MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session March 28, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17 Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, District 18 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Bill Ritch, Emergency Services Chairman, American Red Cross; Mr. Dale Askew, Assistant County Manager, Clark County; Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County; Mr. David Murdock, Law Enforcement Assistance Association; Mr. Richard Drake, Law Enforcement Assistance Association; Mr. Gary Yoes, Service Employees International Union, Local 1864; Mr. Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities; Mr. William L. Offutt, Administrator, Nye County; (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 327 - Authorizes leave of absence for certain public officers and employees to assist American National Red Cross during certain disasters. Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, District 29, left her chair in the committee and testified. She said many states had passed bills similar to A.B. 327. She explained, in the event of a disaster, A.B. 327 would allow individuals who received Red Cross training and were classified as disaster technicians and who worked for the state or its political subdivisions to take time off work to assist the Red Cross, without loss of pay, at the request of the Red Cross and with the approval of their employers. Mrs. Lambert pointed out a disaster was defined in NRS 414.020. Mrs. Lambert advised the provisions of A.B. 327 would pertain both to disasters which occurred in Nevada and to those which occurred in some of the states which surrounded Nevada. She indicated making the provisions of A.B. 327 pertain to disasters in surrounding states was based on Nevadans' concern for their neighbors (in other states). Mr. Bill Ritch, Emergency Services Chairman, American Red Cross, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). He advised local communities often needed assistance from the American Red Cross (hereinafter referred to as the Red Cross) when disasters occurred. He explained, in order to provide such assistance, the Red Cross depended on trained and experienced volunteers. He contended A.B. 327 would assist the Red Cross in ensuring disaster assistance was available when needed. Mr. Ritch said, at present, eight people in Nevada qualified for the provisions of A.B. 327. Mr. Ritch advised Nevada's gaming revenues decreased in January, 1995, due to flooding in California. He suggested more trained volunteers would have helped to alleviate the problems caused by flooding more quickly. He pointed out, during the previous week, Nevada experienced flooding, land slides and severe weather which resulted in three counties being declared disaster areas and required the local Red Cross to open shelters and food stations. Mr. Ritch cited numerous examples of past disasters with which the provisions of A.B. 327 would have helped to deal. Mr. Ritch pointed out many Nevada employees were allowed to take time from work to train for the National Guard and for military reserve units and received pay from both the state and the military. He advised those employees also received dual pay during declared emergencies. He advised Red Cross volunteers attended training on their own time and would receive pay only during a declared emergency. Mr. Ritch stated Ohio passed the first disaster leave law, in 1983. He advised, by 1994, fifteen other states had similar laws and nineteen states had similar legislation pending. He contended, if the legislature passed A.B. 327, both Nevada and the Red Cross would benefit. Assemblyman Bennett referred to Mr. Ritch's testimony that, at the present time, only eight Nevada employees would be affected by A.B. 327 and asked if Mr. Ritch would feel comfortable if a limit was placed on the number of employees who could avail themselves of the provisions of A.B. 327. Mrs. Lambert commented the fact employees must obtain their employers' permission to take time from work was essentially a "...capping mechanism..." Mr. Bennett asked if governmental agencies would coordinate with one another regarding the number of employees they permitted to take time from work to assist in a disaster. Mr. Ritch responded he would consider a limit on the number of employees but said he doubted there would be so many volunteers that such a limit would be necessary. Assemblyman Tripple asked whether there were, in fact, only eight people in Nevada who could assist as Red Cross volunteers in the event of a disaster. Mr. Ritch replied there were only eight people in Nevada who had the training the Red Cross required an individual have before the Red Cross would send him to assist in a disaster. Mrs. Lambert indicated it was hoped, if people knew they could take time from their work to help in a disaster, without being required to use their vacation time to do so, more people might take Red Cross training. Ms. Tripple pointed out, under the provisions of A.B. 327, an individual could take only 15 days from work, without loss of compensation, and suggested some judgement should be allowed as to how much time an employee could take from work. She pointed out a disaster could last longer than 15 days. She asked whether those states which had disaster leave laws limited the number of days employees could take from work. Mr. Ritch replied most did and referred to an attachment to his