MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session March 16, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Thursday, March 16, 1995, Chairman Close presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Jack D. Close, Chairman Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Jan Evans Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. David E. Humke Mrs. Jan Monaghan Mr. Bob Price COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, District No. 11 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Mr. Brad Lawrence, representing State Treasurer Bob Seale Mr. Darrel R. Daines, Controller Ms. Mary Sanada, Citizen and Certified Public Accountant Mr. Alec Oltman, Intern for Senator Bill Raggio ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 23 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to revise provisions governing certain constitutional officers. Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, District No. 11, prime sponsor of A.J.R. 23, explained A.J.R. 23 would do two things. It would have the Governor and Lieutenant Governor run as a ticket and merge the office of State Treasurer and State Controller. However, Assemblyman Bache requested that the particular portion of A.J.R. 23 which dealt with the Governor/Lieutenant Governor subject should be amended out since it is the subject of A.J.R. 14. Assemblyman Bache's legislation, A.J.R. 23, would, therefore, focus on only the issue of merging the Treasurer and Controller's office. Reorganization of state government was the big issue in the 1993 session, and Assemblyman Bache felt the offices could be merged, providing savings to the office and streamlining of duties which would save the state money. Assemblyman Price suggested committee had discussed the practice of two elected officials signing checks and asked if anyone knew the practice of other states. Assemblyman Bache said the state of Michigan did not have a Controller, but only had a State Treasurer. He did not research the practice of other states on the issue. Assemblywoman Lambert asked Assemblyman Bache when the Controller was taken out from a constitutional officer position, did he intend to have an appointed Controller or merge those duties with the duties of the Treasurer in the statutes. Assemblyman Bache answered it was his intention to merge with the Treasurer in statute. He expressed concern over the number of duties listed in statute designated to the Controller. Bill Drafting assured Assemblyman Bache the number of duties was not required to be dealt with at that time because two different issues were involved. One issue was the constitutional amendment of merging two offices by deleting reference to Controller, and, secondly would be the issue of revising statutes to put duties in the appropriate place, but only if the constitutional amendment was passed by the people. Chairman Giunchigliani, referencing Mr. Price's earlier comment, as a member of the 1993 Ways and Means Committee, stated she also thought the legislation had been previously drafted, but only a discussion during the reorganization was held regarding the Controller and the Treasurer duties and merging of tasks. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, at this time testified on the first portion of A.J.R. 23 which was the Governor/Lieutenant Governor segment. Chairman Close informed Ms. Lusk it was the intent of the prime sponsor, Assemblyman Bache, to remove the Governor/Lieutenant Governor portion of A.J.R. 23 since that was the subject of A.J.R. 14 which had already received a public hearing. Chairman Close asked the Secretary to record Ms. Lusk's testimony regarding the subject of Governor/Lieutenant Governor and reference this testimony to A.J.R. 14. Ms. Lusk stated as a representative of a citizen organization from a mixed political registration, they believed that to combine and require the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to be of the same party was an unnecessary restriction on voter choice. Mr. Brad Lawrence, representing State Treasurer Bob Seale who was out of town on state business, submitted (Exhibit C) and testified Mr. Seale took no position with respect to A.J.R. 23 which dealt with the positions of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Although Mr. Seale favors the concept of merging the offices of Controller and Treasurer because he believes the current system is an anachronism and that many states are departing from two separately elected constitutional positions, he is opposed to this specific constitutional amendment for the following reasons. He feels the functions of the Controller should be performed by an elected constitutional officer, and he favors merging the Treasurer's and Controller's functions into one particular constitutional office. He doesn't care whether it is called Treasurer or Controller. He feels the functions should be merged and the functions should be the responsibility of an elected constitutional officer. He does not feel A.J.R. 23 is the proper vehicle to accomplish this because of its wording. He understands there is another proposed constitutional amendment which is going to be introduced shortly which will effect the concept of having functions of both offices carried out by one elected constitutional officer, and he would reserve the opportunity to talk in more detail when that provision is set for hearing, Mr. Lawrence concluded. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated it needed to be confirmed that A.J.R. 23 would do both the constitutional amendment of eliminating one position as well as the functions. She believed Mr. Bache's intent was that those duties be with an elected official which A.J.R. 23 did not do. Mr. Lawrence reiterated Mr. Seale wanted to make sure whoever performed the functions, whether it be Controller or Treasurer, should be an elected constitutional officer. