaghan referred to a letter from Research giving a rough estimate of an average cost of $650 to $700 per Bill Draft. She admitted concern because in her own committee three bills had been produced at $600 or $700 each, introduced into her committee, and then pulled. She felt more thought should have gone into producing the Bill Drafts if there was concern. She thought work needed to be done on how to limit Bill Drafts. Assemblywoman Lambert commended Assemblyman Close for his efforts on behalf of reducing the number of Bill Drafts and discussed her past experiences along with other legislators who tried to reduce the number. She hoped Assemblyman Close would also consider the other sources of Bill Drafts. Assemblyman Close thanked Assemblywoman Lambert for her comment and discussed data which he had submitted along with his testimony. See (Exhibit H). He agreed more bills had been introduced through committees than through local governments, but a gradual increase had occurred through local governments. He agreed to examine the process further with information dealing with the area she suggested and would work further with local governments to arrive at a realistic level. Assemblyman Fettic described Storey County could need fewer bills than Clark, and asked how Assemblyman Close arrived at a number with the population differential. Assemblyman Close admitted that was a problem and suggested the number of bills per capita was an idea which should be explored. Assemblyman Price pointed out ten bills per county would equal 170. He thought the big problem was in the agencies even though Clark County had a large number this year but was small compared to the state agencies. He discussed a definition of local government which was more than counties and cities and further could include taxing districts and local governments in the general term. Chairman Giunchigliani believed Assemblyman Price's point should be researched and the local government's figures checked to see if school districts and sheriff's departments were included. She agreed with Assemblywoman Lambert that duly elected public officials should not have to go through County Commission for permission to bring B.D.R.'s forward. The figure of 210 might need to be broken out to see what was driving that number, she offered. Chairman Giunchigliani continued her discussion saying cities did not have as many because they had a city charter which might give them additional powers so they did not have to come back to change a road, street, sewer line. Chairman Giunchigliani mentioned committees that send many bills to the Senate which were never heard. She suggested a subcommittee and work with local governments along the lines of the per capita idea. Assemblyman Price described in 1947 a legislator introduced a bill which said any bill introduced during one session of legislature could not be considered until the next session of legislature which would give legislators time. Assemblyman Close thought the idea of requiring all draft requests to go through legislators was not appropriate for Nevada. He would work with counties and other entities, and he sensed they were willing to work on the issue to make it reasonable. Mr. Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in opposition to A.B. 279. In introducing bills, he responded to the desires of constituents or responded to legislation passed by the legislature, he emphasized. Mr. Hadfield stated he was in an elected office in Minden where they were concerned about water and what was happening on the Truckee system. Five Bill Drafts could be needed before the session was over to protect the interests of the people in Minden. The public's needs were very difficult to anticipate. As an association they work to bring together the counties to identify ten major legislative measures which have equal import across the board in Nevada. The Nevada Association of Counties does that every session. However, in doing so, they still fail to meet the individual needs of many different local government entities alluded to today, he said. It was very important to understand that all local governments had only those authorities granted to them, with the exception of some charters. The town of Minden had only those powers granted by the County of Douglas, but the statute was clear concerning what the County of Douglas could provide in terms of direction. The local government bills were not many. He concurred the practice of introducing the same bill on both sides did not produce any benefit. He advised his willingness to work with members of the committee to see how the legislative process could be expedited and make it work for everybody. He was not certain a per capita would work. He mentioned work that interim committees had done in the past along those lines and felt it came down to home rule and what authority counties had to manage their own affairs. Chairman Giunchigliani announced she had a bill which was not out yet which tried to redefine the state's responsibilities and funding responsibilities versus local governments. Although she envisioned the bill would deal with budgetary issues, it could possibly be utilized in this area, she commented. Mr. Hadfield thought the county rights issue and the whole issue of responsibility and service responsibility needed to be addressed. