MINUTES OF THE
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 10, 1995


The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on 
Saturday, June 10, 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
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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Mr. Pete Ernaut	

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5; Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7.

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst

OTHERS PRESENT:


Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of 
Nevada; Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association; Mr. Dean 
Borges, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board; Ms. Dee Ann Parsons, 
Chief, Nevada Energy Office, Department of Business and Industry, State of 
Nevada; Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards; Ms. 
Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel 
Bureau; Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (See also 
Exhibit B attached hereto). 


SENATE BILL NO. 460 - Requires certain agencies to report on whether its system 
	of internal accounting and administrative control is in compliance with 
	uniform system adopted by director of department of administration. 

Senator Ann O'Connell, District No. 5, testified.  She submitted a copy of a bill she 
introduced during the 1987 legislative session (Exhibit C).  She advised the purpose 
of that bill was to require state agencies to adopt a uniform system of internal 
auditing and administrative controls.  She said the bill became law and "...was to 
be in place with the government agencies by January 1st of 1988."  She explained 
the bill was modeled after the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and said five 
other states had enacted identical legislation.

Senator O'Connell stated, during the last biennium, there were $75 million worth 
of audit exceptions because state agencies had not implemented the procedures 
 required by the Internal Auditing Controls Act.  She said S.B. 460 was intended 
to strengthen the internal control process.

Senator O'Connell indicated Mr. Gary Crews would further explain the need for S.B. 
460.

Mr. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, 
testified.  He said the bill Senator O'Connell introduced in 1987 (Exhibit C) required 
the legislative auditor to report to the legislature, during each biennium, if he found 
state agencies had not established the controls provided for in that legislation.  He 
explained more that 50 percent of the state agencies audited over the past two 
bienniums had not established those controls.  He suggested the state was losing 
millions of dollars due to inappropriate expenditures by state agencies or by the 
failure of state agencies to collect revenues due the state.


Mr. Crews stated S.B. 460 would require state agencies to evaluate their internal 
accounting and management controls on a biennial basis and to report the results 
of those evaluations to the Department of Administration.  He said the legislative 
auditor would be able to review those results and determine which agencies had 
not established proper controls.

Chairman Bache asked why July 1st of even-numbered years was selected as the 
date by which each state agency must report the results of its evaluation of its 
internal controls.  Mr. Crews suggested that date was selected in order to have the 
 information available prior to the commencement of the ensuing legislative session.

Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified, saying only she 
believed the need for S.B. 460 was self-evident.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 460.

ASSEMBLYMAN TRIPPLE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 460.

ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

SENATE BILL NO. 180 - Requires state public works board to apply for rebates 
	from public utilities for installing devices to decrease use of energy in state 
	buildings.

Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, testified.  She explained S.B. 180 dealt with 
efficient use of energy in public buildings and resulted from a recommendation 
based on an interim study of efforts to conserve energy and to develop energy 
resources within Nevada.  She asserted, over the past 20 years, a great deal of  
technology had been developed by which to make the most efficient and most 
cost-effective use of energy and there was a desire to see those technologies  
employed in state buildings.

Senator Titus contended, in the past, the State Public Works Board was reluctant 
to aggressively pursue an energy-efficiency program.  She explained the 
administration of the board had changed and the current deputy manager had 
worked with her to develop the provisions of S.B. 180.


Senator Titus advised, originally, S.B. 180 had provided for an energy consultant 
to be hired to work with the State Public Works Board when a state building was 
being designed to ensure the building would include technologies designed to 
conserve  energy.  She said that provision was deleted from S.B. 180 because of 
the cost involved.  She advised, in its present form, S.B. 180 required the Public 
Works Board to work with public utilities, when state buildings were being 
designed, to determine whether those utilities gave rebates for use of energy saving 
devices in order that such devices could be incorporated in those state buildings 
when they were constructed and the state could take advantage of those rebates.

Assemblyman Freeman asked why the provision for hiring an energy consultant had 
been deleted from S.B. 180.  Senator Titus replied cost was a  consideration and 
"...the northern AGC came out in opposition to it because they felt...private 
enterprise could do this, in working with the plans, and they didn't want to see a 
state energy consultant...taking away that prerogative."