written testimony (Exhibit C) which contained information as to how many days disaster leave states allowed. Mr. Ritch explained, after three weeks of assisting in a disaster, volunteers were tired and needed to rest and the Red Cross sent them home. Discussions were held between Ms. Tripple and Mr. Ritch. Assemblyman Nolan commented there were several levels of trained Red Cross volunteers and advised, when a disaster occurred in Clark County, employers of those volunteers were good about allowing them to assist during the disaster. He contended there were many more than eight people who, although not trained to the level of disaster technician, assisted at disaster scenes. Assemblyman Harrington expressed concern over the broad construction of A.B. 327. He indicated California had disasters constantly and suggested A.B. 327 created the potential for Nevada employees to be constantly in California. He said he was not certain Nevadans wanted to supplement California's disaster relief. He indicated, if a disaster occurred in Nevada, Nevada would need its policemen and firemen and said he was concerned about the language "any public officer" contained in A.B. 327. Mr. Ritch responded Californians resided all along Nevada's border and suggested, because tourism was Nevada's major industry, assisting Californian's to "...get back on their feet..." aided tourism. He contended Californians came to Nevada's assistance. Mr. Harrington said he had no problem with sending Nevadans to assist in areas which were close to Nevada's borders but felt there would be a problem with sending Nevadans to assist in communities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Mr. Harrington asked, if the Red Cross had then had the capability to send crews to assist in the San Francisco earthquake and the Los Angeles riots, would it have done so. Mr. Ritch responded affirmatively. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if Mr. Ritch believed Nevada could depend on California, Arizona and Utah to assist Nevada in the event Nevada experienced a major disaster. Mr. Ritch replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom suggested A.B. 327 would allow Nevada to do for those states what they would do for Nevada. Mr. Ritch commented Nevada was sparsely populated and contended, if Nevada experienced a catastrophic disaster, it would not have sufficient people to cope with that disaster and would require assistance from people who lived in other states. Assemblyman Williams observed the American Red Cross gave of its efforts throughout the nation and suggested A.B. 327 would allow Nevada to become a participant in a national movement to assist people everywhere. He contended, when people needed help, it didn't matter where those people were. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 327. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 198 - Creates alternative method of providing, and increases fees for, services of constable. Chairman Bache disclosed his wife was an administrative assistant for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local No. 1107, which represented county employees. Mr. Dale Askew, Assistant County Manager, Clark County, testified. Mr. Askew advised A.B. 198 was proposed by Clark County and it was Clark County's intent to consolidate the civil bureau of the Clark County sheriff's office with the office of the former constable of Las Vegas and, thereby, create a single county department. He said Clark County desired to have authority to compensate process servers in the same manner in which they were compensated by the constable of Las Vegas. He indicated Clark County would like to retain the existing fee structure set forth in NRS 258. Mr. Askew advised the constable of Las Vegas resigned in September, 1993. He stated the Board of County Commissioners of Clark County had statutory authority to either appoint another constable or to abolish the office of constable. He said the vacancy in the position of constable provided the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to restructure the functions of the constable's office and the civil bureau of the sheriff's office in order to provide more cost effective and customer oriented services. Mr. Askew explained the constable of Las Vegas was an elected official who executed court orders and served civil process which emanated from justice court. He advised the constable appointed his deputies and compensated them "...on a piece meal basis." He said the cost of the services provided by the constable was borne solely by the users of those services. Mr. Askew said the civil bureau of the sheriff's office was responsible for service and enforcement of civil process. He advised the civil bureau, unlike the constable's office, was not self-supporting. Mr. Askew stated, in October of 1993, the Clark County's Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution to abolish the office of constable of Las Vegas, effective December 31, 1994, and appointed an acting constable for the interim period. He said, when the office of constable expired on December 31, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners appointed the sheriff of Las Vegas to assume the constable's duties as ex-officio constable. Mr. Askew explained A.B. 198 was requested to allow appointment of "...a department head level constable..." who would have authority to perform all duties which were presently the responsibility