MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session May 4, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Thursday, May 4, 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Mr. Bob Price GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Former Senator Thomas Wilson/Chairman, Nevada Commission on Ethics Frances Doherty/Legal Counsel, Nevada Commission on Ethics Ms. Leola Armstrong/Executive Director, Common Cause Nevada Mr. Gary Crews/Legislative Auditor Ms. Ande Engleman/The Society of Professional Journalists Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt minutes of March 9 and April 20, 1995 Elections and Procedures Committee Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 9 AND APRIL 20, 1995. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for discussion. There was none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 526 - Makes various changes relating to commission on ethics. The Chair recognized former Senator Thomas Wilson, Chairman of the Nevada Commission on Ethics, who introduced Ms. Frances Doherty, Legal Counsel of the Nevada Commission on Ethics. Chairman Wilson stated Ms. Doherty had prepared comments regarding A.B. 526 (Exhibit C). The Chair recognized Ms. Doherty who offered a presentation on A.B. 526 (Exhibit C) which outlined what the Commission had done. A. B. 526 had been requested by the Ethics Commission and contains amendments requested by citizens, officials and by the Commission in response to problems encountered by the Commission over the last two years, she said. Section 1 attempted to clarify the Ethics Commission had jurisdiction over public officers and employees presently in the positions as well as over former public officers and employees who had left their positions either during the course of the proceedings of the Commission cases or who had left public office but had committed violations within three years of having left office. Attachment A to her testimony attempted to further clarify the jurisdiction of the Committee, and she suggested the incorporation of (I) of Attachment A be incorporated into Subsection 5 of A.B. 526. A.B. 526 also eliminated the confidentiality provisions with respect to past conduct committed by a public officer, employee or a former public officer or employee, a significant change from language of the statute, she declared. Ms. Doherty referenced Attachment B of her testimony, (Exhibit C) Lind v. Grimmer case. The subject of confidentiality, page 3, subsection 4 of Section 5, was discussed, and Chairman Wilson suggested a lack of confidentiality be limited to past conduct matters. Chairman Wilson said added language page 3, subsection 4 at line 16 rendered past conduct items public and not confidential, the bracketed language at the bottom of page 3 eliminated the Commission's jurisdiction on its own motion to determine that an opinion should be made public because it was in the public interest. If subsection 4 language is not approved by the legislature, Chairman Wilson did not want to lose the jurisdiction which the Commission had if it finds sufficient public interest in the release of an opinion. Referring to confidentiality, Ms. Doherty referenced page 4, Section 6, which amended NRS 281.541, the statutory provision allowing local bodies to create their own Ethics Commission. Amendments at lines 47 and 48 of page 4 which the Commission did not submit and where a change might be considered to include confidentiality provisions implemented for the State Ethics Commission, would be incorporated into Section 6 for local ethics bodies since local bodies are supposed to mirror what the Ethics Commission does at the state level, Ms. Doherty added. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for the rationale of the need for local Ethics Commissions. Chairman Wilson said the State Commission, which averaged meeting once per month, was not as quick to respond as a City Attorney or a local Ethics Commission. Chairman Wilson reminded last session legislation was processed if one went only to Counsel for the county, city or agency for advice, even if the advice was wrong, the violation would not be willful; it would be inadvertent and in good faith. Responding to additional questions from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Chairman Wilson stated people were required by law to seek an opinion first from their local source. He was unsure if it applied to third party requests, but contended it did apply to first party requests. The policy of the law had been to encourage local Ethics Commissions because of accessibility for the public, he reiterated. The State Commission rotated the location of their meetings depending on the need, i.e., Las Vegas or northern Nevada. Ms. Doherty confirmed a public officer or employee seeking an advisory opinion must go to their local commission. A third party opinion request did not have that same mandate. Assemblywoman Freeman asked if most of the cities and counties have local Ethics Commissions. Chairman Wilson informed the city of Las Vegas had one and Reno had vested certain powers in their city attorney, but he did not believe a commission had been created. Ms. Doherty did not believe the Reno Ethics ordinances would fall within the statutory provision of subsection 6 because Reno was not creating an Ethics Commission. Reno was making