Mrs. Freeman asked what the fiscal note was with respect to the state hiring an 
energy consultant.  Senator Titus replied the fiscal note indicated it would cost 
$60,000 for the state to hire an energy consultant.   Mrs. Freeman asked whether 
 Senator Titus believed she would "...have any chance of getting it through the 
money committee at this point..." if provision for the state to hire an energy 
consultant were reinserted in S.B. 180.  Senator Titus replied the chairmen of the 
senate committee were adamant that provision be removed and she doubted they 
had changed their minds.

Assemblyman Segerblom asked whether S.B. 180 provided for "...them returning 
funds, like we do in southern Nevada, if they save money?"  Senator Titus replied 
affirmatively.  She indicated another bill before the legislature provided that any 
state agency which saved money by using energy efficiency progams would be 
reimbursed the amount it saved.  She suggested this would give state agencies an 
incentive to use such programs.  

Discussions were held between Assemblyman Nolan and Senator Titus concerning 
the possibility of amending S.B. 180 to restore the provision requiring the state to 
hire an energy consultant.

Mr. Dean Borges, Deputy Manager, State Public Works Board, testified.  He said 
he supported S.B. 180 and advised the State Public Works Board would work to 
determine what rebates for energy savings were available from public utilities.


Assemblyman Lambert disclosed her husband worked for Sierra Pacific Power 
Company and said she would not vote on S.B. 180.  She commented she was 
aware Sierra Pacific Power Company had staff who reviewed construction plans 
and worked with people to help them save energy.  She asked whether the State 
Public Works Board submitted plans for state buildings to the appropriate electric 
utility company to discover whether that company could make suggestions for 
construction which would save the state money by saving energy.  Mr. Borges 
replied an electric company's engineers would be similar to the engineers on the 
State Public Works Board's staff.  He contended the staff of the State Public Works 
Board was capable of making suggestions for saving energy, however, it   was not 
focused on saving energy and needed the direction provided by S.B. 180.  Mrs. 
Lambert said she did not understand the purpose of using paid state staff to do 
something a power company would do for the state free of charge.  Mr. Borges 
concurred with Mrs. Lambert's comment but said, in the normal course of business, 
the State Public Works Board did not approach utilities to obtain their input on 
construction plans for state buildings.

Assemblyman Tripple said, since energy conservation had been an issue with 
respect to building construction for the past 15 or 20 years, she  found it difficult 
to believe it was necessary to pass legislation, in 1995, to accomplish something 
which should have been in place long ago.  Ms. Tripple contended this was not a 
new issue and asked whether it had been merely forgotten.  Mr. Borges replied he 
believed the issue of incorporating energy savings in construction had been ignored. 
 He asserted there were no mandates to state agencies to pursue energy savings 
and no incentives were provided to state employees to save energy.

Assemblyman Bennett asked whether Mr. Borges could provide examples of  
rebates the state could obtain for saving energy.  Mr. Borges replied rebates were 
available from utility companies which had lighting efficiency programs and 
programs dealing with high efficiency air-conditioning and heating, pumping and 
 water conservation.  He suggested, however, there was some doubt as to whether 
or not rebates would be available from utility companies in the future.

Assemblyman Harrington asked whether it would be acceptable if a provision was 
added to S.B. 180 to require the State Public Works Board to consult with public 
utilities regarding ways to make state buildings more energy efficient so long as 
such consultation was given free of charge.  Mr. Borges replied such an 
amendment would create no problem as far as he was concerned.  Senator Titus 
said she would have no problem with such an amendment either but suggested  the 
requirement Mr. Harrington wished to add was already contained in S.B. 180.


Ms. Dee Ann Parsons, Chief, Nevada Energy Office, Department of Business and 
Industry, State of Nevada, testified.  She declared the Nevada Energy Office 
supported S.B. 180 as a step toward acknowledging the need for energy efficiency 
in state buildings.  She maintained the state should apply for any rebates available 
to it but contended, regardless of rebates, the state should use cost effective 
energy saving measures in all its new buildings.  She declared, "Doing it right the 
first time is cheaper than having to fix it later."  She urged the committee to 
support S.B. 180.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 180.

ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 180.

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Discussions were held among committee members.

Mr. Harrington said he would like to see S.B. 180 amended to require the State 
Public Works Board to consult with utility companies as long as it could do so free 
of charge.