of the civil bureau of the sheriff's office as well as those which were the responsibility of the constable's office and to hire employees to work "...on a piece meal basis." He suggested such a consolidation would preserve "...the constable model of pay for performance...," would allow for flexible employee work schedules, with no overtime, would reduce bureaucracy and would result in considerable monetary savings. He contended, in its present form, A.B. 198 would not accomplish the desired end and submitted some proposed amendments to A.B. 198 (Exhibit D). Mr. Askew said the amendments proposed by Clark County (Exhibit D) would allow Washoe County to do the same things it was proposed Clark County be allowed to do. He briefly discussed some of the proposed amendments (Exhibit D). Assemblyman Ernaut said it was his impression Clark County had agreed A.B. 198 would provide no increase in fees. He contended Clark County's proposed amendments to A.B. 198 (Exhibit D) did not reflect that agreement. Mr. Askew responded Clark County would like to do whatever was necessary to cause the existing fee structure to remain. Mr. Ernaut stated Clark County's proposed amendments (Exhibit D) purported to amend a section of A.B. 198 which did not exist and did not provide for the addition of a subsection (b) to Section 4 as Mr. Askew had indicated they did. Mr. Askew responded, if he used the word "section," he spoke incorrectly as he had intended to refer to paragraph 4(b). Mr. Ernaut asked if it was Clark County's intent that fees remain the same. Mr. Askew replied affirmatively. Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified. He advised he was acting director of the Las Vegas sheriff's civil bureau. He stated the police department of the city of Las Vegas and the sheriff's office of Clark County were consolidated by legislative action, in 1973, at which time it was decided the sheriff would be the chief of the combined agency or C.E.O. He contended the sheriff had a great deal of responsibility as he managed a police agency consisting of approximately 2,300 employees, located in a geographical area of approximately 7,500 square miles, and a budget of nearly $140 million per year. Captain Oaks said the sheriff's civil bureau was never incorporated into the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department but remained a department of Clark County, for which the sheriff was statutorily responsible, the purpose of which was to provide civil process services. He explained everyone assigned to the civil bureau, except himself, was a county employee and Clark County paid for the bureau's entire budget. He advised, in the previous year, the civil bureau's budget was in excess of $800,000 but the civil bureau recovered only $190,000 through service fees. He stated employees of the civil bureau were subject to Clark County's policies and regulations. Captain Oaks suggested the sheriff of Clark County had no interest in maintaining a department for service of civil process which, while under his authority, was run by others and belonged to another governmental entity. He advised the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Clark County Sheriff supported Clark County's effort to create one unit to serve civil process, in its unincorporated areas and in Las Vegas, which would not be the responsibility of the sheriff but rather of the county. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether, under the provisions of A.B. 198, the constable of Las Vegas would work for the sheriff or "...it would all be separate." Captain Oaks replied, in the past, the constable was an independent, elected official. He advised, when the previous constable was indicted on criminal charges, Clark County elected to eliminate the position of constable as an elected position and to have the sheriff assume that position as ex-officio constable for the township of Las Vegas. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the sheriff controlled other townships. Captain Oaks replied he did not. Mrs. Segerblom asked Captain Oaks to clarify who was responsible for fees. Captain Oaks replied Clark County would be responsible for fees and for the cost of running both the constable's office in the township of Las Vegas and the sheriff's civil bureau or the equivalent, which (under A.B. 198) would be a county- wide organization for service of civil process. Mrs. Segerblom expressed concern about Captain Oaks' use of the term "county-wide." Captain Oaks explained, at the present time, the sheriff's civil bureau operated county-wide. He said, in every county in the state of Nevada, the sheriff's civil bureau was responsible for service of civil process, which, usually, was generated by district courts. He advised constables were looked upon as a branch of justice court and handled small claims actions, evictions and other proceedings of that nature whereas a sheriff's civil bureau handled temporary protective orders, stalking orders, attachments and writs. He stated a sheriff operated county-wide, while a constable operated only within his township. Chairman Bache advised he had received telephone calls from individuals "...from the civilian division..." in which those individuals said they would lose their employment benefits, would no longer be county employees and would be removed from the employees' bargaining unit (if A.B. 198 was passed by the legislature). Mr. Askew responded Clark County's