MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES Sixty-eighth Session May 18, 1995 The Committee on Elections and Procedures was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Thursday, May 18, 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: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert Erickson, Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Ms. Ande Engleman, Society of Professional Journalists Mr. Robert S. Hadfield/Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt minutes of floor sessions April 27, May 5 and May 12. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES FLOOR MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27, MAY 5 AND MAY 12. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for comments. There were none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * Chairman Close asked for a motion to adopt minutes of April 25 and May 2, 1995 Elections and Procedures Committee Meetings. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED COMMITTEE ADOPT ELECTIONS AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 25 AND MAY 2, 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Close asked for comments. There were none. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32 - Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to require that standing committee hear and consider only information made available to public. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No 9, testified the intent of A.C.R. 32 was to amend Joint Rules of Senate and the Assembly to further clarify for open public hearings how the hearings needed to occur. She recapped each section of the bill and gave examples for description. The main intent was to make sure the public had proper access and would know what was being or would be discussed, she informed. In response to questioning from Assemblywoman Lambert, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said A.C.R. 32 was more of an educational process, but stated a bill was required to be in hand before committee could take testimony on it. It allowed for educational presentations to be given. She gave as an example when staff gave a presentation on past legislation, bullets were used on the Agenda posting to state subjects to be discussed. Assemblywoman Lambert described examples of emergency situations and asked if language could be included in A.C.R. 32 to cover those circumstances. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani described A.C.R. 32 was to alleviate discussions when nothing was posted. Feedback could not be given to constituents because there was no known agenda. She acknowledged emergency situations such as White Pine would occur, and the subject matter could be posted. An addition could possibly be added to the legislation which would cover that type of occurrence, she declared. Assemblyman Perkins questioned how budget hearings would be posted since those did not fall under the categories in A.C.R. 32. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani responded a category dealing with budgets might be added and suggestions from Assemblywoman Lambert might be incorporated. Chairman Close questioned when open discussion was being taken on changing the guidelines for lobbyists where no bill draft had been requested, and he asked if A.C.R. 32 would have dealt with the discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said a section of the statute which dealt with the subject to be discussed was posted, and copies were provided of suggestions from staff based on the discussion. She felt when amendments were suggested copies should be made available for the public at the table near the entrance to the meeting room. Sections which enacted the lobbyists were posted, and she felt that would have come under Number 3, lines 14 and 15 of A.C.R. 32. Ms. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of A.C.R. 32. Ms. Lusk did not agree the item discussed was covered under Number 3. She asked additional wording to cover a report or presentation which was open to the public with any documents provided, be made available to the public upon request. Ms. Lusk felt it was important for committee to provide to members of the public who may be present, copies of amendments being discussed for action. Ms. Lusk contended if the factors which were part of what was required to happen open public meeting, committee should consider whether waiving of the rules could be acceptable at the end of the Session. Assemblywoman Monaghan asked Ms. Lusk if she had ever had trouble in asking a committee member for a copy of an amendment. Ms. Lusk replied, "Yes." Assemblywoman Giunchigliani agreed if amendments were provided in writing, copies should be made available. Ms. Ande Engleman, representing Society of Professional Journalists, and speaking for herself, announced support of A.C.R. 32. She said without knowing specifics, people who planned to testify were handicapped in preparing to give testimony to the committee. She concurred with Ms. Lusk's testimony and in particular regarding the amendments which, she said, were a problem for the public and the press. Amendments could completely change the legislation, and the public never knows about the amendments, she continued. She concluded by saying the press was handicapped by not having copies of the amendments which were being presented on the floor. The press could not write news stories properly without the language. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.C.R. 32. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 33 - Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study to consider appropriate division of fiscal responsibility for programs and services between state and local governments. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District No 9, prime sponsor of A.C.R. 33, testified A.C.R. 33 was a result of conversations with Mr. Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, in 1991. The thought was to sit down with N.A.C.O. and a variety of groups from local governments to see if the responsibility of the state versus local government could be redefined. The Medicaid budget and long term care issue was back again, and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt the subject was appropriate for review. She drew attention to two interim studies on the Senate side which were home rule and consolidation of services which she thought A.C.R. 33 might fit into. Mr. Robert S. Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, announced support of A.C.R. 33 which he thought would be helpful to Nevada and to local government to determine who should have responsibility for major services and programs. He urged committee to support A.C.R. 33. Tax policy of the state of Nevada did not have any relationship to the service policy of the state of Nevada. Until the services were sorted out, tax laws would not be solved. He felt A.C.R. 33 was long overdue, and announced he would be glad to participate in the study. Assemblywoman Freeman pointed out there were more requests for study committees than members available. She asked if Mr. Hadfield had any recommendations. Responding to her question, Mr. Hadfield said it was mentioned to Senator O'Connell in the discussion of home rule that one of the issues needed to be addressed was responsibility, and it might be possible to combine those two. Home rule and A.C.R. 33 should be #1 and #2 priorities because it strikes at the whole tax policy issue of Nevada and its ability to provide services at all levels. Assemblywoman Freeman thought both studies could be done at the same time. Mr. Hadfield admitted the issues were intertwined, but did not want one of the subjects to be lost in the confusion. Assemblywoman Lambert asked for issues other than long term care. Mr. Hadfield replied Human Resource services, Mental Health, Home Rule and the Judicial System. He felt it would take a number of meetings and would be an intensive effort. Assemblywoman Evans thought the issue of responsibility for juvenile delinquents would be a big part of the study. Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, announced support of A.C.R. 33. She said it was questionable whether all of the government programs and services were necessary and whether the services enhanced the life of each resident of the state daily. She strongly supported the resolves, particularly requiring that the study make a determination of the assignment of fiscal responsibility for each program and service and where it belongs, and the development of a comprehensive plan of recommendations for the most efficient and appropriate division of fiscal responsibility. The authority should go with the responsibility, and whatever level of government had the responsibility to provide and pay for services should also have the ability to raise the money for it with accountability to the people in their particular area and the authority to change or eliminate the program should they decide it was not one of their fiscal or other priorities, she articulated. Assemblywoman Freeman asked Ms. Lusk which committees she thought could logically address the question in the upcoming session. Ms. Lusk thought for overall government responsibility the Government Affairs Committee would be the committee most likely to deal with the issues. Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified in support of A.C.R. 33 which she felt was extremely important. She stated she and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani were on the Senate side in support of S.C.R. 14, and she asked to speak briefly on S.C.R. 14 which came out of an interim committee which studied tax and revenue for the state of Nevada. She and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani served on the interim committee, she added. Ms. Vilardo discussed the raising of taxes for government funding for services. S.C.R. 14, with some modifications, reviewed consolidation, she cited. In trying to maximize revenue sources, government should be looked at, how services were performed and at what levels they were performed. She noted there were duplication and unfunded mandates. She thought it was very important to review service delivery: who is the proper entity to deliver the service, where the duplication of service is best met or eliminated. She agreed with Ms. Lusk that Nevada may not be able to provide every service. She thought two other levels might be reviewed, the level at which the service was provided, essential services and basic government functions, and the base level. She suggested within the language, services and time frames be identified. Ms. Vilardo did not think the studies should be combined with the interim study on home rule although she also supported the study on home rule both with some modifications. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt it was "who could deliver the service more effectively." She agreed with Ms. Lusk, the authority was needed in order to hold people accountable. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought potentially more legislators were needed on the study committee, and home rule could review so that no overlap would occur. The committees should meet prior to the end to share information. Assemblywoman Freeman questioned if a review was being done of reorganization from last session and how would it fit with discussion. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought there was a legislative committee that had to study reorganization. The Commission had a subcommittee, but she did not have their report. Assemblywoman Freeman said she was on the committee and did not believe there was a report. Ms. Nancy Howard, Nevada League of Cities, announced support of A.C.R. 33. She informed Nevada League of Cities was active in the fight against unfunded mandates which had been critical with local governments for many years. A study was needed to identify those responsible and those who could better provide services at the local level. She would like to be involved in the study, she told committee. Chairman Close closed the hearing on A.C.R. 33. Chairman Close opened the Work Session. ASSEMBLY BILL 619 - Makes various changes to provisions governing elections to comply with National Voter Registration Act. Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga, office of Secretary of State, stated his office was asked to provide an overview for the committee of A.B. 619 which was introduced May 17, 1995. Mr. Erquiaga submitted prepared testimony which, he said, explained why committee would have to do what the Secretary of State's office would ask committee to do in some fashion. See (Exhibit C). Upon questioning by Chairman Close regarding the D.M.V. process, Chief Deputy Dale Erquiaga clarified every customer had to be given the opportunity to register to vote at the Drivers License Division, at the Welfare Division, and at the rural clinic. They had to be asked, "Do you wish to register to vote." If the customer says, "No," the customer must say "No" in writing right then, at the time the service is provided. If the customer says, "Yes," they give the customer a form and say, "I can help you fill out this form, or you may take this form away and mail it back to the County Clerks, and all the addresses are provided on the back." Responding to a question from Assemblywoman Freeman, Mr. Erquiaga stated there was a fiscal impact on the counties. The fiscal impact on the state was isolated to the designated agencies. The fiscal impact of the National Voter Registration Act was on the counties for the steps they have to go through and the printing cost. Mr. Erquiaga continued his presentation from (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Freeman noted in 1991 Session a National Election Service was discussed, and she asked if it was put into statute in 1991. Mr. Erquiaga responded in 1991 the legislature enacted National Change of Address for Washoe and Clark Counties as a pilot project. The state appropriated $100,000 to the Secretary of State to reimburse the counties. Those two counties used that service, he said, and Clark County found it to be helpful. Washoe County found it to be somewhat less helpful. The money expired and the statutes expired, he continued. It was not an exciting enough program that it was continued statutorily. The counties were not prohibited from using it, but they do not have to use it. Under the new federal law, the counties have an option. Chairman Close thanked Mr. Erquiaga for his presentation. There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 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 18, 1995 Page