MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 25, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 4:30 p.m., on Thursday, May 25, 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: Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen, and Lobbyist, Freedom of Information Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County Tom Stown, Vice President, Veterans in Politics, Nevada Election Watch Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Bob Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks David Howard, Vice President, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada Andy Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada Cops Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 420. SENATE BILL 420: Makes various changes relating to elections. Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, facilitated discussion of S.B. 420 by providing a list of all proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit C). She testified the 11-page document (Exhibit C) is a compilation of the proposed amendments for the bill from the May 10 hearing. She explained the amendments are placed section-by-section in order of presentation. She stated most of the amendments affect the existing sections, but there are three pages at the end of the document which propose new sections to the bill. She began with a section-by-section overview of the amendments. Ms. Bennett stated there was no proposed amendment to section 1 since it is the beginning drafting language. She testified section 2 has two proposed amendments which are on page 1 of Exhibit C. Senator O'Connell asked Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, to provide testimony on the two proposed amendments. Mr. Erquiaga told the committee much of the language found in the proposals for section 2 are too specific for statutes. He asked the committee to keep in mind there are 17 very different counties in the state, and writing laws for one county is never advisable. He reiterated the language is telling a clerk what to buy, and it is not done in other election laws throughout the nation. He explained some day the proposed statutory language will be obsolete. Items like this should be left in regulations. He stressed the language should be left as broad as possible. Ms. Bennett stated legislative counsel concurs with the opinion of the secretary of state's office regarding this language, except they feel the proposal in 2a is also too restrictive. She explained to the committee both proposals, 1.1 and 2.a, are the same, but the language is slightly different. Senator Raggio asked why the language states metal containers. Senator O'Connell responded Senator Porter and she had an opportunity to put their hands in a very pliable box and the idea is the language would incorporate materials which were not easily accessible. Senator Titus stated she understands the language in the amendments is too specific, but she asked if the language in the bill is acceptable? Ms. Bennett explained there is testimony from various county officials who are concerned about the language and the fiscal impact on their county. She stated there is also additional testimony from Carson City regarding the seal, and the type of seal which might be destructive to the boxes. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THE LANGUAGE FOR SECTION 2 BE AMENDED TO SAY THE BOXES BE CONSTRUCTED OF RIGID MATERIAL, NOT JUST SPECIFICALLY METAL. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Bennett drew the committee's attention to line 6 of section 2, regarding the use of keyed locks. She reminded the committee both the proposed amendments by Mr. Pasek and Mr. Stown address keyed locks. She testified they would prefer the locks not be keyed locks. She stated Mr. Pasek's amendment proposes the locking wire seal. Senator O'Connell asked for discussion from the committee. Senator Shaffer stated the box must be locked somehow, and duplication of the locking mechanism has to be addressed. Senator O'Donnell stated the concern is the security of the box. He stated the seal is better protection than the lock. The lock can be unlocked and locked back again and is expensive. He reminded the committee of the seals which were demonstrated by Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City. He stated he feels they are adequate and cannot be broken without cutting the seals. Senator Raggio stated he is not going to support legislation which will require counties to purchase new equipment. He asked for testimony from any registrar to address this issue. Mr. Glover opined the seals are the best way to insure the confidentiality of a ballot box or a transfer case. Once the seal is clipped, it cannot be put back together again, whereas locks can be locked and unlocked. Carson City traditionally uses locks and keys on ballot boxes, but uses wire seals on transfer cases. Mr. Glover testified most of the rural counties use this system and the amendment would not impose a hardship. Senator Raggio asked if Washoe County uses a paper seal. Mr. Glover stated they put their ballots in a paper box, with a paper seal and the election worker signs on the seal. He explained Carson City uses this system for early voting. He stressed Carson City has always used metal boxes. Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, told the committee the industry refers to the seals as "tamper-proof seals." He stated it would allow for changes in the technology and industry. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO AMEND THE BILL BY ADDING TAMPER- PROOF SEALS BE USED TO SECURE BALLOT BOXES AND TRANSFER CASES IN LINES 6-10 OF SECTION 2. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Bennett addressed section 3 of the bill. She told the committee there is one amendment proposed, which is on page 2 of Exhibit C. She told the committee since they have amended the bill to add tamper-proof seals instead of locks and keys, this language change will be addressed throughout the entire bill. She reminded the committee currently the counties have a flexibility to use wire seals, locks and keys, or paper seals and this language would require every county to use tamper-proof seals. She stated there will be interpretation whether the intent is the paper seal or the locking wire seal. Ms. Bennett continued her testimony with the proposed amendment to section 4, which is found on page 2 of Exhibit C. She stated: The amendment was proposed by Tom Stown on page 1, after line 20, adding two new subsections. The written amendment that was presented to this committee was not clear how that would affect. . . on page 2 there is a new subsection 3, lines 1 through 3, if these two proposals are an addition to that subsection, or a replacement of, I was not clear on that. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Erquiaga to explain these proposed amendments. Mr. Erquiaga responded: I believe from the testimony you received from our office and from the counties, the election officials in the state are opposed to section 4. They do not want filming of voters during the act of voting. I believe the committee has also been provided with a letter from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or the Department of Justice that speaks to this issue quite firmly (Exhibit D). Now, the secretary of state does not have a problem with filming the counting of votes, but specifically allowing, and as the amendment would suggest, encouraging you to run home and get your camera, the election officials in this state feel that is intimidation of a voter. Ms. Bennett read highlights from the letter (Exhibit D): This is a letter from the assistant attorney general in the federal rights division of the Department of Justice. I would like to direct your attention to the first sentence in the second paragraph where they say, 'We have found that no useful information is obtained and federal law is likely to be violated when private citizens form ballot security forces and attempt to take over the role of policing polling places.' Then to the third paragraph, the first sentence, 'More specifically, such an attempt to videotape areas where black voters are present at their polling places could constitute a violation of section 11B of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b). We, therefore, would urge that you and all other parties and organizations avoid filming at polling places on election day, and take steps to avoid measures by poll watchers that would run any risk of intimidating or harassing voters.' Senator Titus suggested a general motion is more in line with the advice of the Office of the Secretary of State which will not allow filming of people voting, but will allow filming of the vote count. Senator Raggio voiced his support of prohibiting filming of the voting process. He urged the language regarding filming during vote counting should state the filming be done in an unobtrusive manner so the procedure is not disturbed or interference does not occur. Senator O'Connell asked if he was considering a designated area. Senator Raggio stated the filming must be done in a reasonable manner which is unobtrusive and does not interfere with the process. Senator O'Connell asked if language like this is included in the open meeting law. Ms. Bennett responded it is in this law, and it might provide a model for this type of language. She cited Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 241.035 authorizes a member of the general public to record "all or part of any meeting of a public body on audiotape or any other means of sound or video reproduction so long as this in no way interferes in the conduct of the meeting." Senator O'Connell asked if it is necessary to reference statute in this section of the bill. Ms. Bennett responded the bill drafter will use that language as a model to place it in the sections involving the counting of the ballots to say as long as it does not interfere with the conduct of that particular activity. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO NOT ALLOW FILMING IN THE POLLING PLACE AND TO ALLOW FILMING IN THE COUNTING PLACE. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen, asked if the committee plans to bar the press from going in early in the morning and getting a picture of the Governor and his wife voting? SENATOR O'DONNELL WITHDREW HIS MOTION. Senator O'Connell asked if the press would be affected by this motion? Ms. Bennett responded the law is currently silent on videotaping. She stated if no specific prohibition is included in the law, it would not affect the press. She stated if she understood the motion, it is dealing with this bill specifically. She stated, "You would remove from this bill, the language dealing with the videotaping in the polling place, leaving in the language that would allow the videotaping in the counting." Senator O'Connell asked if the press was included. Ms. Bennett responded the press would not change their usual practice; it would not affect them. Senator Porter asked how someone would obtain a press credential. Ms. Engleman explained how press passes are issued. Senator Raggio stated he is not convinced the language in the motion would exempt the press. He asked why it would exempt the press. He suggested no one should be allowed to film in the polling place without the express permission from the voters. Ms. Bennett stated: Madame Chairman, if I could explain what I understood. All of the language in this bill deals with videotaping or audio taping during any part of the election process is all new language. As I understood the motion, it would be to remove that new language, thus not changing the current practice. If you wish to add a specific prohibition, then yes, you may wish to address