agreement with the employee bargaining unit did not permit layoffs "...based on contracting out of services." He explained the county would either retain present employees in their current positions or would attempt to find comparable county positions, with commensurate benefits, for those employees. Ms. Mary Henderson, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County, testified. She advised Washoe County had requested a bill be drafted which would allow it to eliminate "...constable townships..." She suggested, if A.B. 198 was amended to include Washoe County, it would eliminate the need for the bill Washoe County had requested. Ms. Henderson stated Washoe County was the only county in Nevada which was required to have a constable in each of its townships. She said, in July, 1994, Washoe County made a comprehensive study of the operations of its constables. She said the constable in Reno served between 700 and 800 papers each month while the constable in Gerlach had not served one paper in three years. She advised one recommendation which resulted from the study conducted by Washoe County was that Washoe County request the legislature to allow it to have the same flexibility as rural counties had with respect to county commissioners having authority to establish constable townships. Ms. Henderson submitted proposed amendments to A.B. 198 (Exhibit E) and explained the purpose of those amendments. Ms. Henderson advised Washoe County had restructured the salaries and fees constables received. She indicated, as elected officials, constables presently received full employment benefits and suggested that would change (under A.B. 198). Mrs. Lambert asked whether Washoe County, if it abolished a constable township, would wait until the end of the constable's term of office to do so. Ms. Henderson replied affirmatively. Mrs. Lambert asked whether Washoe County would object to language to that effect being included in A.B. 198. Ms. Henderson replied Washoe County would not object. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether Ms. Henderson had testified that counties other than Washoe County were not required to have a constable in each of their townships. Ms. Henderson replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether or not Clark County had a constable in each of its townships. Ms. Henderson replied any county in the state of Nevada, except Washoe County, had the ability to abolish a constable township and to appoint its sheriff as ex officio constable of that township. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Askew whether every township in Clark County had a constable. Mr. Askew responded, except for the township of Las Vegas, which had an acting constable, they did. Assemblyman Freeman asked Ms. Henderson how many townships there were in Washoe County. Ms. Henderson replied Washoe County had six townships, Wadsworth, Gerlach, Reno, Sparks, Incline and Verdi. Mrs. Freeman asked what the practical result of A.B. 198 would be if a constable, such as the one in Gerlach, had nothing to do. Ms. Henderson replied A.B. 198 would allow Washoe County to eliminate such a constable's position. Mrs. Freeman asked whether the financial savings to the county (which would result from A.B. 198) would be those which resulted from not having to pay for benefits constables presently received. Ms. Henderson said, under the revised plan Washoe County had developed, a constable received a base salary of $5,000 plus employment benefits, in addition to which he received the net proceeds from revenues he collected, up to a maximum of $55,000, after which he would share those net proceeds, equally, with the county. Mr. David Murdock, Law Enforcement Assistance Association, testified. He contended, historically, holders of public office had been found guilty of malfeasance but not once had the office which they held been abolished. He stated neither Nevada's state constitution nor the national constitution looked favorably upon changes being made without just cause. Mr. Murdock said citizens made extensive use of the small claims system, which was designed to facilitate inexpensive collection of small debts. He advised, on past occasions, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department indicated it could not process small claims as inexpensively as constables could process them. He suggested this meant the sheriff's civil bureau or comparable entity would have to charge more for services connected with small claims than the constable charged. He said, with respect to delegating services provided by constables to independent contractors, that was already being done. He said constables were presently paid on a commission basis. He contended to delegate service of those court documents which could only be served by a peace officer to peace officers who were already burdened was not cost effective. Mr. Murdock suggested service of process by mail, rather than in person, would adversely impact apartment owners, home owners, owners of mobile home parks, realtors, property managers and businessmen and contended "...the eight to five deputies cannot catch the working class people at home. Constables do." He declared small claims court should not be made unaffordable or unfit for its purpose. Mr. Murdock pointed out, in 1992, the sheriff's civil bureau served 11,000 court orders, at a cost to taxpayers of $900,000. He stated the Las Vegas constable's office served 