Assemblyman Williams commented he believed it was the intent of S.B. 180 that 
the State Public Works Board consult with utility companies and suggested it might 
be too late in the legislative session to amend the bill and still have the opportunity 
to act on it.

Assemblyman Braunlin proposed S.B. 180 be amended, in line 6 of page 1, to 
delete the words "from a public utility."  She suggested, in the future, there might 
be additional entities who offered rebates to those who used energy saving devices 
.

Mrs. Freeman indicated she did not wish to see S.B. 180 amended at this point in 
the legislative session and suggested a letter of legislative intent could be generated 
to address Mr. Harrington's concern.

Mrs. Segerblom concurred with Mrs. Freeman's comments.

Assemblyman de Braga also concurred with Mrs. Freeman's remarks.

Ms. Tripple asked whether there was not already a statutory requirement to 
construct state buildings to be energy efficient.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Borges to address Ms. Tripple's question.  Mr. Borges 
said, "Yes, there is a mandate within our own adopted standards that says we 
should build them efficiently."


Ms. Tripple asked why, if there was such a mandate, state buildings were built 
which were not energy efficient.  Mr. Borges replied he was unable to answer Ms. 
Tripple's question.

Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to 
 "Do Pass S.B. 180."

THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT ABSTAINED FROM THE 
VOTE.

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 631 - Revises distribution of revenue received from lease of 
	federal land.

Assemblyman P.M. Roy Neighbors, District 36, left his chair in the committee and 
testified from the witness table.  He explained the purpose of A.B. 631 was to 
revise the distribution of revenue received by the state from the lease of federal 
land.  He advised A.B. 631 would have a fiscal impact of between $7 million and 
$10 million.

Mr. Neighbors explained, pursuant to current law, for every dollar generated in the 
state of Nevada from mineral, geothermal, oil and gravel leases and paid to the 
federal government, 50 cents was given back to the state by the federal 
government and was deposited in the "distributive school fund."  He provided a 
packet of information (Exhibit D).  He called the committee's attention to a 
document headed "Disbursements by State & County FY 1992" contained in 
Exhibit D.  He pointed out the royalty value for Clark County was $318,312.06 of 
which $159,156.02 was returned to the state of Nevada while the royalty value 
for Nye County was $7,465,751.77 of which $3,732,875.88 was returned to the 
state.  He called attention to a similar document for fiscal year 1993 contained in 
Exhibit D and pointed out that document reflected $219,703.49 was paid to Clark 
County and $4,005,391.02 to Nye County.  He contended neither Clark County 
nor Nye County received any of the money purportedly paid to them but, rather, 
 that money was placed in the distributive school fund.

Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Neighbors where in Exhibit D information was set forth 
regarding "...the percentage of the money that came from the county and the 
percentage they got back."  Mr. Neighbors referred Mrs. de Braga to the document 
in Exhibit D entitled "Disbursements to State & County FY 1992."  He explained 
"royalty value" was defined as the cumulative revenues generated by a specific 
commodity in a specific county and included both federal and state shares of 
revenues generated by commodities.  He pointed out the royalty values generated 
 by Churchill County and the portion of those values returned to Churchill County.

Mr. Neighbors provided a copy of several statutes (Exhibit E) and advised NRS 
328.460 provided for the state controller to apportion money in the account for 
revenue from the lease of federal land and to apportion 25 percent of that money 
 to the distributive school account.  He explained that 25 percent apportionment 
did  not apply until after $10 million in revenues had been placed in the distributive 
school account.  He pointed out, in accordance with federal law, NRS 328.450 
provided the first $10 million in revenues received by the state from the lease of 
federal land was to be deposited in the distributive school account.  He advised if 
the state received more than $10 million in such revenues then NRS 328.460 
became applicable.

Mr. Neighbors submitted a copy of a proposed amendment to A.B. 631 (Exhibit F) 
and advised the proposed amendment would delete the statutory requirement the 
state treasurer deposit the first $10 million received from the lease of federal land 
in the distributive school account and required the treasurer to apportion such 
monies as presently set forth in NRS 328.460. 

