MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session June 13, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, Chairman Joan A. Lambert 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 David Humke, District 26 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Jeanne Johnson; Commissioner Grant D. Sims, Washoe County; Ms. Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County; Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada; Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Power Company; Mr. Don Ham, Nevada Press Association; Ms. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada (see also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 513 - Requires elected board of trustees for certain water districts. Ms. Jeanne Johnson testified. She said she lived in the South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (STMGID). She advised, during approximately the past two and one half weeks, Washoe County's commissioners held discussions with STMGID's managing board about ways through which "...their communication could be formulated to avoid having total autonomy from the trustees of Washoe County." She indicated Commissioner Grant Sims would provide further information concerning those discussions and stated she fully supported the results of those discussions. Commissioner Grant D. Sims, Washoe County, testified. He said, "I want to go on the record as saying that I'm here today as representing only myself." He advised the commissioners of Washoe County were very concerned about A.B. 513. He stated the commissioners had formed a committee to meet with STMGID's managing board and discuss resolutions and reforms intended to address the board's concern about improving communications between Washoe County's commissioners and STMGID. He indicated those discussions were in progress and the committee would be making recommendations to the board of county commissioners on July 27, 1995. He said, "We have discussed a possible solution involving STMGID retaining the ability to annex within their designated service area." He advised the board of county commissioners, acting as the board of trustees of STMGID, would retain its authority to establish the tax rate and water rates charges and to manage the debt of the general improvement district. Commissioner Sims stated he was confident "...we will have a resolution to this." Assemblyman Segerblom asked Commissioner Sims to explain where STMGID was located. Commissioner Sims replied it was located in the southeast portion of the greater metropolitan area of Reno and Sparks. Mrs. Segerblom asked what the northern boundary of STMGID was. Commissioner Sims indicated STMGID was in the southern part of Washoe County. Chairman Lambert asked whether A.B. 513 was needed to accomplish the objectives Washoe County's board of county commissioners had been negotiating with STMGID's board. Commissioner Sims replied the Washoe County district attorney's office advised the only thing needed to accomplish those objectives was an ordinance change and, therefore, A.B. 513 would not be needed. Assemblyman David Humke, District 26, testified. He indicated, although A.B. 513 had been rendered somewhat unimportant, he wished to make a legislative record regarding the issue to which A.B. 513 pertained in order to provide the residents, rate payers and board members of STMGID with a record citing the agreement between STMGID's board and Washoe County's board of county commissioners. Ms. Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, testified. She said she wished to clarify the board of county commissioners, as yet, had taken no official action on the matters discussed by its committee and STMGID's board but those matters would be presented to the commission. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.B. 513. SENATE BILL NO. 93 - Makes various changes relating to titling and recording of water rights. Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada, testified. He provided an outline of the provisions of S.B. 93 (Exhibit C). Mr. Turnipseed pointed out Section 2 would establish a single location for recording documents pertaining to transfer of title to water rights. He advised, in the past, documents pertaining to perfected water rights were recorded in the office of the county recorder, however, a statute, which S.B. 93 would cause to be repealed, provided unless transfers of applications and permits were filed in the state engineer's office they would be binding only as to the parties to those transfers. He explained this required individuals attempting to research titles to water rights to conduct their research at two different locations. Mr. Turnipseed stated Section 3 attempted to privatize the process of documenting ownership of water rights. He maintained the expertise of the state engineer's office did not pertain to settling title disputes but, rather, pertained to engineering, surveying and other technical matters. He said, pursuant to S.B. 93, individuals who wished to establish title to water rights would be required to hire an outside consultant, such as a title company, a previous employee of the state engineer's office or an attorney, to "...abstract the title..." and to file an abstract