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani expressed agreement. Mr. Darrel R. Daines, Nevada State Controller, testified he and Mr. Seale had discussed the subject of A.J.R. 23 and agreed to disagree on several things. Originally when the framers of the constitution set forth the duties, they had in mind a check and balance system which would provide necessary protection to the public in the expenditures of public monies. At the present time, Mr. Daines continued, the Treasurer could not make one investment of public monies without approval of the Controller, and the Controller could not write one check without approval of the Treasurer, a system of checks and balances. The legislators would have to decide whether someone other than an elected official could perform that duty. Mr. Daines told committee he had served 15 years as an appointed official, Controller, and 12 years as an elected Controller. He thought the difference between the two was minute. The elected individual was responsible directly to the public, and he owes his office to his doing the proper job so the public would return him to that position. He then quoted an article in a recent New York Times, written by Arthur Leavitt who was the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "It has been a difficult year for the municipal bond market and the problems in Orange County are an added cause for concern. We will survive the crisis as we have survived all others, but those entrusted with public funds would be remiss not to take this opportunity to examine how well their funds are managed. To determine that they are appropriate and prudent and place safety and liquidity above risk and return, and to make absolute certain that effectual internal accounting systems are in place to sound the alarm if that slightest problem or discrepancy is found. State lawmakers are already moving to set standards for public investments. It is time for officials at every level of government and the citizens on whose behalf they labor, to ensure that the public money is safely and prudently managed." Mr. Daines stated this was what he did every day of the year and is exactly what the Treasurer did every day of the year. Mr. Daines then discussed elected and appointed people in other states, and stated there was a check and balance system in every state, and the appointed official did not have the responsibility to the public that an elected official had. Assemblyman Price suggested if the offices constitutionally were done away with and had appointed offices, it would save a lot of money. Mr. Daines stated more money would have to be spent to split the offices up because the jobs would have to be performed. Mr. Daines did not see any savings. He stated Mr. Seale had 19 employees and he (Mr. Daines) had 34. Mr. Daines' employees' salaries represented something over 70% of his budget just in salaries alone, and the only way if you look to the Controller's office to save money would be to lay someone off, and he could not eliminate enough people to effect the budget in any way. He asked committee to take this into consideration. Assemblywoman Evans and Mr. Daines discussed practices in other states, and Mr. Daines stated the function was generally performed by two different people. Mrs. Evans pointed out A.J.R 23 would be unique among the states, if committee were to pass the legislation, in terms of both functions merged under one person. Mr. Daines believed this was true and did not know of a state which combined the responsibility of the Treasurer and the Controller in one office. Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Daines to let committee know if he found information to the contrary. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani confirmed Mr. Daines' issue was he did not want to eliminate the office and asked if his concern was more with where the functions would lie. Responding to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's question, Mr. Daines thought the elected office was the important thing. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned if the issue was whether or not one person should be elected versus two people should be elected, or if the issue was whether or not one person should be elected and how the functions were handled. From last session, there were some good arguments made in Ways and Means to merge the two offices. Not all of it was an issue of savings. In reorganization, money was not always saved. Sometimes it is simply for efficiency, she commented. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought Ways and Means at some point would have to look at the bill within the budget. Mr. Daines stated no computer operations could be eliminated and the office was far overdue for a new accounting system which would cost a lot of money. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and Mr. Daines discussed FMIRS (Financial Management Information Reporting System), Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stating FMIRS was a problem whether there was one office or two offices. Mr. Daines declared the Treasurer did not have anything to do with FMIRS. The Controller had control over FMIRS. It was being held together with "chewing gum and scotch tape, but, Mr. Daines added, they still received the Certificate of Achievement of Excellence in Financial Reporting every year. He also added that was one of the reasons legislature had not come up with the necessary money to replace FMIRS. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani informed she was unconvinced that potentially merging or eliminating one position would not necessarily mean a secondary accounting would have to be bought. If an accounting system was needed, it was needed regardless of whether there was a Treasurer and a Controller or just a Controller. Assemblywoman Freeman asked Mr. Daines whether reorganization effected his office and what was his budget. Mr. Daines discussed reorganization and said his budget was approximately $1,900,000. The Governor did not have authority to reorganize the Controller's office, Mr. Daines said. Assemblywoman Freeman asked if the Treasurer's office last session received funding for a new computer system. Responding, Mr. Daines said the Treasurer received new computer equipment. The Controller's office the year before received some new equipment, but with the new equipment, Mr. Daines stated he had reduced one employee in his office cutting the cost in his budget by $50,000. Assemblyman Allard and Mr. Daines discussed the intent of the bill which was to completely remove the Controller, but Mr. Allard admitted confusion regarding discussion of the position being elected or appointed. Assemblyman Allard asked if Mr. Daines was aware of another related bill, and Mr. Daines said there probably were several bills which did different things, but he was not aware of them. Mr. Daines stated A.J.R. 23 did not, and he was not aware of any other bill which would allow the Governor to appoint a person to function as Controller. The intent of the Treasurer was simply to combine the two offices and have one elected official be responsible for both jobs. Mr. Daines objected to this. Ms. Mary Sanada, citizen and C.P.A., testified in opposition to A.J.R. 23. She had previously worked in the Controller's office for 13 years but was testifying as a private citizen, she declared. She was concerned about the intent of the legislation. She had mixed feelings regarding whether the position of Controller should be appointed or elected. Some aspects of the position being an elected position made it more independent. When she worked in the Controller's office, if someone called and asked for financial information about the state, Ms. Sanada gave information and did not feel there would be any political recriminations. There were also strong arguments in favor of the position being an appointed position. She felt the position was not a policy-making position and the state deserved a qualified professional as Controller who could bring strength in the area of technical support. Ms. Sanada's major concern was the intent to merge the functions into one office. As a C.P.A.,her basic training from Accounting 1 taught her the person in charge of the books should never be the same person in charge of the bank account. It was a clear violation of internal control, she declared. All states, all city and county governments, all major corporations separate those functions so there is a check and a balance. Ms. Sanada continued her testimony saying the State Controller/Treasurer who had control of both the accounting system and the bank accounts, could, if they wanted to, find a way to steal millions of dollars from the state; could hide the money through falsifying accounting records; and maybe it might be caught in an audit in the future. She asked committee if they wanted to take that risk. Emphasizing her point, Ms. Sanada said the purpose of internal controls was to establish barriers to prevent fraud. Ms. Sanada stated as a professional, she believed the subject of merging the two functions of Controller and Treasurer into one office should not even be discussed. No savings would occur. There were no functions currently at the Treasurer's office which were also performed at the Controller's office. They were two separate functions. Ms. Sanada concluded her testimony by acknowledging there were some questions about whether efficiency would be improved through separate computers. Currently the Treasurer and the Controller shared data bases. Any separate systems the Treasurer had were stand-alone systems for the Treasurer to keep track of investments and had nothing to do with the major data bases or accounting systems. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 - Urges Congress to propose constitutional amendment to limit power of courts to levy or increase taxes. Chairman Close introduced Mr. Alec Oltman, Intern for Senator Bill Raggio, prime sponsor of S.J.R. 2. Chairman Close said Senator Raggio asked committee to hold action on S.J.R. 2 until a later time when he could attend the meeting. Mr. Oltman then assumed the speaker's table and conveyed Senator Raggio's regrets that he was unable to be present. Mr. Oltman referenced Ms. Sanada's testimony on accountability and checks and balances stating S.J.R. 2 addressed the subject. He then offered a presentation on S.J.R. 2 which, he said, stemmed from a U. S. Supreme Court case from 1990 (Missouri v. Jenkins). He discussed the trend for courts to increasingly usurp their power and levy taxes or direct state or local entities to do so. He explained the Missouri v. Jenkins court case in which the Kansas City School District was mandated by Judge Russell Clark to establish first a program of magnet schools and a second project of capital improvements. The total cost for both was estimated to be between five hundred million dollars and seven hundred million dollars. Judge Clark ordered the state of Missouri to front 75 percent of the cost, and the Kansas City School District would front the remaining 25 percent. Statutory limitations on the school district in statute and in