getting permission. But in dealing with this bill specifically, I understood that to be taking out the new language that was proposed in section 4, leaving in the new language that's proposed in subsequent sections. Senator Raggio stated he thought the issue was presently there is nothing which allows people to videotape in the polling place. Ms. Bennett responded there is nothing in the bill to prohibit that issue. SENATOR RAGGIO WITHDREW HIS SECOND OF THE MOTION. As another amendment to section 4 was not forthcoming at this time, Ms. Bennett continued her overview of the bill. She stated there are no amendments proposed for section 5 of the bill. She explained there are numerous proposed amendments to section 6. She said, "Obviously anything dealing with keys has been dealt with." She outlined proposal 8b as the deletion of subsection 4 which is page 2, lines 27 through 29 which is existing language. She stated the other proposals for section 6 deal with videotaping, lines 39 through 43 of section 6. She also explained the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) does not understand the intent of the proposed amendment, section 6, amendment number 10. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO ALLOW THE ABILITY OF SOMEONE TO TAPE, INCLUDING THE PRESS, OF SOMEONE VOTING IF THEY SO VOLUNTEERED AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN; AND THE ABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC OR THE PRESS TO TAPE THE COUNTING PROCEDURES TO BE AMENDED INTO SECTION 4. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked for clarification: May I interpret the motion so I understand it? I would interpret the motion to be to strike subsection 2 of section 4 and, in lieu thereof, to indicate that a person may not photograph the act of . . . in the polling place, without the consent of the voter. Is that what the sense of the motion is? Senator Townsend responded, "Yes." Senator Raggio asked, "That they may photograph the act of counting . . . the process of counting the votes, as long as it does not interfere with the process. That is how I am understanding the motion." Senator Townsend responded, "Yes, but it would include the language that we discussed that does not prohibit the press from its normal duties in access to either one." Senator Raggio stated: That is my concern. You cannot do one thing for the press and another for the public. I think what you are saying is that you want to strike subsection 2, and say that a voter may be photographed if that voter gives consent by anyone, not only the press. Ms. Engleman stated newspaper photographers like to take pictures of the workers in a polling place. There is no reference to them in the amendment. She asked if they will be prohibited from photographing the workers? Senator Townsend said his motion only deals with a person who votes. Senator O'Connell said this is only a workshop on this bill. This is not the time for testimony on this bill. She asked if the committee is clear on the motion and is there any further discussion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Bennett stated the last vote the committee took only deals with videotaping in the polling place. Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee really wants to allow members of the general public to observe the conduct at the voting place, or should that be left up to the deputy registers and the poll watchers? Senator Raggio said he does not see a problem with subsection 1. A polling place is open to the public. He said the language is not objectionable. Ms. Bennett reminded the committee they have Assembly Bill (A.B.)18 which addresses electioneering in polling places and provides a limit within which people may campaign. ASSEMBLY BILL 18: Expands area around polling place where electioneering or solicitation of votes is prohibited. (BDR 24-1001) Senator Raggio again said polling places are a public area. Ms. Bennett reviewed the various amendments to the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee wishes to address any of the amendments? SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR DELETION OF LINES 40 THROUGH 43 OF SECTION 6. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Ms. Bennett reviewed section 7. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF NUMBER 13 UNDER SECTION 7, WHICH WILL DELETE LINES 47 AND 48 ON PAGE 2, AND LINES 1 AND 2 ON PAGE 3. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Donnell asked if the committee intends to delete the videotaping of the counting? Senator O'Connell asked if everyone is clear on the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTED NO.) * * * * * Ms. Bennett reviewed section 8. Senator Porter asked the committee to go back to page 2, lines 47 and 48, and lines 1 and 2 on page 3. He said he does not feel the videotaping should be allowed if people feel they are being harassed. Senator Titus asked the committee if they will accept "according to rule distance specifications set by the registrar?" SENATOR TITUS MOVED PAGE 2, LINES 47 AND 48 BE LEFT TO SAY THE PUBLIC CAN OBSERVE THE COUNTING PROCEDURE AND PHOTOGRAPH THE PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO SOME SPECIFICATIONS SET BY THE LOCAL REGISTRAR. Senator O'Donnell called for a point of order. He said the motion conflicts with another motion. SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO RESCIND THE ACTION ON SECTION 7. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator O'Connell asked for a second on the new motion being made. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator O'Connell asked if there is any discussion. Senator Townsend said: It should be noted that I don't think there is anybody on this committee who would preclude the press from covering any of these procedures. It also should be noted, all of us are . . . Senator Porter spent 10 years in the local arena. There is not a veteran here and I don't think there is anybody here now has had a problem ever with the press in a public situation. The problem you face . . . I think what Senator Titus is saying is there are people who are going to abuse what a normal process would be. That is the unfortunate thing of why we have got to have language like this in here. That is the problem. Ms. Bennett pointed out the motion could apply to the videotaping language in sections 7, 8, 11, and 13. This could save the committee some time. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Ms. Bennett reviewed amendments for section 10. She mentioned a letter sent to the Clark County Board of Commissioners (Exhibit E) from Senator O'Connell. Senator O'Connell asked if the committee wants to proceed with encouraging the county commission to go ahead and buy the units necessary in order to produce a paper "ballot." Senator O'Donnell explained the paper ballot information. Mr. Erquiaga told the committee Clark County is the only county which uses direct report electronic machines. The rest of the counties use punch cards. Senator O'Connell asked Senator O'Donnell to take the letter the committee has been working on and add the printer information to it. Senator Titus asked if section 10 is left in the bill. Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, responded the machines print a ballot image and it is stored for the required retention period. She told the committee there is no system which can perform these suggestions. She told the committee it would cost $1,175,000 to install printers and would require additional costs as the county grows. The machines would require more maintenance. She explained how the machine provides in the LED window, verification of the voter's intent. She said: You don't take your punch card ballot home with you now and look at how you voted. You don't get a receipt like this on any other system. The ballot images are there on the machine. They are also on the cartridge. They are printed out and stored. During the testing period, for public testing, and for the certification board, we do record the ballots as they are cast. They do look at the ballot images and see that is what comes out of the machine. That is what the testing is for. Senator O'Connell called for the vote. Tom Stown, Vice President, Veterans in Politics, Nevada Election Watch, requested to testify. I did help originate this bill. The main point here is that the voter has a way of looking at the ballot and realizing his intent was included on that ballot. He cannot realize that if it is in some kind of coded binary information that he cannot read. It has to have some way of having plain English that looks like a ballot. Now, you can add binary-coded information in addition if you need it to read it through a reader, but at least the voter should have the ability to read that ballot. He will drop it in a ballot box just like you do with a punchcard. It will not be taken with him outside the voting booth, so no one will buy his vote. That is the reason for the sealed ballot box right there. So it will work just identically to any other voting system, you'd leave the ballot in the voting . . . in the ballot box after you confirm that is what you intended. That ballot will become a permanent record so they can use it for recounting votes in case there is a recount. Senator O'Donnell stated, "You cannot read the ballots now. You have to be really good . . . " Mr. Stown interjected, "You are talking about the Sequoia ballots?" Senator O'Donnell asserted, "No, the punchcard ballot." Mr. Stown interjected again, "No a printer . . . " Senator O'Donnell continued, "If it has been punched, you cannot read whom you voted for." Mr. Stown agreed: On a punchcard, you can look for the number, but we are talking about a printed ballot. If you have a printer on there, the printer can print in plain English. Just like on a Sequoia, it has a display, a LCD display there that displays the name of the voter you punched in. You can have that printed on the ballot just as well. Any computer can do that. Senator O'Donnell stated: Tom, that is impractical. If you want to slow down the voting process, go ahead and have a printer print out the name of every person and every thing you voted for. It will take you 3 or 4 minutes just to do the printing. Mr. Stown disagreed: No, a small printer could spit it out in about 10 seconds. I have knowledge of printers. Now, I personally think there is another way to go, but this would actually help the voter's confidence so that he can see . . . for instance, what Kathryn Ferguson said, it is electronically put in the machine, but the voter does not know that. If a printer prints it out and he looks at it and says, 'Yes, that is what is in the machine,' and drops it in a box, now you have something physical that you can count later on. The way it is set up now, you have nothing physical to count later on. Senator O'Connell stated, "The committee has heard the arguments both ways. What is your preference here?" Senator O'Donnell responded, "I thought you were going to give me a letter. I do not know if there is a motion." Senator O'Connell stated: We have the letter. The committee has already had a motion to send a letter to Clark County requesting that the printer be available at the voting booth so that the person voting has something to physically take with them. We are asking for that in the letter. Kathryn is telling us how much that would cost. You are saying that unnecessary. The gentleman who made the proposal for the ballot is saying that is what they want. I need a reading from the committee as to what direction you would like us to go on this. Do you want this kind of a ballot where the name is . . . ? Mr. Stown interjected, "Yes. . . ." Senator O'Connell continued, "on it. The names are on it." Senator