of title with the state engineer's office. He indicated Section 4 would allow the state engineer to either confirm a conveyance of title or to reject that conveyance if it was incomplete. Mr. Turnipseed explained Section 5 confirmed existing law that, unless otherwise specified, a perfected water right "...goes with the land." He said Section 6 "...exempts shares of stock in an irrigation company." He advised Section 7 required district courts to record with the county recorder any decrees resulting from adjudications of water rights. Mr. Turnipseed said Section 8 would replace the statutory designation "appropriator" with the designation "holder of the permit." He said Section 9 would establish a $25 fee for the state engineer to convey title. He advised Section 10 confirmed a supreme court case which said, unless otherwise specified, water rights accompany land when ownership of that land is transferred. Mr. Turnipseed indicated Section 12 repealed existing statutory provisions which provided transfers of permits and applications were binding only between the parties to those transfers unless filed with the state engineer's office. He stated Section 13 governed the effective date of the various sections of S.B. 93. Assemblyman Neighbors asked what the effective date of S.B. 93 would be. Mr. Turnipseed replied the provisions pertaining to new application forms and to transferring documentation of ownership of water rights from the State Engineer to the private sector would be effective October 1, 1995, however, some provisions of S.B. 93 were already in effect and would remain so. Assemblyman Freeman asked whether creating the assumption water rights were conveyed with land when ownership of that land was transferred did not constitute a substantial change to existing water law. Mr. Turnipseed replied, in the 1960's, when title to certain land was transferred, a dispute arose regarding whether or not water rights were included in the transfer and the supreme court ruled, unless water rights were specifically exempted in a deed to land, they were an appurtenance to the land and accompanied the land in any transfer of title. Mrs. Freeman asked in what year the supreme court rendered that decision. Mr. Turnipseed replied the decision was rendered in 1956. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether S.B. 93 would affect the entire state. Mr. Turnipseed replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether those things provided by S.B. 93 were already being done. Mr. Turnipseed replied approximately 20 percent of his office's staff worked in its title section. He advised "change applications" now constituted more than 50 percent of the applications received by his office and required his staff to research title. He indicated, through S.B. 93, an attempt was being made to cause such title searches to be privatized with an abstract of title then being filed with the state engineer's office. Mrs. Segerblom posed a hypothetical situation in which an individual owned a mobile home on an acre of land with a well and asked if such an individual "...would go through this procedure." Mr. Turnipseed replied such an individual would not necessarily be required to do so. He said single family, domestic wells were exempted from any permit requirements and individuals who owned such wells had no need to deal with the state engineer's office. Chairman Lambert asked where an individual would have to go, at the present time, to search for the title to a water right. Mr. Turnipseed replied the individual would have to go to both the state engineer's office and the county recorder's office. He advised one would have to search at the county recorder's office to ascertain title to a perfected water right and at the state engineer's office to determine whether that water right was ever the subject of an adjudication or had been the subject of the transfer of an application or a permit. Chairman Lambert asked what backlog the state engineer's office had with respect to applications and change orders and whether, if S.B. 93 was passed by the legislature, Mr. Turnipseed would be able to transfer some of his staff from the duty of researching titles to the duty of dealing with applications. Mr. Turnipseed replied his office had a backlog of more than 4,700 applications of which 1,700 were the subject of protests and a backlog of approximately 5,000 deeds. He indicated when the backlog of deeds was eliminated the staff dealing with those deeds would be transferred to work on pumpage inventories, water level measurements and field examinations in an attempt to dispose of the backlog of applications. Assemblyman Neighbors posed a hypothetical situation in which he owned a large ranch together with the water rights for that ranch and he sold the ranch. He asked, in such a situation, under the provisions of S.B. 93, "...is this recorded with the escrow and on file with the county or what mechanics (are involved)." Mr. Turnipseed replied, pursuant to S.B. 93, the deed to the ranch would be recorded in the same manner as had always been done but anyone researching title to the water rights for the ranch would have to go only to the office of the county recorder to do so. Mr. Neighbors indicated, in