the Missouri constitution limited the amount of money the school district could raise. To get around this, Judge Clark enjoined the state laws and directly increased the property tax leveled in the school district by 95 percent. The property tax was raised from $2.05 for every $100 of assessed valuation to $4.00 for every $100 of assessed valuation. Mr. Oltman continued, the state of Missouri and the school district appealed the ruling through the District Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower court ruling and only found a problem with one technical aspect of Judge Clark's ruling. The Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the lower court had made an error in directly raising the tax, and the Court of Appeals ruled the school district should have been ordered to raise the tax. The state of Missouri and the school district did not see the delineation and so appealed to the Supreme Court which heard the case in 1990. The ruling by the Supreme Court was a split 5-4 decision, and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling. However, Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the dissent stated, "Any purported distinction between the direct imposition of a tax by the Federal Court and an order commanding the school district to impose the tax is but a convenient formalism. The end result is the same whether the court orders the tax directly itself or forces a school district or a county to raise the tax, whether or not the courts have the ability to raise a tax, and whether or not the people want the courts to have that ability. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court does not seem to have that power." Mr. Oltman discussed Article III of the Constitution which, he said, made no mention of a tax. The only time a tax is mentioned in the Constitution is in Article I which is the grant of legislative powers, he said. Article I of the Constitution in Section 1 states that all legislative powers are hereby granted and vested in Congress. Article I, Section 8, Subsection 1 begins with a statement that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, he added. He referenced the prior discussion on separation of powers and discussed the idea of accountability which was also provided within Article I, Subsection 7 which states "all bills raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills." The reason legislation imposing a tax originates in The House of Representatives, Mr. Oltman continued, is because that is historically the House closest to the people. At the time the Constitution was ratified and written, the Senate was chosen by state legislators. The idea was the framers wanted those that impose tax on the citizens to be directly accountable. Historically this is true, he noted, and he gave references from the Federalist papers and said no mention was given about how the Supreme Court should ever have any type of power of the purse. The Supreme Court does not have the power of the sword or the power of the purse. However, most judicial scholars believe this intent has now been circumvented by the court's ruling in Missouri v. Jenkins. Mr. Oltman continued his presentation saying S.J.R. 2 was not limited to the state of Nevada. In 1990 in the United States Senate, a similar amendment was proposed, he declared, and he referenced the recent Balanced Budget Amendment which showed how S.J.R. 2 addressed some of the fears expressed by Senator Sam Nunn that if a Balanced Budget Amendment was made in the Constitution, the courts could step in and raise taxes to meet any budgetary shortfalls. Concluding his testimony, Mr. Oltman informed four states had enacted similar legislation to S.J.R. 2, and as of March 16, 1995, similar legislation was pending in 25 other state legislatures. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the case stemmed from the inequity issue in the funding level in education in Missouri. Mr. Oltman confirmed information submitted by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, but declared the courts had other tools which they could use to get the outcome. He elaborated saying Judge Clark went overboard, and the magnet school system which he established was not just a sprinkling of magnet schools around the school district; it said that every high school within the district would be a magnet school, every junior high within the district would become a magnet school, and half of the elementary schools would become magnet schools. That was not a decision for the courts to make. Historically that had been a decision the American public and the framers of the constitution believed should be made by the representatives because they were the ones accountable and should make the decision on how the money should be spent, Mr. Oltman said. Chairman Close questioned in the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court, if there was any discussion regarding the separation of powers. Mr. Oltman replied there was, and it was Justice Kennedy's main argument. The delineation which the majority of the Court made was incorrect. The power to tax and the power to order a tax did not exist for the Supreme Court, and that was the reason for Judge Kennedy's dissent. Chairman Close confirmed with Mr. Oltman four other judges dissented along with Judge Kennedy, United States Supreme Court. Assemblyman Fettic pointed out Federal Court Judges were appointed for life, and Mr. Oltman emphasized a Federal Judge may not live in the district where he imposed a tax. He might establish a grade school system in Kansas City, but he would not have to pay the price and his salary would not be effected because his salary could not be lowered. Assemblywoman Freeman asked Chairman Close if members of the committee could be provided with the Missouri v. Jenkins Supreme Court decision. Chairman Close asked Mr. Oltman to provide a copy of the decision to the committee for distribution. Chairman Close thanked Mr. Oltman for his testimony and complimented him for his work. Chairman Close told committee Mr. Oltman was an Intern from University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Chairman Close opened the scheduled Work Session. See (Exhibit D). ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide procedure to resolve conflict between certain initiative petitions approved by voters. Mr. Bob Erickson stated the proposed new text for A.J.R. 13 was part of (Exhibit E). To allow time for committee study of amendments, Chairman Close stated A.J.R. 13 would be scheduled for committee's March 23rd meeting. ASSEMBLY BILL 78 - Requires legislative auditor to conduct performance audit of state's program of group health insurance that is provided by committee on benefits through plan of self- insurance. Mr. Bob Erickson stated Assemblyman Bache had requested committee continue to hold A.B. 78. Chairman Close announced no action would be taken on A.B. 78. ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Committee asked to postpone A.B. 99 until March 23rd meeting. Chairman Close then announced A.B. 99 would be on the March 23rd committee Agenda. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 14 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require that Governor and Lieutenant Governor be affiliated with same political party and be elected jointly. Chairman Close announced A.J.R. 14 would be postponed until a later date due to absence of prime sponsor. At the request of Chairman Close to the Secretary of the Committee, the same testimony given by Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, in the A.J.R. 23 hearing regarding Governor and Lieutenant Governor being affiliated with same political party, is given below. Ms. Lusk stated as a representative of a citizen organization from a mixed political registration, they believed that to combine and require the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to be of the same party was an unnecessary restriction on voter choice. ASSEMBLY BILL 215 - Creates advisory committee on public access to legislative process and related communications. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 215. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. Assemblyman Price asked the intent, and Chairman Close stated as the Chair, it was his intent after A.B. 215 was indefinitely postponed, to introduce or have someone introduce the motion for a subcommittee of the Legislative Commission to consider the issue of communications and public access. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED A LETTER BE SENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC ACCESS AND TO BE FREE TO INVITE MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC IF NECESSARY TO ASSIST THE SUBCOMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Close advised the Chairmen of the Elections and Procedures Committee would be responsible for a letter to the Legislative Commission regarding the motion. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 20 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for commencement of regular legislative sessions in March. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.J.R. 20. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. The committee discussed the motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD WITHDREW THE MOTION. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 20 WITH AN ENDING DATE OF THE FIRST MONDAY IN JULY. NO ONE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION DIED. After discussion by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Chairman Close requested Assemblyman Allard restate his motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER A.J.R. 20 WITH A STARTING DATE IN MARCH AND AN ENDING DATE ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN JULY. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. There was no further discussion. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYWOMEN EVANS AND FREEMAN VOTED NO. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 21, THE AMENDMENTS BEING TO STRIKE 70 AND 90 AND INSERT 60 DAYS. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. Assemblywoman Lambert suggested choosing the second or fourth Monday in February due to the President's Day holiday on the third Monday in February. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed. Chairman Close then asked if committee would agree to make Assemblywoman Lambert's suggestion, which was concurred with by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, a part of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani's motion. The committee agreed. Chairman Close then asked Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to restate her motion. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 21 BY STRIKING 70TH AND 90TH AND INSERTING 60 CALENDAR DAYS, AND TO STRIKE FEBRUARY AND CONVENE THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH. ASSEMBLYMAN PRICE RESTATED HIS SECOND TO THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD ABSTAINED. 