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported the legislation because they saw a need for a mechanism to limit the total number of issues legislators were required to address in the period of time they were in session. Her organization was inclined to feel that requiring all bill drafts go through a legislator was not an unreasonable request. It would create an equal footing for citizens with other entities, groups and governments. Some method should be found to create a limit. She conveyed they saw more of a problem with the state agency bills which kept coming. A problem also existed with outside groups which had access to the bill drafter, creating an unequal footing basis for other outside groups which had differing views to those groups which had access. A problem existed, she said, with interim committees bringing forth numerous proposals when they were constituted to address an issue and came back with massive numbers, particularly of resolutions, which also cost in the development process. She discussed duplication of bills, especially in crime related legislation this session, and stated though meritorious, the bills did not need to be proposed in 40 different pieces of legislation. Chairman Giunchigliani felt 213 interim study recommendations on B.D.R.'s was ludicrous and stated Senate had been approached to see if the number of interim study groups could be scaled down from the alleged 14 required last session. She did not understand why an interim committee had to request a B.D.R. The committee should just issue a report, and, at the beginning of the session, make a determination on whether or not those B.D.R.'s were worthwhile. Assemblyman Price suggested having authorized people accept outside contracts for drafting. Assemblywoman Lambert admitted drafting was a problem, but she discussed the biggest problem was reading the bills and holding hearings on the bills within the short period of time during session. It was difficult to do an adequate job with 1800 B.D.R.'s for the 68th Session, and if a legislator did a decent job, more than five minutes must be given to a bill. The overriding concern beyond getting bills drafted was reading them, she reiterated. Chairman Giunchigliani felt the worst part was to abrogate something to a committee to study after legislature was over. This was the tip of the iceberg, she cited, when looking at streamlining the whole process of the session. Assemblywoman Freeman discussed a study committee where everything on the list that had been discussed resulted in a B.D.R. She stated legislators had a responsibility when they chaired interim committees to see that a reasonable number of B.D.R.'s resulted. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, testified in opposition to A.B. 279. She offered support to a solution and reminded committee of the work done over the past three sessions trying to find a solution. Local governments were so varied in Nevada, she continued, with populations from 410 to Las Vegas with 400,000. The League of Cities brings the whole membership together and develops a package of bills which are brought to legislature each session. Those bills have a statewide impact, she said, because they concern all of the cities in Nevada. Having all proposals submitted through legislators was not workable, she had been told, because legislators wanted to save their Bill Drafts for their constituents. She offered assistance to the committee in solving the problem. Ms. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, thanked committee for the manner in which the hearings were conducted in the present meeting allowing the alternate sides to participate. She testified Eagle Forum would support the concept of A.B. 279 in limiting the number of Bill Drafts. Ms. Hansen referred to Assemblywoman Lambert's discussion that it was impossible for an ordinary person to keep up with even the bills legislators were concerned about. She thought it was important to look for alternatives and felt it had to go beyond limiting them for local governments. Many good suggestions had been offered in the meeting which she encouraged committee to consider. With prioritization, which takes place when Bill Drafts are limited, the whole process would be improved and time spent in legislature would be more valuable. She encouraged committee to pursue the objective and announced her support of the concept. Mr. Ben Graham testified on behalf of the Nevada District Attorney's Association. The Nevada District Attorney's Association tried to pool all of the 17 counties rather than have Washoe County submit four or five, Clark County ten and Eureka 1. Essentially the bills were submitted through Clark County so the biggest part of what Clark County had on the tally sheet was actually from the 17 District Attorneys' offices. They thought the elected District Attorneys could submit Bill Draft Requests, but were not told that was not appropriate. It was with the Counties' permission that they submitted through the county. Approximately 1.5 B.D.R.'s per county were submitted in the last three sessions. He discussed a bill which was pulled after the hearing was set. Earlier it had sounded like good legislation and it was an important matter which was of concern at the time. But it was not an issue whose time was important, and so the Association pulled the bill. On other occasions three or four had been pulled before they even got to the drafting stage. Assemblywoman Lambert asked if it was appropriate for the County Sheriff to go through the County Commission to submit a Bill Draft. She was of the opinion it was not appropriate. Mr. Graham stated he was told by Legislative Counsel Bureau the elected county official could not submit a Bill Draft. It had to come through the County Manager. As an elected official, you may feel you should be able to submit directly for consideration. However, if we submitted a bill, he advised, and the legislator was not re-elected the bill could still be in Clark County. Chairman Giunchigliani confirmed unless another legislator was asked to pick that up, the bill would die. Mr. Graham then discussed duplication of bills. Ms. Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association, testified in support of A.B. 279. She, too, expressed concern regarding duplication of bills most of which were purchasing bills, she said. Public groups familiar with the process who wanted to be certain their bills were heard, were responsible. A group would request legislation on one side, and they would ask the county then to request it, or a school district to request it, on the other side. In one case a public group had requested the bill and then went to a legislator on the other side and asked the legislator to introduce the bill. When legislators requested duplicate bills, the Legislative Counsel Bureau informed the legislators it was a duplicate bill. The legislators then had the option of saying "yes" or "no" or "pull my bill." No such system existed for the public bodies which requested bills, she declared, and suggested the area needed to be addressed. She reminded committee a number of governmental entities existed within the county, and it was not just the county government. Ms. Engleman stated the bills requested by NACO were not always discussed in public in front of the electorate. The bills that came from the counties did not always reflect what the people wanted, and, in Clark County during the last session, the County Commissioners did not even know about the majority of bills that had been requested by the County Manager's staff. Other departments do not go through the County Commissioners. They go straight to the legislature, she stated. County Commissioners came to Carson City or called her on an issue and when asked about a certain bill, they would say, "We know nothing about it. It didn't get put past us. We did not discuss it in a public meeting. We didn't vote on it." A lot of these bills are not being discussed in public meetings in front of the public where the public can get input, she declared. Ms. Engleman then said one of the concerns with the large number of Bill Draft Requests is the bills are not reflecting necessarily what the electorate wants, but what the bureaucracy of the county may want and what they feel they need. Ms. Engleman told committee she would work with any subcommittee to come up with something that would benefit everyone. The problem with having local governments ask their legislators is that it would not be reflected in the BDR list who is requesting the bill. If counties, cities and local government entities go directly to a legislator, then it would not be as easy to know whose bill this is. At the present time, it shows on the BDR list that it is the Sheriff's and Chief's Association that requested this bill or it is N.A.C.O. Assemblyman Dini stated the only drawback of this request of ten (subsection 1, line 7) is for the legislators who have multi-county districts. Assemblyman Dini stated he had three sets of county commissioners, three district attorneys, three everything. With the limitation on himself or the senator representing the district, it would be difficult to take care of their problems. Chairman Giunchigliani thought Assemblyman Close was going to look at the issue as well as the per capita issue. Ms. Betsy Fretwell, Clark County Administrative Services; Ms. Kathy McLean, representing Clark County; and Ms. Mary Henderson, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County assumed the speaker's table. Ms. Betsy Fretwell, testifying first, said they were present to work with legislators to make the system more effective. They had talked with Mr. Close and were willing to work with committee to make the system better. She agreed with Mr. Perkins' comments that the home rule issue must be addressed. She stated Clark County had only submitted 67 bills. Therefore, the 210 must be comprised of various other local governmental entities that also carry the name Clark County whether it be the school district, the regional flood control district, or regional transportation commission. Referring to the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, she informed there were some representations that the Board of County Commissioners were not aware of in the legislative package. It was taken to them in September; it was tabled in September; it came back to the Board of County Commissioners in February; and they approved it in February. So they are aware of it. It is public record in Clark County. It did go before the Board of County Commissioners in September. To echo the concerns, Ms. Fretwell stated a definition of local government was needed. The Sanitation District files their bills through Clark County as do various other agencies in Clark County such as the District Attorney and other elected officials. She referred to the testimony of the office of the District Attorney in Clark county and the way they are handled. Clark County is the funnel for a lot of different agencies which Mr. Close might consider, she offered. I think this is a really strong argument for home rule. She reflected the number of Clark County BDR's had been going up continuously in the last six years, partly due to the fact that government had to be responsive to the citizens in Clark county. She