his hypothetical situation, it was his intent to retain ownership of his water rights. Mr. Turnipseed responded the state engineer's office would receive the deed to transfer title and also the first trust deed so that Mr. Neighbors could be notified if the new owner of the land failed to keep the water rights active. Mr. Neighbors asked whether there would be any changes to domestic water rights. Mr. Turnipseed replied domestic water rights would remain exempt from any permitting requirements and from the necessity to transfer title to such rights. Mrs. Freeman asked whether, if S.B. 93 was passed by the legislature, Mr. Turnipseed would use his existing staff to perform different duties rather than eliminate jobs. Mr. Turnipseed replied he would. Mrs. Freeman asked whether the provisions of S.B. 93 pertaining to recording of title would create any impact on local governments. Mr. Turnipseed replied there should not be any such impact. Assemblyman de Braga asked whether S.B. 93 pertained only to ground water. Mr. Turnipseed replied it pertained to both ground water and surface water. Assemblyman Harrington referred to Section 6 of S.B. 93 and asked why ditch companies were exempt from the provisions of Sections 2 through 5. Mr. Turnipseed said he would use the Muddy River Irrigation Company as an example in answering Mr. Harrington's question. He advised the Muddy River Irrigation Company owned a "decreed" water right. He said the state engineer's office reflected the place of use for that water right to be the entire irrigation district and was concerned only about the point at which the company diverted water from the Muddy River and about protecting the water right for the entire district. He explained, "So, if you had five shares and your neighbor had fifty shares and you wanted to loan your neighbor five of your shares...we don't want to be concerned about that because it's still within the larger place of use of that entire irrigation district." Chairman Lambert asked whether everyone concerned was satisfied with S.B. 93. Mr. Turnipseed replied affirmatively. Mr. Stan Warren, Sierra Pacific Power Company, testified. He advised he was representing attorney Gordon DePaoli as well as Sierra Pacific Power Company and said they strongly supported passage of S.B. 93. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 93. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED DO PASS S.B. 93. ASSEMBLYMAN de BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 539 - Reduces number of times notice of application to appropriate water must be published in newspaper. Mr. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, State of Nevada, testified. He advised, during budget closings for his office, the Nevada Press Association contended the state engineer's office was not adequately reimbursing newspapers for publishing its public notices. He said the state engineer's office agreed to research the possibility of reducing the number of times it published a notice from five times to three times. Mr. Turnipseed provided a document entitled "Publication Costs" (Exhibit D). He advised his office charged $250 to file either a "change application" or a "new appropriation" of which $50 was used to pay publication costs. He pointed out the wide disparity between the price charged by the Douglas County newspaper and by the Nevada Appeal and that charged by the Las Vegas Sun and Journal and by the Henderson Home News to publish a notice requiring 29 lines on three occasions. Assemblyman Nolan asked Mr. Turnipseed whether the amount he paid a newspaper to publish a notice was "...a going rate..." or whether that amount was established by statute. Mr. Turnipseed replied NRS 533.435 established that amount. Mr. Turnipseed advised both a deputy attorney general and Ms. Brenda Erdoes had done research to determine what constituted "adequate public notice" and concluded it was whatever the legislature determined it to be. He advised (by reducing the time required for publication) S.B. 539 would shorten the time required for the state engineer's office to process applications. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether, at the present time, a newspaper was paid a flat fee of $50 to publish a notice for the state engineer's office. Mr. Turnipseed replied affirmatively. Mrs. Segerblom suggested, under the provisions of S.B. 539, some newspapers would receive a larger sum than would others to publish the same notice. Mr. Turnipseed replied the fee of $50 would remain the same. He advised S.B. 539 would merely reduce the number of times a notice was published. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out Exhibit D reflected the Boulder City newspaper received $67.20 to publish a notice three times. Mr. Turnipseed explained that sum was the sum the Boulder City newspaper would charge to publish a notice three times if it was not bound by statute to receive $50 to do so. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether, under S.B. 539, the state engineer's office would pay the Boulder City Newspaper $67 to publish a notice three times. Mr. Turnipseed replied the state engineer's office would continue to pay the newspaper $50. Mrs. Segerblom suggested, in that case, the newspaper was neither losing nor gaining from the provisions of S.B. 539. Mr. Turnipseed contended the newspaper was gaining because the state engineer would no longer publish a notice five times but, rather, would publish it only three times. Assemblyman Bennett asked whether the state engineer's office published more notices in one area of the state than it did in others. Mr. Turnipseed replied a great many change applications were filed in both the Las Vegas valley and the Reno- Sparks area and said, "There's a lot of activity in southern Nevada moving nonrevocable well permits around within the valley as well as in Laughlin and in some of the other areas." Mr. Bennett asked whether the number of notices published corresponded to population centers. Mr. Turnipseed replied affirmatively. Chairman Lambert asked for clarification of the fact that, although S.B. 539 indicated the state engineer's office presently published a notice for four consecutive weeks, the office actually published the notice five times during those four weeks. Mr. Turnipseed responded it had always been unclear whether "four consecutive weeks" required a notice to be published four times or five times. He suggested the new statutory language contained in S.B. 539 would clarify the publishing requirement. Mr. Don Ham, Nevada Press Association, testified. He declared the Nevada Press Association opposed S.B. 539. He advised one reason it did so was because S.B. 539 would reduce the number of times a legal notice pertaining to water appropriations must be published at a time when water was an even more crucial issue for Nevada than it had been in the past. He asserted the Nevada Press Association had long supported legal advertising for the purpose of keeping the public better informed. Mr. Ham stated the Nevada Press Association understood S.B. 539 would reduce newspapers' costs to publish notices slightly but contended larger newspapers would still experience a loss. He reiterated his testimony the Nevada Press Association had long taken a stand against reducing the requirements for publication of public notices. Mrs. Freeman asked whether the Nevada Press Association's concern revolved around revenue for newspapers or, rather, around access to public information. Mr. Ham replied its concern was about public notification. Mrs. Freeman asked whether Mr. Ham was aware of any complaints about the new publication requirements S.B. 539 would establish. Mr. Ham replied he was not. Chairman Lambert asked whether Mr. Ham knew what the Nevada Press Association's opinion would be if S.B. 539 was amended to require notices be published once a week for four consecutive weeks. Mr. Ham indicated he believed that was what was presently required by statute. Chairman Lambert asked whether Mr. Ham was empowered to speak for the Nevada Press Association with respect to the amendment she proposed. Mr. Ham indicated the Nevada Press Association would support such an amendment. Mrs. de Braga asked the average number of times legal notices were required to be published and whether the requirements were different for every different kind of legal notice. Mr. Ham replied he was unaware of whether there was an average. He advised the number of times legal notices were required to be published varied. Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Turnipseed whether it would be acceptable to him if S.B. 539 was amended to require notices be published once a week for four consecutive weeks. Mr. Turnipseed replied it would be. Mrs. Freeman asked whether, since the money to pay for publication of notice was included in the fee the state engineer charged to file an application, there was a possibility the state engineer would have to raise that fee. Mr. Turnipseed advised if the fee paid to newspapers to publish notices was increased and the fee charged by the state engineer to file an application was not increased it would create a fiscal impact on the state's general fund. Chairman Lambert asked whether the budget for the state engineer's office had been closed. Mr. Turnipseed replied affirmatively. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on S.B. 539. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to exempt Post-Masters from prohibition against holding another civil office. Assemblyman P.M. Roy Neighbors, District No. 36, left his seat in the committee and testified from the witness table. He explained, in many rural areas, the postmaster was also the notary public. He advised a constituent had informed him it was the attorney general's opinion that if an individual had a lucrative job which paid more than $500 per year he could not be a notary. He said, however, he had recently received another opinion of the attorney general which might make A.J.R. 39 unnecessary. Ms. Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General for the Secretary of State, State of Nevada, testified. She advised Nevada's state constitution contained a provision which prohibited a post-master from also being a notary public and explained A.J.R. 39 would amend the constitution in a manner which would allow a post-master also to be a notary. She pointed out the provision prohibiting a post-master from also being a notary had been in the state constitution since 1864 and was patterned on a provision of California's state constitution of 1849. She said the rationale behind the provision was to "...keep the people's loyalty clear, whether you were loyal to the federal government, such as a post-master who was appointed by the president, or loyal to the state, as a notary public appointed by the governor of the state at that time." Ms. Cavin contended things had changed since 1864. She advised, pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act, which was enacted in 1970, post-masters were no longer appointed by the president. She suggested the duties of notary publics had become more ministerial. She said the Attorney General had just issued an opinion which overruled both an earlier attorney general's opinion, issued in 1990, that a post-master could not also be a notary, and another issued in 1911 having to do with the same issue. She provided a copy of the new opinion (Exhibit E). Mr. Neighbors suggested, based on the Attorney General's recent opinion (Exhibit E), the committee might wish to indefinitely postpone A.J.R. 39. Chairman Lambert closed the hearing on A.J.R. 39. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.J.R. 39. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED "NO." SENATE BILL NO. 539 - Reduces number of times notice of application to appropriate water must be published in newspaper. Chairman Lambert advised the chair would accept a motion on S.B. 539. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 539 TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION ONCE A WEEK FOR FOUR WEEKS BY CHANGING THE NUMERAL "3" ON LINE 5 OF PAGE 1 TO THE NUMERAL "4" AND DO PASS S.B. 539. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 513 - Requires elected board of trustees for certain water districts. Chairman Lambert announced she would accept a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 513 as it appeared there was no need for the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 513. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 202 - Revises act relating to Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED THE COMMITTEE RESCIND ITS PRIOR ACTION OF MAY 1, 1995, TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 202. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON VOTED "NO"; ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ******* ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 202. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT AND HARRINGTON VOTED "NO". SENATE BILL NO. 161 - Consolidates office of Nevada commissioner for veteran affairs. Chairman Lambert informed the committee S. B. 161 and Senate Bill No. 163, both previously heard by the committee, would cause the same section of NRS to be amended in two different ways. She said the bill drafting section of the Legislative Counsel Bureau advised if S.B. 161 was amended by deleting Section 4 then the two bills would not amend NRS 417.150 in different ways. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 161 BY DELETING SECTION 4 AND DO PASS S.B. 161. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 163 - Revises membership and duties of Nevada veterans' advisory commission. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 163. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 684 - Requires state agencies and political subdivisions of state to take certain precautions to avoid taking private property. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 684. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Mrs. de Braga said she believed A.B. 684 to be an excellent bill but said, in its present form, it would be likely to create a large fiscal impact. She indicated it appeared Nevada's cities and counties were starting to do as A.B. 684 would have required them to do. Discussions were held among committee members. THE MOTION CARRIED. ******* ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO SUSPEND RULE 92. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER VOTED "NO." ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 466 - Authorizes collective bargaining for certain employees in classified service of state. Assemblyman Bache gave a report of the subcommittee on A.B. 466. He advised the subcommittee was unable to arrive at a consensus on the action the committee should take on A.B. 466. Discussions were held among committee members. Assemblyman Ernaut discussed the concerns some subcommittee members had about binding arbitration. Mr. Ernaut suggested including binding arbitration in collective bargaining for state employees would tie the legislature's hands and make it impossible to administer budgets. He also suggested the Governor had no power to enforce a contract which resulted from binding arbitration because the legislature could change the terms of such a contract. Mr. Ernaut advised the subcommittee was also unable to agree on the number of bargaining units which should be provided for by A.B. 466. Mrs. de Braga asked whether the number of bargaining units was the only concern remaining about A.B. 466. Mr. Ernaut said, speaking for himself, he could not support there being more than two bargaining units and he was still concerned about the question of who would be involved in negotiations on behalf of the state. Mr. Harrington said he would oppose any provisions for collective bargaining which included binding arbitration. He suggested including binding arbitration in collective bargaining for state employees would bind the representatives of the people of the state of Nevada. He declared he could support no bill which would bind the hands of the legislature and which would not allow legislators to represent the people as they wished to represent them and as the people wished to be represented. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 466 BY DELETING THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO BINDING ARBITRATION, CAPPING THE NUMBER OF BARGAINING UNITS AT 10 AND REQUIRING A BARGAINING AGENT TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF 20 PERCENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF A BARGAINING UNIT BEFORE IT COULD BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR ELECTION OF A BARGAINING AGENT AND DO PASS A.B. 466. ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. Further discussions were held. Mr. Bennett advised he had spoken with several unions and told them he could not support collective bargaining which involved state monies unless a cap was placed on what was bargained for and unless bargaining negotiations were subject to Nevada's open meeting law. He indicated his concerns were not addressed in A.B. 466 and he would not support Mr. Bache's motion. Mrs. Freeman asked for clarification of Mr. Bache's proposed amendments to A.B. 466. Mr. Bache explained his proposed amendments. Chairman Lambert called for a roll call vote on the motion pending before the committee to amend and do pass A.B. 466. THE VOTE RESULTED IN A TIE; ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA, FREEMAN, KRENZER, NEIGHBORS, SEGERBLOM, WILLIAMS AND BACHE VOTED "YES"; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, BRAUNLIN, ERNAUT, HARRINGTON, NOLAN, TRIPPLE AND LAMBERT VOTED "NO;" THE MOTION FAILED; A.B. 466 TO BE RETURNED TO THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 464 - Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 464. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 465 - Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 465. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE BILL NO. 83 - Makes various changes to provisions governing office of secretary of state. ASSEMBLYMAN BRAUNLIN MOVED DO PASS S.B. 83. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Lambert advised S.B. 83 would permit the Secretary of State to have independent legal counsel. Discussions were held among committee members. Mr. Bache contended there was no reason to allow the Secretary of State to have independent legal counsel and suggested it would set a precedent for other state officials to request independent legal counsel. Mr. Neighbors suggested allowing the Secretary of State to have independent legal counsel could create both administrative problems and legal problems. Mr. Ernaut contended the present Attorney General, when serving as Secretary of State, had established a precedent for allowing state officials to have independent legal counsel by requesting independent counsel "...within the securities division..." He suggested a constitutional officer of the state might find himself in a situation in which he could not avail himself of representation by the Attorney General and would be left to represent himself. Mr. Harrington pointed out, on occasion, constitutional officers could be opposed to one another on an issue and maintained it was extremely unfair to deprive a constitutional officer of the right to independent counsel when a conflict of interest existed. Mrs. Segerblom asserted the legislature had spent the entire legislative session attempting to save taxpayers' money and contended S.B. 83 would result in the state having to pay one more person. Assemblyman Braunlin responded to Mrs. Segerblom's comment. She advised the Secretary of State had testified the provisions of S.B. 83 which would allow the Secretary of State to have independent counsel would impose no cost to the taxpayers "...over and above budgeted expenses." She pointed out the Secretary of State could not hire legal counsel on a full time basis without legislative approval. She advised the Secretary of State also testified 26 states currently permitted their secretaries of state to have independent counsel. Chairman Lambert called for a roll call vote on the motion to do pass S.B. 83. THE VOTE RESULTED IN A TIE; ASSEMBLYMEN BENNETT, BRAUNLIN, ERNAUT, HARRINGTON, NOLAN, TRIPPLE AND LAMBERT VOTED "YES"; ASSEMBLYMEN DE BRAGA, FREEMAN, KRENZER, NEIGHBORS, SEGERBLOM, WILLIAMS AND BACHE VOTED "NO;" THE MOTION FAILED; S.B. 83 TO BE RETURNED TO THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Bache provided the committee with copies of a letter he received from one of his constituents in opposition to Assembly Bill No. 287 (Exhibit F). Mr. Bache informed the committee Clark County no longer had a concern about Assembly Bill No. 198. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Lambert adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Government Affairs June 13, 1995 Page