Mrs. Segerblom asked whether the revenues Mr. Neighbors was discussing 
pertained only to revenues received from the lease of federal lands and not to 
revenues received from minerals.  Mr. Neighbors replied, "No.  I'm talking about the 
oil, the leasing, the gravel, geothermal, anything that's to do with the mineral land 
not just the leasing."  Mrs. Segerblom said, "But not the taking out of the ore."  
Mr. Neighbors advised the revenues he was discussing had nothing to do with 
either gold or silver.

Assemblyman Nolan said, "I understand there'd be an offset by taking $10 million 
out of the distributive school account and, correct me if I'm wrong, in essence, 
what you're saying is that this could be taken care of at the county level.  What is 
being distributed to the counties in way of this $10 million could be taken care of 
at the county level and it would not be a hit in reference to (remainder of sentence 
unintelligible)."  Mr. Neighbors replied that was not what he was saying.  He said 
he believed the revenues being discussed were not being allocated in accordance 
with federal law.  He advised he believed, pursuant to federal law, the monies 
which had been allocated to the distributive school fund over the years should, 
instead, have been returned to the counties.

Mr. Nolan indicated there was currently a crisis regarding school funding and 
suggested it might not be in the best interests of education to attempt to rectify 
the problem Mr. Neighbors perceived by reallocating revenues at the present time.


Mrs. de Braga pointed out the proposed amendment to A.B. 631 (Exhibit F) referred 
only to revenues from the lease of federal lands and not to revenues from  mining 
royalties and asked if Mr. Neighbors intended revenues from mining royalties to be 
excluded.  Mr. Neighbors indicated the proposed amendment (Exhibit F) made 
reference to the federal law which governed the revenues being discussed.  Mrs. 
de Braga asked whether, then, the revenues being discussed were those from both 
mining royalties and land leases.  Mr. Neighbors replied affirmatively.

Mrs. de Braga said Mr. Neighbors testified 25 percent of the revenues would be 
distributed to the Department of Business and Industry for energy development and 
50 percent would be distributed to the counties.  She asked how the remaining 25 
percent was to be distributed.  Mr. Neighbors replied the remaining 25 percent 
would "...go to that district's school."

Mrs. de Braga asked whether a specific use was designated for the 50 percent of 
revenues which would be returned to the counties.  Mr. Neighbors replied federal 
law was clear as to the purposes for which such monies were to be used.

Mr. Neighbors provided a document setting forth the apportionment of revenues 
among school districts for the fiscal year 1992 (Exhibit G) and discussed some of 
the figures set forth.  He pointed out the difference between the percentage of 
revenues generated by Nye County and the percentage generated by Clark County 
and the difference between the percentage of revenues distributed to the school 
districts of those counties.

Mr. Neighbors submitted a flow chart showing the manner in which federal 
payments to the state would be distributed if A.B. 631 was amended as proposed 
and passed by the legislature (Exhibit H) and a copy of the federal law governing 
the disposition of such payments (Exhibit I).  He read a portion of the federal law 
(Exhibit I) which said monies returned to the state by the federal government, 
pursuant to that law, were to be used for planning, construction, maintenance of 
public facilities and provision of public service.

Mr. Neighbors advised he had requested the Legislative Counsel Bureau to give its 
opinion regarding how the revenues being discussed should be distributed  (with 
respect to the requirements of federal law).  He submitted a copy of the opinion 
rendered by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to his request (Exhibit J) and 
 read aloud the conclusion set forth on the last page of the opinion (Exhibit J). 


Mr. Nolan commented Mr. Neighbors had raised a valid point in pointing out Clark 
County received the greatest percentage of the revenues returned to the state while 
making the least contribution to the generation of those revenues.  He   suggested 
Mr. Neighbors had raised issues regarding the legality of the manner in which the 
state of Nevada distributed such revenues, regarding equitable allocation of funds 
in the distributive school account and regarding the manner in which the state 
allocated funds to counties in general.

Mr. Harrington said Mr. Neighbors was proposing, based on the legal opinions he 
had discussed, the legislature make a change in the law which would reverse many 
political decisions which had been made over a period of time and suggested it 
might be a mistake to do so until final legal decisions were rendered.  He asked  
Mr. Neighbors to comment on what he had said.  Mr. Neighbors replied he was not 
discussing how state monies should be distributed.  He contended there was an 
existing federal law governing how revenues from leased federal land should be 
distributed and Nevada should comply with that law.