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. Chairman Close recognized Assemblyman Perkins who stated if the measure went forward, two separate issues would be addressed. One would be a violation of committee's own rules. The other would be a violation of open meetings. If the violation was of the open meetings, something as serious as voiding all action was warranted, but if committee was violating its own rules, the body which took up that violation should be trier of fact and determine whether or not the violation was severe enough to actually void the action or whether or not that action should go forward. Chairman Close expressed agreement with Assemblyman Perkins. Committee was having open meetings and discussing everything in front of everybody. If the meeting occurred behind closed doors where the public was not invited, that surely would be a violation of rules and should be dealt with accordingly. Concern had been expressed about the possibility of vindictiveness between lobbyists, Chairman Close noted. He also pointed out many times rules were suspended. Assemblywoman Lambert clarified her thoughts regarding amendments stating she had technical amendments on lines 15, 16 and 26. She also added there was the issue of, "The Director shall transmit the complaint, within 24 hours after receiving it... ", if the time was 3 p.m. on Friday afternoon. She suggested mentioning one legislative day instead of 24 hours. She continued, on line 5, page 2, "A hearing must be held within three legislative days after the filing...", and stated the words were directing in the rules to break the rules on a rule which dealt with sanctioning openness. Mrs. Lambert expressed a desire to work with the wording as well as the technical violation of having a letter of apology posted if five days posting was missed. She also brought forth criteria was needed on what constituted "open." The rules should be very clear to prevent some of the mischief which could be brought and a definition of "open". Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated at one point it was discussed to have staff come in for individual caucuses or as a group, to walk through the actual open meeting law. Potential rules could be defined for a format when a violation of the open meeting law occurred, she added. She also suggested obtaining information used by the Attorney General in challenges with school boards. She expressed agreement with Chairman Close a mixed issue occurred in the bill of what the rules were versus the open meeting law. Chairman Close at this time clarified the options which were to bring in someone to discuss the open meeting law with committee on one issue. The idea was to make sure whatever was passed was realistic and functional for the public and for committee. He thought there were some good pieces of legislation that would be beneficial for all concerned, but there were also some damaging things if left in. Chairman Close asked committee if it was agreeable to schedule a work session and have someone come in. In the meantime Mrs. Lambert and the Co-chairs would work to modify current language. Anyone who had input was invited to participate, he said, adding both chairmen of the committee would work directly with Mrs. Lambert. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 22 - Urges Congress to maintain current level of funding for public radio and public television stations. ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.J.R. 22. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 273 - Revises provisions governing candidacy for party nominations. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 273. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE). ASSEMBLY BILL 279 - Limits number of requests for legislative measures which may be submitted by local governments. Chairman Close, as prime sponsor, told committee he had further work to do on A.B. 279 and requested committee to hold the legislation. Chairman Close 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 PERKINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE INTRODUCTION). Assemblywoman Giunchigliani told committee she would introduce a B.D.R. on March 17 commending members of chiropractic profession upon centennial celebration. Mr. Close stated A.R. 5 was put on the desk because of concerns of Mrs. Landing and Mr. Dini, and would be discussed at a later time. Mr. Close asked committee for thoughts on filing for election since the two major parties had to file by one date, and a third or other parties could file at least a month after the filing date. Mrs. Lambert pointed out the constitutional requirement that minor parties receive special treatment. Mr. Close stated he would discuss with Legal because of concerns from individuals. Mr. Close then brought before committee a question of moving expenses for legislators. Discussion ensued regarding the subject of renting furniture and moving furniture to Carson City. Mr. Allard clarified renting furniture would cost less than moving furniture, but legislators could not be reimbursed for renting furniture. Mr. Erickson pointed out a $6800 cap. Mr. Close told committee he would discuss with Legal. Mr. Price discussed the bill on lobbyist expenses passed in the 67th Session. He asked if bill draft could be obtained to repeal last year's bill which would give committee an opportunity to discuss the possibility of amendments. Mr. Close did not wish to see the bill rescinded, but thought some modification was needed. Mr. Price, reverting to A.J.R. 23, discussed quoted figures from a 50 state survey of Treasurers and Auditors. Chairman Close asked Mr. Price for the information in writing for the March 23rd meeting. Concluding the meeting, Chairman Close asked committee to note that when a Work Session was scheduled, all old bills would be discussed for action or tracking. He thanked committee for their work. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 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 16, 1995 Page