24,000 court orders at no cost to taxpayers. Mr. Murdock said one of the few areas of government, if not the only, which had not cost the county money was the one being considered for change. Mr. Murdoch advised Nevada's constitution clearly described the importance of uniform rules throughout the state. He suggested, if restructuring of the constable's office was mandated for Las Vegas, it must be mandated with respect to constable's offices throughout Nevada. Mr. Murdoch stated service of process in small claims actions was dependent upon 24 hour service "...which does not lend itself to hourly, paid employees." He advised, currently, constables paid for their own vehicles and training. He suggested, if the changes proposed by A.B. 198 were made, it would be necessary to increase fees (for service of process). Mr. Richard Drake, Law Enforcement Assistance Association, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit F). He advised he opposed A.B. 198 because it would abolish all township constables in Clark County. He said he believed to do so would be unconstitutional. He read from Article 4, Section 20 of Nevada's state constitution. He said nowhere did the state constitution say counties with populations of 400,000 people or more were exempt from complying with the rules set forth in the state constitution. He contended abolishing township constables would deprive people of their right to vote. Mr. Drake stated elected constables cost taxpayers nothing. Mr. Drake suggested, if A.B. 198 was passed by the legislature, it would pave the way for abolition of other elected offices. Mr. Drake submitted a memorandum from Nevada Apartment Association, Inc. (Exhibit G). He indicated the members of Nevada Apartment Association, Inc., comprised a large number of those who used the services of the constable and said "...they want the office returned as elected." Mr. Drake submitted a document which set forth information concerning one of his paychecks (as a constable) (Exhibit H) and reviewed the figures contained thereon. Mr. Drake submitted a copy of a letter from the sheriff of Mineral County which expressed support for constables being elected (Exhibit I). Assemblyman Neighbors referred to previous testimony that sheriff's office personnel served 11,000 court orders, at a cost to taxpayers of $900,000, while the constable's office personnel served 24,000 court orders and asked what commission the personnel of the constable's office received. Mr. Drake responded deputy constables received a commission of 40 percent. Mr. Neighbors asked what the deputy constables received in terms of dollars. Mr. Drake indicated he did not have that information. Mr. Gary Yoes, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1864, testified. He read a written statement of Ms. Barbara Aupperle, President of Local 1107, SEIU (Exhibit J) into the record as follows: "SEIU 1107, The Nevada Service Employees Union currently has in their Bargaining Unit the employees of the Clark County Sheriff's Civil Bureau. Many of these workers are long-time Clark County employees who have under their union contract wages, insurance, other benefits and working conditions. "The proposed amendment to AB 198 would take these workers and place them under the auspices of the Constable's Office, removing them from their contract state and making them at-will employees with no protection and no benefits. "We strongly object to such treatment of loyal long-term employees, and feel that this type of treatment does not bode well for the future of other Clark County employees, since changes in employee status under our contract are negotiation matters and as such should not be done by legislation." Mr. Yoes contended, when the county first contemplated making the changes proposed by A.B. 198, it should have notified its employees of any proposed changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, formally, through their exclusive bargaining agent. Mr. Yoes said he wished to ask a question of Mr. Askew. Chairman Bache suggested Mr. Yoes speak with Mr. Askew personally. Mr. Yoes indicated he wished to raise the question of whether or not SEIU had received notice of the changes proposed by A.B. 198. Assemblyman Krenzer asked how many employees would be affected by A.B. 198. Mr. Yoes replied 16 employees would be affected. Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17, testified. He advised the constable of the township of North Las Vegas opposed A.B. 198 and also opposed any fee increases. Mr. Price pointed out Article 420, Section 20, of Nevada's state constitution was one of several sections of the constitution which discussed the prohibition of local and special laws. He said the legislature was supposed to attempt to pass laws which were general in nature and advised there were many Attorney Generals' opinions and court cases dealing with that requirement. He stated, in his personal opinion, A.B. 198, particularly with the proposed amendments pertaining to population figures, was unconstitutional. Mr. Price advised one means the legislature used to circumvent the prohibition against passing special laws was to establish population standards. He contended, when the legislature changed population figures established when a law was originally passed, it became evident the legislature was attempting to create special legislation which would apply only to particular counties. Mr. Price suggested A.B. 198 would