their ordinances more bold, setting up a procedure to have their City Attorney review cases, but the Ethics Commission at the state level would hear and decide the cases. Assemblywoman Freeman asked how Reno would fit with A.B. 526. Chairman Wilson and Ms. Doherty simultaneously declared Reno did not fit. Assemblywoman Lambert declared Government Affairs had a bill which dealt with local Ethics Committees, and the only opinions local Ethics Committees dealt with were requests about future behavior. They did not deal with past behavior. The future behavior would be confidential unless released by the employee. The two should be meshed together. Ms. Doherty thought the local body could hear past and future behavior under subsection 6, but opinion requesters were only required to direct them to the local body if they are in that jurisdiction and a local Commission existed. Assemblywoman Lambert referenced page 4, lines 39 through 42. Ms. Doherty responded the subsection went only to a public officer or employee, but the other subsections would contemplate opinion requests from other sources. Chairman Close, noted the local Ethics Commissions should be in line with the state, and asked if Ms. Doherty had preferred applicable verbiage for drafting. Ms. Doherty referred to page 3, subsection 4, lines 16 through 24, where the confidentiality provisions regarding past conduct were set forth. Chairman Close asked if local Ethics Commission actions would reduce Ms. Doherty's workload. Chairman Wilson believed it would, and noted a local government having an Ethics Committee was acceptable and was good public policy. Chairman Close asked if Chairman Wilson could see his Commission being an Appeals body, and Chairman Wilson answered "No." Ms. Doherty referred to page 4, line 22 and asked the brackets be removed from "or 2". Ms. Doherty continued her description and explanation of changes being requested in A.B. 526 with general asides offered by Chairman Wilson. See (Exhibit C). Chairman Close asked for a definition or implementation of a censure reprimand - a letter, public document, a public release. Chairman Wilson assumed the body of the opinion would include a separate paragraph which would come under the heading of "The Imposition of Censure or Reprimand." Chairman Wilson, Chairman Close and Ms. Doherty discussed the criteria of a censure and a reprimand. Assemblyman Fettic asked if rendered opinions of the Ethics Commission were written, and Chairman Wilson replied they were. Assemblyman Fettic further confirmed a censure or reprimand could be included in the text without being identified. Ms. Doherty asked committee to note (Exhibit C) Attachment A was a request to delete portions of A. B. 526. She called attention to page 5, line 20 where the Commission had not requested the provision which referred to penalty or contempt authority for the Commission or fining authority for the Commission, for someone found to have violated the confidentiality provisions of the statute. Since the confidentiality provisions of the statute would be eliminated with respect to third parties and past conduct, the referenced language in the statute was less relevant. She had some concerns about the language constitutionally for reasons she previously articulated. Chairman Wilson referenced new language on page 5, line 18 which applied the fine to one "who by fraud or artifice prevents the discovery of a violation of this chapter." Chairman Wilson pointed out "fraud" was a criminal concept and he was unsure how "fraud" would apply. He admitted he did not know the legal meaning of "artifice." He believed it would mean obstruction of justice, and, if so, standard language which addressed that concept should be applied. Again referring to page 5, Ms. Doherty added there were several amendments which referred to "past officer and the employee." Clarification was important so that jurisdiction was retained over individuals for a period of at least three years from the point of the act even though the individuals were not in employment, Ms. Doherty drew attention to Section 9, page 6 where the statute required the Commission to maintain confidentiality of its records since 1985. Since that time, the Commission had received approximately 280 opinion requests, she said. Of the 280, 255 remained confidential and closed or were in the process of being closed. Statutory requirement compels Commission make its records available to the auditors, and the statutory requirement requires files be absolutely confidential. Interjecting, Chairman Wilson said the position taken by the Commission was whether auditing the business of the Commission was legitimate. He gave an example of an inappropriate request for an auditor to review a file on which confidentiality had not been waived. The request was denied because it compromised the statutory right to confidentiality, he declared. He was not certain if the position of the Commission was in violation of the laws which applied to state audit or Legislative Counsel Bureau. Chairman Wilson believed a business audit should not review evidence of a confidential case even if the evidence was relevant to an audit inquiry in a state department. Ms. Doherty said if the confidentiality provisions were removed with respect to future cases, the majority would be open records, and it would not be an issue. However, some would still be confidential and a huge backlog of cases were confidential. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani supported the addition of public employees. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked the difference between a specialized versus a local Ethics Committee. Ms. Doherty said the bill drafters added the word. Next, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to "length of jurisdiction" language which said "two to three years" of discovery thereof. Discussion ensued among Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Chairman Wilson and Ms. Doherty regarding how far back in time Commission would go after someone for the alleged act or the discovery which Ms. Doherty said was three years with exceptions which she outlined. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned whether someone could ask for an advisory opinion on a legislator's future conduct. Ms. Doherty responded it had happened once, and she referred to N.R.S. 281.511 subsection 2, lines 40 through 42, which read anyone could submit an opinion request and ask the commission to apply the Code of Ethical Standards to a specific set of factual circumstances. Ms. Doherty believed the wording allowed the Commission to do it. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned how far back would they go after someone for an ethics violation even though the person was a former official. Chairman Wilson, responding to a question by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, said it was expressed as three years after the alleged violation but suggested the addition of "or its discovery thereof." See (Exhibit C) Attachment A. Chairman Wilson asked what if the public officer or employee wanted to go to his or her counsel or to Legislative Counsel Bureau for an opinion, and, if the opinion was wrong, it would not be a willful violation since the public officer or employee would rely on the opinion in good faith. The issue being raised, Chairman Wilson said, "Is a game going to played with this, and how do you bring order to the game." Chairman Wilson felt the subject should be addressed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned if language to ensure standards of local Ethics Committees was in place for creation of committees. Assemblyman Humke asked regarding the judiciary, if those members were held accountable for their past acts after they had left office. Chairman Wilson did not know the answer. Assemblyman Humke suggested there should be equivalence with the executive and legislative branches. Ms. Doherty responded to Assemblyman Humke's question by saying, "to the extent the Judicial Disciplinary Commission hearing was going on and the Judge left office." After the Commission had taken jurisdiction, the jurisdiction would continue which was statutory law, as to whether or not something could be initiated against a former judge where a proceeding was not pending. Assemblyman Humke responded this was a huge difference from A.B. 526 as amended. Chairman Wilson said Commission had authorized Ms. Doherty and the Attorney General's office, as their Counsel, to file a declaratory judgement and action in District Court for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the financial statement requirements applicable to public and judicial officers. The court had taken the position their administrative rules superceded legislation which required that, and, under the separation of powers doctrine of the constitution, it was void, he conveyed. "We have taken the position that an administrative determination by the Court does not rise to the level of an adjudication especially of a constitutional issue, that this legislature is entitled to more than that, and that we are going to seek a judicial determination as to whether it is," Chairman Wilson dialogued. Research by the Attorney General and the Legislative Counsel Bureau had concluded the law was constitutional, he added. Chairman Wilson informed there was a constitutional issue readily resolvable regarding financial statements. The question might be tighter on other ethical standards, he added. Assemblyman Humke asked if it was correct a resignation from the bench could be an outcome and could end a proceeding. Chairman Wilson did not know if Assemblyman Humke's statement was correct. Ms. Doherty thought it might be correct although they would not be necessarily mandated to declare that the end of the proceeding. Ms. Doherty at this time suggested Assemblyman Humke might wish to review sections deleted in (Exhibit C), Attachment A, Subsection (2) of Section 1, since the language could be what he was contemplating, as a more appropriate amendment to clarify the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission would like to see that its jurisdiction extend to past officers regardless of whether or not a proceeding was pending. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked where in Subsection (2) would public officers be defined. Ms. Doherty replied eliminate the amended (italicized) language and leave the definition in place only if the jurisdiction was clarified in the previous section. Assemblyman Humke added one of the bills was fraught with problems because it placed the Judicial Discipline Commission and rule making authority completely in the Executive Branch. Assemblyman Humke saw a separation of powers problem. He did not know what the other constitutional amendment did, and he suggested another version might be needed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani informed the Supreme Court established rules for the Commission and asked if that changed the jurisdiction. Assemblyman Humke understood it would. Chairman Close suggested a later discussion regarding the subject. Chairman Wilson, commenting on the distinction between the public officer/public employee distinction, believed the legal definition of "public officer" was restrictive. It might be limited to what is constitutionally prescribed which means a lot of management personnel in government are in the public employee category. The university system takes the position that university presidents are not public officers. It is a legal issue. They are not defined as public officers as such and fall within the public employee category. Public officers are not to be equated with anybody who may be in a management position, he declared. Ms. Leola Armstrong, Executive Director, Common Cause Nevada, a proponent of A.B. 526 with one exception, submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit D). The one exception to their support of A.B. 526 was the word "willful" which Common Cause was requesting to be removed from N.R.S. 294A.120, subsection 8. Ms. Armstrong referred to a book distributed to lobbyists and legislators at the pre- session orientation done by Ethics Commission Chairman Wilson and Mr. Jim Morgan. She felt funds should be made available so every person who runs for office and everyone in the public picture could have a copy of the book because of the amount of information and the format of the book. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked Chairman Wilson if a school board member would be considered a public official. Assuming the testimonial table to respond to her question, Chairman Wilson testified a school board member was a public employee but probably not a public officer. Chairman Wilson asked to respond to comments from Ms. Leola Armstrong and informed he had no disagreement with her comment regarding the language "willful" which he said applied more in a criminal context than a civil context under which the Ethics Commission operated. He was not at liberty to discuss the case which Ms. Armtrong referred to in her testimony (Exhibit D) because the period of appeal was still open; however, according to Black's Law Dictionary, "willful" was presently in the law for imposing a civil fine and was defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "an act or omission is willfully done if done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids but with the specific intent to fail or do something the law requires to be done. That is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law." Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, testified he was neither for nor against A.B. 526 although Auditing did have a concern with Section 8 of the bill which restricts the auditors' access to certain records of the Commission on Ethics. Mr. Crews addressed the committee from prepared testimony. See (Exhibit E). He concluded his testimony by stating Auditing felt Section 8 of A.B. 526 was unnecessary as it related to Legislative Auditing. He felt it would set a precedent for other agencies to look for exemptions in statutes considered somewhat confidential. Assemblyman Humke addressed Mr. Crews that Ethics Commission Chairman Wilson had said legislative auditors were free to audit all financial records, but, Assemblyman Humke asked if it was important for Mr. Crews, especially when directed by the Legislative Commission, to do management or performance audits also. Responding, Mr. Crews stated over the past few years, Auditing had changed their direction and were not performing financial auditing. Emphasis had been placed in the performance area, statutory compliance, economy efficiency and program results. A strict financial audit would not disclose the type of information Mr. Crews believed the legislature would like to know. Assemblyman Humke clarified Mr. Crews' comments by saying for performance audits, it would be necessary for Auditing to use individual case files which might be confidential by law. Mr. Crews confirmed Assemblyman Humke's statement and said Auditing had that situation to occur on a regular basis. Assemblyman Humke asked what type of protection citizens of Nevada had. In other words, "Are you held to confidentiality by virtue of the act that creates your division," Assemblyman Humke asked. Mr. Crews said Auditing had a section of NRS 218 which related to the confidentiality of their work papers. Those work papers usually contained identifying information, evidence to support their positions in audits confidential by statute. Auditing had never divulged any type of identifying information in an audit report. Assemblywoman Monaghan asked if Auditing could look at the confidential folder without having the identifying person. She asked if the name was required by Audit or was the opinion Audit required, and why was it needed. Mr. Crews said it was very difficult to audit records if Auditing did not know if the record related to a different case. Auditing had this occur before where an agency would like to block out the names