Mr. Bennett asked whether Mr. Neighbors would consider an amendment to A.B. 
631 to cause the effective date of its provisions to coincide with the next biennial 
budget.  Mr. Neighbors replied he would have no problem with such an amendment 
if he could be assured the provisions of A.B. 631 would go into effect but pointed 
out the next legislature might decide to "...change the rules."

Mr. Nolan asked what action the co-chairmen of the committee were required to 
take because of Mr. Neighbors having established on the record his opinion Nevada 
had not complied with federal law.  Chairman Bache replied he wished to confer 
with the leadership of the Assembly, the legislature's legal and research staffs and 
the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means before taking any action on A.B. 
631.

Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified.  He 
maintained Nevada's schools districts probably would not be damaged by A.B.  
631  because the state made up any difference between the funds school districts 
raised locally and the funds they required.  He advised, for many years, the state 
had used the monies it received from mineral land lease revenues as a portion of 
its contribution and suggested if the state could not use those revenues for that 
purpose it would have to find the funds elsewhere.  He said the danger to the 
school districts arose from the fact, if the state could not use those revenues 
towards its contribution to school funding, the state might choose to use a 
"...lower per pupil formula..." because it did not have sufficient money with which 
to make its contribution based on the current formula.


Mr. Etchemendy suggested, at the time the legislature determined to apportion the 
revenues from federal land leases in the manner in which they were presently 
apportioned, it must have obtained assurances from some source that such 
apportionment complied with federal law.  He pointed out the opinion rendered by 
the Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit J) did not constitute a court's decision and 
said, "...and unless and until that's resolved, then the issue, I would think, would 
be moot."

Chairman Bache acknowledged Ms. Jeanne Botts and said he knew Ms. Botts was 
present neither to support nor to oppose A.B. 631 but only to provide the 
committee with information.

Ms. Jeanne Botts, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel 
Bureau, testified.  She asked whether Mr. Neighbors intended the entire amount of 
money the state received from federal mineral land lease revenues be placed in an 
account for such revenues and then be distributed as shown in Exhibit H).  Mr. 
Neighbors explained A.B. 631 would eliminate the statutory provision which 
required the first $10 million dollars of such revenues be placed in the distributive 
school account and would cause those revenues to be distributed in accordance 
with federal law and as set forth in NRS 328.460.

Ms. Botts indicated, at the present time, school districts received approximately $8 
million through the distributive school account.  She asked whether, pursuant to 
A.B. 631, certain school districts would receive approximately 25 percent of that 
sum.  Mr. Neighbors replied the money would be distributed to "...the districts 
where the mineral action was..." and could be used to mitigate any impacts the 
mineral industry created in that county.

Ms. Botts stated, "That might be a little difficult because, currently, under another 
federal program, school districts that have federal impacts receive federal payments 
in lieu of taxes and those monies go into the school district's general fund but are 
considered by the state as part of the money available to fund education, and the 
Nevada Plan, which attempts to provide equity among the districts, in funding, 
takes into consideration all the revenue a district receives.  So, if they get 
payments in lieu of taxes or net proceeds, whatever, that might be unusual for a 
county and not all counties get -- I mean all revenue received by a district is taken 
into consideration and then the distributive school account tries to make things 
equitable.  So, to take $8 million and say `We're not going to consider that part of 
a school district's wealth' certainly is contrary to what we've done in the Nevada 
Plan in the past."


Mr. Neighbors reiterated all he sought through A.B. 631 was to cause Nevada to 
comply with federal law in its distribution of revenues from federal mineral land 
leases.  He suggested perhaps that 25 percent of revenues which would be 
distributed to schools, pursuant to A.B. 631, should instead be distributed to the 
counties which could then use those revenues to provide their school districts with 
the things they needed.

Mrs. Lambert asked what impact there would be on the distributive school account 
if 25 percent of the revenues the state received from federal mineral land leases 
 generated by a particular county was distributed to that county's school district. 
 She asked Ms. Botts to use Clark County and Nye County to provide examples of 
that impact.  Ms. Botts replied, if none of the revenues were placed in the 
distributive school account, the legislature would have to find $8 million dollars 
with which to make the general fund's appropriation to the distributive school 
account.  She said, however,  if 25 percent of those revenues were distributed to 
local school districts only a $6 million appropriation would be required to make up 
the difference between those revenues and  general fund's appropriation to the 
distributive school account.