O'Donnell stressed, "Not necessarily the names." Senator Titus stated: I believe this committee has made it very clear to the registrars that we want it to be as accountable as possible. We will leave it to them, through this letter, encouraging them to make the system as accountable as possible. I say we leave section 10 as it is, and send that letter to the registrars. Senator O'Connell stated, "Then we are still in agreement. So anything to do with the ballot you [Dana Bennett] know we can just bypass." Ms. Bennett continued her testimony with section 12: Section 11 you can bypass. Section 12, there is a proposal to delete that entire section of NRS. The Legal Division says that is impractical. Section 13, the only amendments that were proposed, you have dealt with. Section 14, page 4, line 47, there is a proposal to add some language at the end of line 47. The secretary of state has some concern about the addition of that language. The Legal Division suggested if this is something you want to mandate, you may wish to look at existing language on the end of line 45 to 46. It says, 'If practicable, the other board member must be of a different political party.' The legal counsel pointed out that does not specify major or minor political party. It says `political party.' It could be either. If you wish to mandate that the other person be of a different party, you can remove 'if practicable.' If that is the desire of the committee. The other amendments proposed to section 14, you have dealt with, having to do with video recording. Ms. Bennett continued her section-by-section analysis of the proposed amendments drawing the committee's attention back to sections 3-6. Senator O'Connell explained the registrars requested the part of the bill about locking the ballot boxes in the trunk of a car be deleted. It was pointed out people drive various types of vehicles. Senator O'Donnell explained the language changes which require the sealed rigid boxes would eliminate the necessity to lock the ballot boxes away in a portion of a vehicle. He called the committee's attention to safety factors when caravans of vehicles follow each other to counting areas. Senator Titus agreed. She said if the boxes are secure, it does not have to be in a locked area of a vehicle. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED, REGARDING PROPOSALS 31 AND 32, LANGUAGE BE DELETED FROM SECTIONS 3-6 AND SECTION 10-11. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Bennett continued her analysis of the bill and amendments with section 15. The Legal Division opined the proposed language in the amendment is redundant and unnecessary. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED THE COMMITTEE DELETE THE WORDS IN LINE 20, AND THE, AND ALL OF LINES 21 AND 22. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Bennett began the analysis of the amendments for section 17. Discussion of the amendments ensued. The Legal Division has determined impounding ballots would disenfranchise voters and is a serious issue requiring further legal research. She said amendment 35b would add another subsection to allow the central ballot inspection board to acknowledge receipt of each sealed container according to identification numbers. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO REMOVE LINES 27-31 FROM THE BILL. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O'DONNELL VOTED NO.) ***** Ms. Bennett explained section 17 has videotaping language in it that was missed in the earlier motion. She said it could be added by adding section 17 to the earlier motion. The committee agreed. Sections 18 and 19 relate to S.B. 446 She noted there is a proposal to add this language into S.B. 446 and deal with it there. The committee agreed this is the best thing to do. SENATE BILL 446: Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DELETE SECTION 18 FROM THE BILL. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DELETE SECTION 19 FROM THE BILL. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator O'Connell stated sections 20, 21, and 22 have no amendments. Ms. Bennett drew the committee's attention to the rest of the amendments which add a new section to the bill. She explained amendments 44-47 concern both the Office of the Secretary of State and the Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Erquiaga told the committee these amendments would outlaw direct record electronic voting equipment systems. He said it would take the state back to voting on paper ballots. Senator O'Connell told the committee Charles Horne, Coordinator, 10th Amendment Committee, offered this section to the bill. She reiterated Mr. Erquiaga's testimony. Senator Titus asked how this language would affect the $6 million Clark County has already spent on electronic voting machines? Mr. Erquiaga testified, "It is money out the window. If you now change the statutes . . . you have changed the rules. The system could not be used. I believe, upon reading this, that is the intent, quite frankly." Senator Titus stated, "That is how I read it too. I can't support something that turns back the clock and would cause Clark County taxpayers to lose $6 million." Senator Porter remarked amendments 44-47 are a disservice to the county elected officials. Senator O'Donnell expounded on the difference between mechanical and electronic voting machines. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DELETE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 44- 47 AND TO NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE NEXT DRAFT OF THE BILL. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Hearing no further discussion on S.B. 420, Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on it, and opened the hearing on S.B. 291. SENATE BILL 291: Requires termination of negotiations between local government employer and employee organization concerning issues with fiscal impact under certain circumstances. Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, provided the committee with proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit F). He explained the amendments to the committee. Discussion of the amendments ensued. Senator Titus asked Mr. Grady to explain the various funds listed in the bill. Mr. Grady complied. Bob Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, assisted in the definition of the funds. Discussion of the funds and how to protect monies from the collective bargaining process ensued. Discussion of use of the funds was included also. Budgets and a specific purpose of funds in budgets was discussed. Barbara McKenzie, Lobbyist, City of Reno, stated they support the new proposed language and the bill. Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, City of Sparks, stated the City of Sparks supports the bill, but wants the list of funds more defined. She proposed an additional amendment. She provided copies of it and additional letters of support for the bill (Exhibit G). She outlined the proposed amendment. David Howard, Vice President, Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, read a goal of the chamber to the committee. (Exhibit H). He endorsed the bill, Mr. Grady's amendments, and Ms. Tyler's proposed amendments. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Freedom of Information, stated the bill would provide access to information which has been kept confidential from taxpayers. Senator Townsend explained a 10-year graph was formulated in Washoe County to let the taxpayers know where the revenue is being spent. He said they could draw their own conclusions from the graph. He stated amazement 85 percent of the total budget is spent on wages. Ms. Engleman said her concern with the amendment is the language in chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes must be revised to remove the confidentiality provision. She said if they want to access the information going back 10 years, the committee may need to add appropriate language in order to be able to do that legally. She said during a course of study on public records, she called each school district to inquire about the salary of the superintendent. She said seven counties told her that information is confidential and private and it could not be given to anyone. Senator O'Connell asked what would happen if the committee requested that information from the counties. She suggested they subpoena any county which did not comply with providing the information. Mr. Howard clarified the bill would make the initial offers and the results public, but the negotiation discussions would not be public. He said the taxpayers need to know what their elected officials are offering the employees. He said they should also know what the end result is. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Bennett to check with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and ask them under what provision of law the committee can request this information. She said they are not interested in the negotiations, the closed part, but are interested in the offers and the end results. Ms. Tyler explained the City of Sparks envisioned this amendment as allowing the initial offers to be public. It would give the bargaining units and the local governments the opportunity to go behind closed doors to negotiate the offers. If there are problems, and an impasse situation occurs, this would be an inducement, but no one wants the public to know an impasse has been reached. She said in impasse issues, the public could look at the documentation. She said the public would be allowed access to the open meetings, not access to the negotiation sessions. She noted the executed agreements are signed should be a public record as well. She said this is the intent of the amendments she proposed. Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified next on S.B. 291. He said this bill will give definition to the sanctity of budgets and funds which are exempt from the collective bargaining process. He said currently it is difficult to find out how the negotiations process, and what the start, finish and impact are of negotiations. He asked if the documents during the impasse are the history of the negotiations from the proposal through the various offers, or if the transfer of documentation back and forth? He said this should be clarified. He said in addition to the publishing of the executed collective bargaining agreement, the taxpayers need to see what the issues are and what the trade offs are. Senator Townsend asked if Mr. Howard wanted to see the work documents, or the counter offer documents? Mr. Howard clarified there should be access to key documents. Ms. Tyler stated her amendment is an initial place to start. She said the language regarding the impasse was introduced for discussion since they were not sure how to write the bill draft language. Senator Porter suggested changes to section C of Exhibit F. Discussion of the changes ensued. The intent of Mr. Grady's amendments was discussed. It was determined the intent was for "one-time expenditures." Mr. Bacon stated the provisions in Mr. Grady's amendments need to be done to correct some problems that all of the counties have with collective bargaining. He stated strong support of the bill, Mr. Grady's amendments and Ms. Tyler's amendments. Senator O'Connell temporarily closed the hearing on S.B. 291 and opened the hearing on S.B. 446. SENATE BILL 446: Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. Senator O'Connell explained sections 18 and 19 from S.B. 420 would be left in S.B. 446. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association, offered more amendments to the bill (Exhibit I). Discussion of the amendments ensued. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 446 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 291. Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, expressed concerns. He stated he understood that school districts are supposed to be exempt from this bill, but he reads the bill that it does impact the teachers. He explained the different kinds of collective bargaining units in the different districts. Mr. Grady stated school districts have been eliminated from the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the intent. Mr. Bellister reiterated he does not read the bill that way. He asked the intent of the maker be included in an amendment. Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, testified against the proposed changes to Nevada Revised Statutes 288.200. He said: This amendment is systematically removing each and every dollar that is in a budget. Period. There is no money left for salaries. There is no money left for anything. As the current law is written, there are funds that are not available; ending fund balances that are not available. Those funds are not available for salary negotiations at the present time. It is now up to the arbitrator to decide which of these funds that monies have been hidden into. As Senator Porter spoke about the transformer funds, they kept a million dollars. It is up to the arbitrator to find that. The city systematically hid $50 million into that $1 million fund so that it cannot be attached for salaries. That is what the arbitrator is for; that is what the arbitration process is all about. This just completely destroys chapter 288 [of the NRS] and the entire negotiating process. Speaking on the second amendment from Miss Tyler and the City of Sparks, I am not sure where they are coming from with the `sunshine.' They want to make the negotiations open to the public, but they are really trying to create a bad guy. They are either creating that elected official that is granting salary increases as the bad guy, or the labor group that has negotiated a salary hike. As far as the collective bargaining agreements being open to the public, they are at the present time. Anyone can get a collective bargaining agreement from police, fire, school teachers, [and] anyone. This bill is moot. It does nothing. Andy Anderson, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada Cops, supported Mr. Balen's testimony. He said the first purpose of the arbitrator or fact-finder is to find where the money is. He stated if the bill lists sources where it cannot be touched, what is the purpose of the fact- finder or the arbitrator. He said if their role is reduced to determining what is left, but there is nothing left, why go through the process of a fact-finder or an arbitrator. He stated: My records go back to when we first started negotiating in 1979. We have never kept this a secret. We published it in our newsletters. We have never had a problem with the collective bargaining agreements not being available to everyone. The initial proposals generally are kept in-house and there are reasons for that. I represent 1,400 police officers. We have different assignments, different functions within our department, and everyone has specific needs. If you totaled up our initial proposal, not necessarily the pay raise, but just the different benefits that each individual group wants to address, we could come up with a 27-30 percent proposal which would be ludicrous in itself. But, we know full well that this is just addressing different groups and if you collectively add it together, it is a 30 percent proposal. So if that hits the paper, it makes the police look like they are greedy. It gives a bad picture of the police asking for a 30 percent raise. In reality, we know that we are going to lose certain aspects of that, because we have to get a feel which way the department wants to go, if they want to grant motorcycle pay as a hazard pay to our motorcycle officers and things like that. It is just feeling out the process. We just don't go in there and say, `Hey, we want a 5 percent raise or a 10 percent raise.' We address probably 27 issues in our contract. So to present that to the press for open publication, it would create a lot of confusion unless there is the appropriate understanding or the appropriate explanation that goes along with that. Senator Porter commented he does not remember these areas of the bill ever being used by an arbitrator for paying salaries. He asked if they have ever been used by an arbitrator. Mr. Balen responded different entities have used this list of funds to hide monies that could be attached. He said that is the reason to go to arbitration. Discussion of the funds ensued again. Senator Porter stated he does not understand how this list of funds could be a problem. Mr. Balen stressed: The only monies that would be available for salary increases would be those monies that were budgeted for salary increases. If the entity decided to budget zero that is what would be available. If you went to impasse and spent $5,000 for an arbitrator to go through everything, and there is no money budgeted, there is no reason to spend the money for either party. We have done away with arbitration. We have done away with fact finding. We have done away with everything; because what we are doing here is we have decided the only money that would be available would be money that has been budgeted for salaries. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Anderson to share the newsletters which have been sent out with information. She asked Mr. Balen to provide any newsletters which his group sent out. Mr. Anderson told Senator O'Connell he could provide the bargaining agreements and contract books from 1982. Mr. Balen stated he could supply the committee with contracts from 1969. Hearing no further testimony forthcoming on any of the bills, Senator O'Connell adjourned the committee meeting at 8:55 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 25, 1995 Page