discussed the large population growth in Clark County and bills relating to the endangered species act and federal mandates. She discussed the number of bills allowed under the legislation and stated limiting the number may have some adverse impacts. Basic infrastructure needs in Clark County such as the public works bills were going to go to the top, and parks and recreation services could fall out at the bottom and not even be addressed even though they were important to the citizens of Clark County. There are many sides to this issue, she said, and if the home rule discussion could be woven into the legislation, it could be beneficial. She pointed out there was a bill on the Senate side which attempted to address some of the home rule issues brought up over the past several sessions. She concluded by telling committee until Clark County was able to make some functional and structural changes on its own, it would be very difficult not to come to legislature with bills because Clark County simply could not function without bills. "We rely on you and your direction as an elected body to function and to exist," she declared. Assemblywoman Lambert addressed Ms. Fretwell and mentioned that her legislative package went before the County Commission in September and her deadline for submitting it to Legislative Counsel Bureau was August 30. Responding to her inquiry, Ms. Fretwell said it was taken to the Board when the Board felt they were ready to deal with it, and then it was still tabled. But the Board was aware of it long before then because the Board was briefed regularly on our process throughout our preparation. Assemblywoman Lambert confirmed the County Commission knew about it, but didn't vote on it officially. Responding, Ms. Fretwell said, "Yes. They didn't even vote on it until February this year, officially." Ms. Kathy McLean, representing Clark County, testified she would be more than willing to work with any subcommittee to study the issues. She proceeded to address the subject of duplication of bills, previously discussed, and she reiterated she would be willing to assist in the issue. Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Office of the County Manager, Washoe County, testified she welcomed working with the subcommittee on this issue because of the concern about the length of the session, and the work which was needed. She told committee Washoe County tracked over 800 bills last session that had some impact on operations of the office of the County Manager. Ten Bill Draft Requests were submitted last session. She discussed the types and numbers of bills from Washoe County. They worked very hard with NACO and with the League of Cities to make sure there was no duplication, that issues which affect all local governments in the state were handled through NACO. She emphasized every NACO meeting was an open meeting, noticed and the public had access. The Board of County Commissioners heard the NACO legislative package and adopted it in a formal meeting which was duly noticed and covered by the media. Assemblyman Price asked for confirmation a bill was passed to allow elected officials to be able to make Bill Drafts. Mr. Malkiewich replied the legislation was passed, and a resolution was also passed which limited the number of bills the Executive Branch could request and specified how many the constitutional officers could request. The issue was not authority to request but review by the Budget Office. Submitting them directly to the Legislative Counsel was approved, but they are still limited in number, he informed committee. Chairman Giunchigliani then opened a hearing for A.C.R. 11, A.J.R. 20 and A.J.R. 21 for testimony from Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified she appreciated the consideration. Testifying on A.J.R. 21, she asked to go on record in support of annual sessions with a specified ending time where action after that date was void. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 20 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for commencement of regular legislative sessions in March. Ms. Lucille Lusk, speaking to A.J.R. 20 which specified the session would begin in March, asked committee to consider amending the legislation to specify a particular ending date patterned after that found in A.J.R. 21. 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. Ms. Lucille Lusk then discussed A.C.R. 11 and voiced her support of A.C.R. 11 in terms of some ability to deal with questions of open meetings. There needed to be some clearly specified criteria as to what constituted "open". The legislature was not under the open meeting law. It seems to be fair to committee chairmen and to legislators, as well as to anyone dealing with it, there needed to be something put in place which specified what constituted "open" so that frivolous complaints could be avoided and everyone could know the expectations so that when an issue was raised, there was some criteria for judgement on it. Chairman Giunchigliani outlined the results of committee discussion on A.J.R. 21, A.J.R. 20 and A.C.R. 11 at the March 9th Elections and Procedures Committee Meeting, and thanked Ms. Lusk for her comments. Chairman Giunchigliani requested Mr. Close, as the sponsor of A.B. 279, to meet with the various groups for research needed to break out some of the local governments. She suggested working with staff and bringing back recommendations to the committee. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 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 14, 1995 Page