MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session April 20, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 5:00 p.m., on Thursday, April 20, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Kathryn McClain, Lobbyist, Clark County Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association, Incorporated Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority Senator O'Connell opened the work session with Senate Bill (S.B.) 356. Senator O'Connell said the requester had withdrawn it so she would take a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill. SENATE BILL 356: Authorizes creation of taxing district to defray cost of additional fire protection in certain cities. (BDR 21-733) SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 356. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell continued with Senate Bill (S.B.) 182. SENATE BILL 182: Authorizes informal interim leasing of property acquired for public work. (BDR 28-701) Senator O'Connell asked if anyone would like to comment on the bill. Kathryn McClain, Lobbyist, Clark County, stated, "We have worked with the taxpayers association and the amendments that have been presented are fine with Clark County." Senator O'Connell and the committee looked over the Amendment No. 254 and the bill. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 254 AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 182. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The next bill the committee discussed was Senate Bill (S.B.) 290. SENATE BILL 290: Revises provisions governing certification of applicants for appointment to classified service of state. Bob Gagnier, Lobbyist, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified, "Barbara Willis and I met with Jan Needham and worked this [Amendment No. 246] out and we both agreed to it." SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND WITH AMENDMENT NO. 246 AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 290. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked, "What does this mean?" Mr. Gagnier responded, "I don't have a copy of the amendment with me, but I can tell you what it means. . . [If there were] three people that would have [a score] of 87.35, . . . they would have to break those ties by lot. This would just certify that everybody who got an 87.35 [would be counted as] . . . one." Senator Raggio clarified the meaning stating that if three people had the same top score they would be considered number 1. Mr. Gagnier said that is correct. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell introduced Senate Bill (S.B.) 303. Senator Raggio asked if a motion was required to amend the bill with a proposed amendment which would apply the same language to chapter 333 of the Nevada Revised Statues, dealing with state purchasing. SENATE BILL 303: Makes various changes concerning purchasing by local governments. (BDR 27-1869) SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 303. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Connell asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Since there was no response Senator O'Connell asked for a vote. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR TITUS AND SENATOR O'DONNELL WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Next, Senator O'Connell asked the committee to consider Senate Bill (S.B.) 325. SENATE BILL 325: Repeals requirement that "none of these candidates" appears as choice on ballot for election of certain officers. (BDR 24- 1314) SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 325. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio stated his reason for the motion to indefinitely postpone is because of the amount of mail that he has received on this bill. Senator Raggio said he thinks that "none of the above" does serve a purpose and should remain intact. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell introduced Senate Bill (S.B.) 265. SENATE BILL 265: Requires percentage of amount appropriated or authorized for certain public works for construction or renovation of state buildings to be allocated for works of art for such buildings. Senator Titus testified, "We worked very hard for this bill . . . " Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, said, ". . . The primary purpose [of this amendment] . . . is to provide statutory authority to the state arts council, the public works board and the Building and Grounds Division to work together to include arts in the state building projects. Essentially, what it does [is] each of those entities has a statute that says you will do these sorts of things. It just adds language to each of those three statutes that says you . . . shall cooperate on planning for and integrating art into state buildings. The attached two pages shows each of those three statutes . . . Another thing that this amendment does . . . [it] rewrites an existing section that is in the bill that allows the council . . . to keep an eye on art that is in public projects . . . " Senator O'Connell asked if having art in state buildings would still be permissive and not mandatory under this bill. Ms. Bennett replied that the mandatory part is that they cooperate, but it is not mandatory that they put art in specific projects. Senator Titus explained, "There is no funding involved. This is just to get at the main concern that you look at art as an option from the very beginning rather then waiting until the building is completed. . . By putting this into each one of these statutes . . . [it] will encourage that cooperation." Senator Raggio inquired about the new section 3 of the amendment. Ms. Bennett explained that the new section 3 would amend Nevada Revised Statutes 331.100 which outlines the duties and powers of the Buildings and Grounds Division. Senator Titus reiterated how the bill will work. Senator Raggio said he agreed with the amendment except that the word "potential" should be included before the word "inclusion" in all sections. Senator Titus agreed to Senator Raggio's request. Senator O'Connell asked if anyone had any more questions. Since no one responded she said she would take a motion from the committee. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 265. Senator Shaffer clarified that the amendment would include Senator Raggio's proposed amended language mentioned previously. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell introduced Senate Bill (S.B.) 357. SENATE BILL 357: Revises provision governing disclosure by state officer or employee of improper governmental action. (BDR 23-1706) Mr. Gagnier introduced and discussed Exhibit C. Mr. Gagnier said he thinks the amendment does all of the things they requested. Mr. Gagnier discussed the amendment and pointed out specific sections that have been changed. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association, Incorporated, stated her support for the amendment and the bill and urged the committee to do pass the bill and amendment. Senator Raggio said he did not think that this amendment addresses the concerns of an employee during the probation period. Mr. Gagnier responded he can understand the concern regarding probationary employees, but it is something that the Legislature is going to have to address. Senator Raggio said he has a lot of empathy for a probationary employee that would report an action that is improper, but also recognizes that there is good reason to maintain a probationary period. Mr. Gagnier explained what would happen if a hearing officer was ruling on behalf of a probationary employee. He said the hearing officer could not return the probationary employee to work, if he found in favor of the employee. The only thing that the probationary employee could expect would be a favorable recommendation from the hearing officer to the Governor and a recommendation that the Governor take some action. Senator Shaffer stated he thought there should be a clear statement that a probationary employee, is either covered or not covered. Mr. Gagnier said that Senator Shaffer's suggestion would be very easy to accomplish. Senator O'Connell asked if this inforfmation could be included when a new state employee receives the employee handbook. Mr. Gagnier stated that a lot of this information is already in the employee handbook. Senator O'Connell said: I wonder if with the committee's approval, I could write a letter to Barbara [Willis, Director, Department of Personnel] and ask her if this information is included. If not, what kind of a cost would we be looking at . . . to include this information so that at a time an agency would hire an individual that . . .would be covered . . . If something would not work out . . . , they would not fall into an area within 3 months or a year. . . Perhaps we could address this without going through the law, [by] simply letting her know the intent of the committee and what we feel would be appropriate if indeed that is not being done now. I think it would be pretty awkward to have that put in [it] there because then you get into mico managing . . . the agency and that is something we would prefer not to be involved in. Senator Shaffer stated, "the other concern that bothered me was the fact that the attorney general was working against it. . . " Ms. Engleman said she was going to support putting in the language "no" as far as the probationary period was concerned, but she thought the probationary period was 6 months and not 1 year. Senator Raggio stated he thought they should use the language in this bill. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 357. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 107. ASSEMBLY BILL 107: Revises provisions governing temporary appointment of certain state employees. (BDR 23-1344) Senator Titus stated, "This was the amendment that came from . . . [the] University [of] Nevada at Las Vegas asking if [they] could have `museum and research center' added [to the language] because they hire . . . [people] to do field projects for the center in the summer." SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 107. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Next, Senator O'Connell introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 139 to the committee. ASSEMBLY BILL 139: Revises provisions governing expenditure of money by certain counties to encourage preservation of certain species of wildlife. Senator O'Connell said she asked Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association, if it would be possible to lower the amount on this bill. Ms. Porter suggested that the amount be lowered no lower then $750, as opposed to the $1000 already in the bill. Ms. Porter explained that their goal of $30 million is what they must reach in order to fund their long-term plan. Ms. Porter said she agreed with the $750 limit. Senator Porter stated his support for the bill and the $750 limit. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED A.B. 139. Senator Porter clarified that the amendment would contain language for reducing the amount of $1000 to $750. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked if the goal was to raise $30 million. Ms. Porter responded that this is the purpose of the bill. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Next, Senator O'Connell introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 281. ASSEMBLY BILL 281: Requires unanimous vote of governing body of municipality for issuance of certain general obligations without election. (BDR 20-295) Senator Raggio asked if the committee members had received a letter about this bill and discussed issues from a letter he had received. Senator O'Connell asked Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, if there was very much testimony for this bill on the assembly side. Mr. Leavitt said there was very little testimony heard for this bill on the Assembly side. Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, said: The original bill called for a unanimous vote of the governing body on revenue bonds; the reason being, when they are double-barreled bonds you have no election. The governing bodies have said that unanimous was too stringent for them. I don't think it was overwhelmingly loved, but the agreement was to try to make it more palatable and at least look at it for the 2 years [and] to amend it down to a two-thirds vote of the governing body, with the proviso that if there was a problem, all of us would be back in 2 years saying they couldn't live with it or . . . we couldn't live with it. Senator O'Connell asked, "So that was an agreement?" Ms. Vilardo replied, "I don't know that I would call it a formal agreement. It is just that the amendment was offered as a compromise to counter what the committee and local governments had informally discussed. . . When I testified to that problem, there was no local government that got up in opposition to it. They did not support it, but they did not oppose it. I think they would have opposed it if it had remained as unanimous. . . " Mr. Leavitt agreed with Ms. Vilardo's testimony. Senator O'Connell asked if Senator Porter agreed with the testimony. Senator Porter said he did not think the super majority issue was a problem. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 281. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Next, Senator O'Connell introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 285. ASSEMBLY BILL 285: Revises provision governing support of airports by county fair and recreation boards in certain counties. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 285. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio stated he wanted to abstain from the vote and discussed the reasons why. Senator O'Donnell said he thought if the Convention Authority would be made into an airport authority it would dilute the funds. Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention/Visitors Authority, added, "The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority is currently doing a study in Laughlin and Mesquite to determine how both of those cities could be a separate destination of their own. . . We don't have a position on this particular bill, but I think it is important for the record, for the committee to know that we are currently doing two studies to help both of those communities to increase marketing dollars, to bring in more tourists and help them fund certain projects in their communities." THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Senator O'Connell introduced the last bill, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 294. ASSEMBLY BILL 294: Increases number of members of Reno civil service commission. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 294. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs April 20, 1995 Page