Mr. Neighbors asked Ms. Botts to assume the $8 million dollars in revenues was 
not to be placed in the distributive school account and school districts were to 
receive 25 percent of the revenues generated by the counties in which they were 
located.  He used Nye County as an example and said, "...I can remember one year 
it got up to $5 million or something like that.  Twenty-five percent of that would 
be a million something...let's say $4 million, $1 million, twenty-five percent would 
go to the school.   Would that $1 million be a total deduction from the $11 million 
the county gets."  Ms. Botts replied, for budgeting purposes, it would be a 
deduction.  She explained in detail how revenues received by school districts were 
considered when determining how much state aid would be given to those districts.

Mr. Bennett asked whether the federal government had authority to audit the 
revenues returned to Nevada and whether, if it did conduct such an audit and 
determined Nevada was not complying with federal law, it could withhold those 
revenues from the state.  Ms. Botts replied she was not certain whether or not the 
federal government could do so.


Mr. Neighbors asked whether the purpose of audits conducted by the federal 
government was to determine whether funds were applied as they were supposed 
to be applied.  Ms. Botts replied affirmatively.  Ms. Botts reminded the committee 
 state law specified how revenues from federal mineral land leases were to be 
spent and contended Nevada had not violated its own law.  She advised that law 
had existed for some time and, to her knowledge, the federal government had 
never asserted Nevada was spending the revenues returned to it inappropriately.

Mr. Neighbors stated he was not accusing anyone of wrong doing but suggested, 
with respect to federal law, an error might have been made in the allocation of the 
revenues being discussed.

Ms. Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, testified.  Ms. Cahill 
advised the proposed amendment to A.B. 631 (Exhibit F) eliminated from A.B. 631 
the particular language about which the Nevada State Education Association had 
been concerned.  She indicated the Legislative Counsel Bureau's opinion (Exhibit 
J) expressed concern about whether Nevada was meeting "...the objectives and the 
spirit of the federal law..."   She contended the legislature had authority to 
establish those objectives and, by using the revenues returned to it to further 
education, Nevada was using those revenues to provide a public service.

Ms. Cahill advised two bills were pending before the legislature which dealt with 
deconsolidation of large school districts.  She indicated an amendment had been 
proposed to one of those bills, Senate Bill No. 511, to require "...an external study 
of the issue of deconsolidation..."  She said it was her understanding it was the 
intent of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs to have that study 
broadened to include "...funding as a whole..."  She suggested, if that was to 
happen and if there was concern about a possible federal lawsuit, the issue 
presently before the committee could be included in that study.  

Mr. Neighbors asked whether Ms. Cahill believed Nevada was complying with the 
federal law governing use of revenues returned to it from federal mineral land 
leases.  Ms. Cahill said she had not read the applicable federal law but would do 
so and would then be happy to discuss the matter with Mr. Neighbors.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 631.

Chairman Bache assigned S.B. 460 to Mrs. Lambert and S.B. 180 to Mrs. Freeman 
for the purpose of making floor statements.

SENATE BILL NO. 343 - Revises provisions governing examination of employment 
	records and personnel files of public utilities, motor carriers or brokers.

ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED DO PASS S.B. 343.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Discussions were held.

Mr. Bennett said S.B. 343 was a good bill and the only harm he saw in the bill was 
that it would make an individual's salary and benefits a matter of public record.  He 
indicated he would support the bill but would "...watch this closely in two years 
to see that there are no...violations of a person's individual rights..."

Assemblyman Krenzer advised she would support S.B. 343 but said, for the record, 
"Since I did vote against S.B. 303 on the floor because of the provisions of 
confidential, commercial information being included along with trade secrets, I 
would like to state for the record that I am voting for this bill because the Public 
Service Commission has a watchdog and I feel that I -- I felt confident that the 
testimony of the watchdog was that should this expand too great, the 
confidentiality or the things that are kept from the public that they will come back 
to us next session and report that."

Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to 
"do pass S.B. 343."

THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT ABSTAINED FROM THE 
VOTE.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache 
adjourned the meeting at 10:36 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
June 10, 1995
Page