remove power from the legislative branch of government. He stated Nevada's legislature created counties and cities and also created the office of constable and contended it was the legislature which had the power to determine when and where there would be constables. He advised Nevada's constitution had provided for the office of constable since 1864. He asked the committee to consider the fact A.B. 198 would remove power from the legislature and would abolish an elective office. Mr. Price said the argument as to whether an office should be appointive or elective was philosophical. He advised there were two or three states in which the only constitutionally elected officer was the Governor. He suggested the framers of Nevada's constitution desired to have as many offices as possible be elective. He stated he liked offices to be elective because it required the holders of those offices to answer to the people. Mr. Price advised a 1948 Attorney General's opinion stated a statute which consolidated the offices of constable and deputy sheriff, in only one county, was unconstitutional. He pointed out Nevada's state constitution said, "In all cases enumerated in the preceding section, and in all cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and uniform in operation throughout the state." He suggested laws concerning constables should be uniform and generally applicable. Mr. Price stated a 1903 court decision said a special act upon a subject which could be covered by a general act was unconstitutional. Mrs. Freeman asked, "Are you saying that this whole section is unconstitutional." Mr. Price replied he believed, when the legislature created a law which established population figures and then changed those population figures, the changing of the population figures made the law unconstitutional. Mrs. Freeman asked if it was Mr. Price's contention it was the population threshold established by A.B. 198 which made A.B. 198 unconstitutional. Mr. Price replied, in his opinion, it was. He suggested, if the office of constable was to be eliminated, that should be accomplished by amending the state constitution. Mrs. Freeman said she was confused by Ms. Henderson's testimony that Washoe County was the only county which did not "...currently have this kind of flexibility." Mr. Price replied, "...my guess is that, again, that has to do with population numbers." Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 198. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 314 - Requires constables to be elected in all townships. Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, District 18, testified. Mr. Manendo stated people wanted to be part of the system (of government) and suggested A.B. 314 allowed the people to have a voice. Mrs. Krenzer said Mr. Price had not addressed the question of why a constable should be elected. Mr. Manendo suggested constables should be elected because they had authority. He said he believed voters should have a voice in who filled the office of constable. He stated, unless he was mistaken, Nevada had always had constables and those constables had always been elected. Mr. Richard Drake, Law Enforcement Assistance Association, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit K). He contended Clark County wanted the ability to hire independent contractors to serve process and advised the constable's office already had "contract" employees. He advised deputy constables who served process were "P.O.S.T" certified, trained and bonded. He said many things could go wrong in the course of serving process and suggested, if the county used contract employees to serve process, it might be held liable for the actions of those employees. Mr. Drake said a large percentage of apartment and "trailer" owners and managers, as well as many justices of the peace, were opposed to the provisions of A.B. 314. Mr. Nolan said he, too, was concerned about the safety of those who served process on individuals who might become inflamed by receiving such process but advised he understood certain documents could be served only by a peace officer. He suggested, with respect to such documents, A.B. 314 did not propose they be served by a process server rather than a peace officer. Mr. Drake responded, "...when I was with the office of constable, we were in uniform, we looked a lot more authoritative, we were a lot more effective and we just did a better job..." Mrs. Segerblom asked whether she was correct an attorney, if he wished, could use a process server, rather than a constable, to effect service of process. Mr. Drake replied whether an attorney could or could not do so depended upon the type of document he wished to have served. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether documents used to subpoena witnesses could be served by a process server rather than a constable. Mr. Drake replied affirmatively. Mr. Drake indicated the Clark County Democratic Party, the Paradise Democratic Party, the North Las Vegas Democratic Party, and the state Democratic Party had passed resolutions in support of A.B. 314. He said, "...this can and cannot be a partisan type thing." Mr. Bennett pointed out Section 1, subsections 2 and 3, of A.B. 314 deleted provisions of NRS 258.010 which provided the mechanism for appointing a sheriff as an ex officio constable while Section 4 of A.B. 314 contained language which referred to appointment of a sheriff as an ex officio constable. He asked if Mr. Drake could propose amendments to A.B. 314 which would eliminate that conflict in its provisions. Mr. Drake replied language could be developed to do so. Mr. David Murdock, Law Enforcement Assistance Association, testified. Mr. Murdock referred to Mrs. Krenzer's question of why a constable should be elected. He said election of officials was "...part of our basic heritage." He declared the Law Enforcement Assistance Association was in favor of having the office of constable be an elective office. He indicated, in the future, there might be alternatives but said, "...currently, I think that we're looking at some major constitutionality rules and regulations that we need to know more about." Mrs. Lambert asked, rhetorically, who would run for the office of constable in a township in which the constable did not conduct enough business to generate the money with which to pay for the bond he was required to post. Mr. Murdock referred to the testimony given by Mr. Ritch, on A.B. 327, regarding Red Cross volunteers. He said he knew such volunteers made no money but they dedicated themselves to unending tasks. He advised there were constables in Nevada who made $30 per year and suggested money was not necessarily a criterion in an individual's decision to run for the office of constable. Assemblyman de Braga asked whether A.B. 314, by removing the power of county commissioners to abolish the office of constable, would require every township to elect a constable. Mr. Murdock deferred to Mr. Drake to answer Mrs. de Braga's question. Mr. Drake replied he believed it would do so but said provisions could be included in A.B. 314 to establish salaries for constables. Discussions ensued between Mrs. de Braga and Mr. Drake. Mr. Drake submitted a group of documents reflecting voters' support for A.B. 314 (Exhibit L). Mr. Bache asked whether, prior to the constable's office being merged with the sheriff's office, all constables were P.O.S.T. certified. Mr. Drake replied, at one time, they were not P.O.S.T. certified but, at the present time, all of them were P.O.S.T. certified. Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Drake presently worked for the constable's office. Mr. Drake replied he did not but said he was P.O.S.T. certified. Assemblyman Robert E. Price, District 17, testified. He stated he was a strong proponent of offices being elective whenever possible. He said, "...I'm inclined to think, from appearances, that the passage of A.B. 314 would eliminate the question that we were talking about earlier on the population thing, would make that whole section of law beyond reasonable constitutional question. I think that would make it constitutional." Mr. Price referred to Mr. Bennett's observation that there was a conflict between Section 4 and subsections 2 and 3 of Section 1 of A.B. 314 and questioned whether Section 4, in its entirety, should be included in A.B. 314 or whether it should be amended. Mr. Price advised the constable of the township of North Las Vegas was in favor of all constables being elected. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Price whether or not he was aware there had been challenges to the constitutionality of establishing population figures (in statute) for more than 100 years. Mr. Price replied affirmatively. He indicated attorney generals' opinions and court decisions could be found which gave the appearance that, in certain circumstances, use of population figures was constitutional. Mr. Neighbors asked the basis for those court rulings which said population figures could be used. Mr. Price replied "...it looks like they're all over the board. In the 1800's and 1900's some things were said, and then it seems almost like the various cases depending on whether narrow in scope, broad in scope and so forth." He advised there were opinions which indicated use of population figures was unconstitutional and other opinions which would lead one to believe such use was constitutional. Mr. Neighbors responded there were court cases in which use of population figures had been upheld on the grounds "...that the classification was rationally related to the difference in population." Mr. Neighbors said he asked Brenda Erdoes, Acting Legislative Counsel, for an opinion, with respect to A.B. 198 and suggested that opinion would also be applicable to A.B. 314. Mr. Neighbors read a one page document which contained Ms. Erdoes' response to his request (Exhibit M). Mr. Price responded the problem with establishing population figures arose when population figures established by one legislature were changed by a subsequent legislature. He suggested such changes indicated the legislation was special legislation, intended to apply to only one county, and a clear argument could be made that the statute was unconstitutional. Mr. Price advised A.B. 314 would remove population limits entirely (from NRS 258.010). Mr. Thomas Grady, Nevada League of Cities, testified. Mr. Grady advised he was appearing on behalf of the Nevada Association of Counties and said the Nevada Association of Counties opposed A.B. 314. He contended A.B. 314 was intended to apply only to one area of one county. He stated not only would A.B. 314 have the effect of an unfunded mandate but it would affect 17 counties which "...apparently have no problem with this." He cited, as an example, the township of Jarbidge, in Elko County. He advised A.B. 314 would require the township of Jarbidge, which had a