of a particular individual within a case file. But once that was done, there were no assurances that what you are looking at is the evidence supporting that particular disbursement. Assemblywoman Monaghan asked for a better example other than a performance audit. Mr. Crews said from an audit perspective, audit responsibilities included determining if the agency was complying with statutes passed by the legislature. If the agency was audited, Auditing had no assurance the agency was complying with laws passed by the legislature unless Auditing could trace specifically back to the case files. The Commission is responsible for responding to requests for opinions. How do you know they are responding to those requests, he asked. The only assurance you have is from the Commission itself saying they are responding. Is it timely, Mr. Crews asked. Unless that information is audited and verified, their responses are relied on, and in essence you have no oversight of those responses. Assemblyman Allard discussed the possibility of a leak of information from auditors. Addressing Chairman Close, Mr. Crews stated he realized the sensitivity of the issues being discussed and that public employees were being discussed. Auditing had handled information during the last 20 years, and without exception, had demonstrated the ability to handle sensitive information and report accordingly. Any time people are involved, there is the potential that information can leak. Without access to all unrestricted information, Auditing cannot do a proper audit, he declared. Assemblyman Allard did not believe his question was fully answered and asked why the name of the individual was needed. Mr. Crews responded Auditing had no assurances that what a file represented, who it represented, was authentic. The file could be fictitious. You have nothing to tie the file to, no signatures, nothing to audit, and no audit trail. It would be like doing a financial audit where the name of the payee was not on a check. Auditing would not know what they were auditing. A discussion ensued between Assemblyman Allard and Mr. Crews regarding an audit trail. Chairman Close asked Mr. Crews in the time he had been in Legislative Counsel Bureau, had there been a leakage of information from his department about any of the audits which Mr. Crews had performed. Mr. Crews said he would respond to the last 19 years, and the answer was "No." Assemblyman Fettic agreed with Mr. Crews that the Ethics Commission would never become unethical under the current Commissioner. He referred to page 5, Section 7, subsection 4 (line 10). If it were discovered that Auditing had disclosed information, and the word "willfully" was omitted, Auditing would be subject to a $5,000 fine, he pointed out. Mr. Crews agreed with the reading. At this time, Mr. Crews commented on his staff which he stated handled situations in a professional manner. Chairman Close recognized Assemblywoman Giunchigliani who disagreed with Mr. Crews. This is an issue of a public official asking potentially for an opinion confidentially, and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani did not believe Auditing needed that information. She commented she was unaware of the fact that Auditing had access to psychiatric information. Assemblywoman Lambert said committee had a bill earlier which dealt with internal audit and confidential records. She had talked to some state agencies which had been audited by Mr. Crews' department, and the agencies were very concerned because they had sensitive and confidential records, but they had no problem after the audit because it was done in a professional manner. Confidentiality was not breached. Assemblyman Allard responded to Assemblyman Fettic's comments that under the current leadership of Gary Crews it had not happened, but under different leadership at some future date, no one knew what would happen. Ms. Ande Engleman, speaking for the Society of Professional Journalists, and for herself as former Director of the Nevada Press Association, said she was a key person in helping the ethics legislation pass and had been involved in earlier legislation this session. She testified the legislation was supported by all professional journalists and the press association. The Society for Professional Journalists, Southern Nevada Chapter, felt page 5, lines 20 through 26 should be clarified. Wording related to violation of confidentiality. This section would not apply to anything which the press may print since, for it to do so, would be considered prior restraint, and it would be unconstitutional. Reiterating for Chairman Close, Ms. Engleman said she assumed page 5 lines 20 through 26 was not intended to apply to the press. Assemblywoman Lambert asked for a clarification. Ms. Engleman gave two scenarios to clarify her statement. Ms. Engleman further clarified by reminding committee of the U. S. Supreme Court case, the Pentagon papers, which occurred in the 70's around the Watergate time. The case had to do with someone who worked at the Pentagon and took confidential information from the Pentagon to the New York Times. The New York Times published the information. There was a filing and a hearing, and the case went to the U. S. Supreme Court because they tried to keep the newspaper from publishing the information because the information was top secret and confidential. The U. S. Supreme Court said they could not keep the newspaper from publishing the information. That would constitute what they called "prior restraint" and would be contrary to the first amendment of the United States of America. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the press was ever held accountable for action. Ms. Engleman, responded the press was held accountable when the press did something maliciously. Assemblyman Allard declared if someone leaked information to the press, that someone would be the person guilty of breaching confidentiality and the press was merely voicing the information. The reason the press does not have to disclose the source of the information, he continued, was because of the Shield Law. Ms. Engleman confirmed Assemblyman Allard was correct. Ms. Engleman stated a number of state agencies had their own specialized Ethics Committees. The term "specialized" covered all Ethics Committees in the numerous agencies. She announced support of bringing the local Ethics Committees in line with the State Ethics Commission with one exception which was the local Ethics Committees were not exempted from the open meeting law. The committee had been functioning in Las Vegas without the exemption from the open meeting law. To put it in now and have them be closed would be going backwards, and the public would be upset to find that something which had been open now was closed to them. Assemblyman Fettic confirmed Ms. Engleman said the state Ethics Commission could meet in closed session, but a local Ethics Commission could not meet in closed session. Responding to Assemblyman Fettic, Ms. Engleman said when the session came up in Las Vegas about the local Ethics Committee, and the press called her, her first response was the city of Las Vegas had the same confidentiality as the state Ethics Commission. But when the city attorney looked at the language, the city attorney said no specific exemption from the open meeting law was in the statute of Las Vegas. Therefore, Las Vegas must hold their meetings openly, and Las Vegas had been conducting them openly. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani requested a copy of the City Attorney's opinion. Ms. Engleman said there was no exemption to Nevada's open meeting law in the statute regarding the local Ethics Committee. Ms. Engleman supported the confidentiality concept because she felt that was the only way public officers and employers would request the opinion if they knew it would be confidential. She supported former Chairman Wilson's concept of opening up past behavior because it was never kept secret anyway. Regarding future behavior, the way to encourage people to request an opinion on future behavior is by keeping it confidential. The case which went to the local Ethics Committee in Las Vegas was on past behavior, and they did accept it. Clarification in the law would be helpful, she said in concluding her testimony. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.B. 526. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 28 - Urges Congress to enact legislation allowing states to establish daylight saving time as standard time throughout calendar year. Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District 12, prime sponsor of A.J.R. 28, addressed the committee from prepared text (Exhibit F). She concluded by urging committee support of A.J.R. 28. Assemblyman Perkins asked if A.J.R. 28 could be accomplished through a bill rather than a resolution so that a policy statement could be made for the state of Nevada that Nevada would be on daylight savings time. Responding, Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said it could be accomplished indirectly. A Federal Statute reads once Nevada opts to go on the federal system with daylight savings time, Nevada has to go on at the time the federal government states and has to go off at the time the federal government states. Nevada has a choice, however, to pull out of it entirely and stay on standard time. If Nevada were to pull out of it entirely and stay on Pacific Standard, which is what Nevada is on at the present time, Nevada would not accomplish this, but because of the way Nevada lies geographically, Nevada could legislatively mandate the entire state into Mountain Time which would indirectly, because of the difference in time, put Nevada on the equivalent of Pacific Daylight time. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated the reason she did not go that route was she was afraid this might cause a problem with adjoining states in terms of industry and it might be harder to convince the Assembly to pass the legislation. Assemblyman Perkins announced agreement with the resolution and wondered if the resolution would accomplish the intent. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was open to amending the resolution into a bill, but stated it would have to be changed to put the state on mountain time which was the only way to accomplish it. Assemblyman Fettic announced his agreement with the resolution and discussed when President Nixon changed the country to daylight saving time. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said as the economy had worsened more families had become two-income families with both parents working. Daylight saving time would be safer for latch key children particularly in the heavy urban areas because the children could come home in daylight. Assemblywoman Evans announced her reluctance to support the legislation even though she was a big fan of daylight saving. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said the Congressional study stated that daylight saving time nationally would be a good thing, and substantial savings would occur in terms of energy consumption and electrical power consumption. Congress decided it would be a good thing and then mandated a system where if states go on daylight saving time, they could not stay on it. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned if President Nixon created daylight saving time because of agriculture and questioned Arizona's ability to stay on the same time. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall replied Nevada was located half and half from one time zone to another. It could be accomplished that way. Arizona did the opposite. By legislation, Arizona opted to pull out of the system entirely so Arizona stayed on standard time, and does not go onto daylight saving time. Assemblywoman Freeman added Roosevelt did this in the 30's. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall believed it was during World War II in the 40's when it was used as a war time measure to save energy. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall concluded her testimony by saying there were many core cities and places like Assembly District 12 which had no streetlights. The people in District 12 voted it down because they could not afford the increase in property taxes that would come from having streetlights installed. It is a problem in older parts of Las Vegas, she said, and in some parts of Reno. All incoming phone calls had been in favor of A.J.R. 28. She had not received any opposition to the legislation. Chairman Close agreed with Mr. Perkins. Resolutions do not seem to go anywhere. If committee was serious, the question would be should it be done differently. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed and said the original idea was to move Nevada on daylight saving time but was abandoned due to the federal morass. Chairman Close then opened the Work Session and referred to (Exhibit G), Work Session Document. ASSEMBLY BILL 279 - Provides method for determining leadership in either assembly or senate in event of evenly divided membership between two political parties. Chairman Close stated, based on input from Assemblyman Humke and Assemblyman Dini, he would be willing to amend A.B. 279 by striking item 8 from the proposal. See (Exhibit G). ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 279. ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for further discussion. THE MOTION CARRIED. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked to review the question Assemblyman Dini raised concerning being from a tri-county. Chairman Close responded it was tied into item 8. He affirmed A.B. 279 would take positive steps to reduce the number of bill drafts, but it was not his intent to limit committee introductions. Committee would in the future notice if committee introductions increased because of other aspects of A.B. 279. Oversight could be done at a later time, he added, because other aspects of A.B. 279 were positive. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 27 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for initial selection of judges by appointment with annual reviews of performance and subsequent retention by election. Chairman Close asked committee to review Addendum Testimony Regarding A.J.R. 27 (Exhibit H). He explained Kim Morgan, Legal Counsel, gave the direction to identify intent to the constituency of the Commission as to how the Commission would be constituted. Chairman Close then stated this item would be placed on the committee agenda for the May 9th meeting. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 24 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for election of chief justice by justices of supreme court. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she checked with Assemblyman Batten who would respond to committee regarding the four year to two year change. ASSEMBLY BILL 99 - Authorizes participation by State of Nevada in Conference of the States. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, regarding A.B. 99, asked Mr. Humke to comment regarding a statement in the newspaper regarding the Conference of the States. Assemblyman Humke informed the statement was incorrect. He told committee a steering committee for the Conference of the States met at a recent Council of States meeting and agreed to not pursue an ambitious schedule. In other words, the schedule of implementation was being slowed. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated Assemblyman Humke's response answered her question. 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. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated Ms. Lusk had asked for minor amendments to A.C.R. 11. Chairman Close and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani would meet to review the amendments. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Bobbie Mikesell, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Jack D. Close, Chairman Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures May 4, 1995 Page