population of 113, to have an elective office of constable. He indicated the Nevada Association of Counties believed A.B. 314 to be a very poor piece of legislation. Mrs. Segerblom commented the township of Jarbidge had a justice of the peace. Mr. Grady suggested it was not necessarily good to require Jarbidge to have another elected official. Mr. Bennett asked whether Mr. Grady thought having county commissioners establish the jurisdictions, within their individual counties, which would be required to have constables was a possibility. Mr. Grady suggested the legislature would have heard from the county commissioners of any county which wished to be affected by the provisions of A.B. 314. Mr. Harrington asked what amendment to A.B. 314 would cause the Nevada Association of Counties to support A.B. 314. Mr. Grady responded an amendment establishing population caps. Mr. William L. Offutt, Administrator, Nye County, testified. He said the Board of Commissioners of Nye County directed him to inform the committee of what a bad piece of legislation A.B. 314 would be for Nye County and for most rural counties. Mr. Offutt stated, in Nye County, the sheriff's department served process. He advised Nye County consisted of 18,000 square miles and said officers of the sheriff's department carried out the duty of serving process as part of their normal patrol shifts. He said, for the fiscal year which ended on June 30, 1994, it would have cost Nye County $106,890 to pay a constable to serve process for its district attorney and its four justice courts plus an additional $35,000 for the constable's mileage. He advised the total of those costs was more than the salaries of three deputy sheriffs and said Nye County would have to divert those funds from its general fund budget in order to provide for service of process by constables in its four townships. Mr. Offutt contended attempts were being made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government and advised A.B. 314 appeared to Nye County to be a step backward in those attempts. He declared Nye County strongly urged the legislature to retain the provision which allowed counties with populations of less than 100,000 to determine they did not wish to have constables. Mrs. Lambert asked if any complaints had been made by Nye County's justice courts concerning the sheriff's department's service of process. Mr. Offutt replied there had been none. Mr. Harrington asked whether establishing population caps for townships, rather than counties, would be acceptable to the Nevada Association of Counties. Mr. Grady responded to Mr. Harrington's question. He said he would rather not answer on behalf of the Nevada Association of Counties but indicated his initial feeling was it would not be acceptable. Mr. Offutt stated A.B. 314 would not "...serve the public purpose..." in rural Nevada. Captain Randy Oaks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified. He advised he represented both the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Sheriff Jerry Keller. He stated both the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Sheriff Keller opposed A.B. 314 because it contradicted A.B. 198 which they supported. Captain Oaks advised much of the process served by constables and by the sheriff's civil bureau could not be served by process servers because it was required to be served by a peace officer. He said he did not wish to mix the bills before the committee but pointed out the proposed amendments to A.B. 198 (Exhibit D) stated "Agents, employees and contractors of the unit shall have the same peace officer power as constables and their deputies." He explained persons under contract to the county to serve civil process would be considered peace officers and would have to be P.O.S.T. certified in order to carry out their duties. Mr. Dale Askew, Assistant County Manager, Clark County, testified. He stated Clark County opposed A.B. 314 because it conflicted with A.B. 198. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 314. Chairman Bache appointed a subcommittee, comprised of Mr. Nolan, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Segerblom and Mrs. Tripple, with Mr. Nolan as chairman, to consider Assembly Bill No. 276. B.D.R. No. 19-1127 - Makes various changes regarding access to public records. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. NO. 19-1127. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. B.D.R. No. 31-826 - Makes various changes concerning state treasurer. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. NO. 31-826. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Ernaut explained any time the state treasurer changed an investment policy or anything else he had to come before the legislature and acquire statutory authority to do so. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED THE COMMITTEE REQUEST A BILL BE DRAFTED WHICH WOULD PREVENT BOTH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM USING POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THEN CAUSE SUCH RESIDENCES TO BE RENTED OR OTHERWISE REOCCUPIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bache commented he would like such a bill draft to include a provision airport authorities could not use eminent domain to acquire property outside of the area contiguous to an airport. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:38 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs March 28, 1995 Page