MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session January 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, January 24, 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 Mike McGinness, Chairman Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson Senator Mark A. James Senator Dina Titus Senator Bob Coffin COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Bernice Mathews (Excused) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Paula Winne, Research Analyst Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary Paula Saponaro, Secretary Chairman McGinness indicated that unless there was a problem, the committee would meet at 1:30 p.m. rather than 4:30 p.m. There was no objection. Chairman McGinness introduced the Proposed Committee Rules (Exhibit C) for organizational purposes for discussion. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE STANDING COMMITTEE RULES AS PRESENTED. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND MATHEWS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) Senator Coffin asked about Rule 15 and whether it had been announced on the floor. Senator McGinness indicated that it had not, but said they were working on the joint rules, and he thought they would be announced shortly. Chairman McGinness indicated that the committee was honored to have Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), assigned to this committee. He noted that Mr. Erickson had produced a very extensive Issue Brief (Exhibit D) and expressed the committee's appreciation for his efforts. Mr. Erickson thanked the chairman and introduced Paula Winne, Research Analyst, who assisted him in preparing some of the information contained in the Issue Brief. He noted that the bill load last session in the committee was light; only 12 bills and 20 resolutions were referred to the committee. Eight bills were signed into law, and 14 resolutions passed both houses. He said, however, the bills that were enacted were, for the most part, quite substantive and important legislation. They dealt with subjects such as bill drafts requests (BDRs); non-returning legislators; lobbying; legislative measures concerning the identification on whose behalf legislative measures are requested; Legislative Commission; and legislative adjournment. These bills are summarized in the Issue Brief (Exhibit D). Mr. Erickson reminded the committee that toward the end of the session they interact with the Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures to decide what matters will be the subject of interim studies. He stated that in the past couple of sessions each house decided on six or seven resolutions they would like to see as studies and then by agreement they are all enacted. The resolutions identified for study by the Senate in 1993 included Energy Resources, Revenue Structure, Legislative Budget Office, Structure and Financing of Public Education, Overtime of State Employees, Water, Highways and Roads. He recognized that a couple of the sponsors of those resolutions were present committee members. He noted that Perinatal Substance Abuse and Legislative Adjournment was also dealt with by this committee. Mr. Erickson stated that Lorne Malkiewich, Director, LCB, will be present at every meeting where there is a matter concerning the bureau. Chairman McGinness stated that Mr. Malkiewich had indicated to him that he will be available any time this committee needs him. Mr. Erickson gave his assurance that if there was a matter that affected the bureau or one of the divisions, the appropriate people would be available to the committee for those hearings. Mr. Erickson commented that the process of prefiling bills and resolutions had been tried. He noted that Senator McGinness and he discussed this about 2 years ago. They are pleased that the process is now in place and that 1195 measures were prefiled before the start of the session. Mr. Erickson indicated he is doing some analysis on whether prefiling will actually help in terms of the number of hearings heard in the first 3 weeks. He noted the first week was difficult to determine as the Assembly was not able to hear any bills; however, there are a lot of bills scheduled for hearing this week and it appears there will be a lot scheduled for hearing next week. He acknowledged that the part of the goal, which was to give a little quicker start to the beginning of the session, was achieved. Senator Coffin stated he thought it was worthy to revisit the question of how prefiling works in practice. He questioned whether there is a need for legislation or not. He indicated his concern about the actual moment of referral and how that worked, because it seemed rocky on the floor. He referred to decisions essentially being made by staff that were subject to disagreement. Senator McGinness acknowledged that there were a couple of cases where a bill could have gone in two directions, and that they sort of stumbled over them this time. However, he thought they would continue to have that problem, but he did not think it was insurmountable. He noted that Senator James had one bill referred to his committee that possibly did not belong there, but it was just a matter of a re-referral which he thought was a small price to pay. However, he said, the committee does need to look at this problem. Senator Coffin stated he hoped they would not worry about whether or not a bill had to be reprinted for referral if, in fact, it had the wrong committee on it. He noted that sometimes there is a feeling of "let's not mess with it since it's already printed" and he thought they should not be reluctant to reprint a bill. Senator Rawson said they knew that the Senate is not known for playing games with the referral process. He indicated that if they needed to clear up that rule, or explain it a little more, that they could put a condition on some of those bills, to the effect, that they be re-referred if there was an issue of them being in the wrong committee. He said he hated to see them go into the process of redrafting bills, as they have never allowed that to be done before, and he felt there was some simple language that would simply require a re-referral should a bill end up in the wrong committee. Senator Titus pointed out that last session in this committee there was the concern about committee bills that nobody knew where they came from. She said she thought it stemmed from when the commerce committee introduced the sodomy statute and people wanted to know whose name was on that bill and where did it come from. She indicated she had forgotten the details of what the committee laid out for letting people know who brought bills forward, but with prefiling that is all lost. She asked if there is some way the committee can build that back in? Mr. Erickson asked if Senator Titus was addressing specifically the prefiling process, as opposed to those who maybe would come out during the session? Senator Titus indicated that they had addressed those that came out during the session, but that she could not remember the details exactly. She asked if that was summarized in the Issue Brief (Exhibit D)? Mr. Erickson answered that it was summarized on page 3, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 202 of the Sixty-Seventh Session. ASSEMBLY BILL 202 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Requires immediate disclosure on weekly list of bill draft requests of name of legislator who requests preparation of legislative measure. (BDR 17-1456) Senator Titus responded that if it was a problem for those bills that came out during the session, the same problem exists for those that are prefiled, and there is no way of dealing with them. Mr. Erickson agreed and called her attention to BDR 17-224 on page 8. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 17-224: Makes various changes relating to prefiling of bills and resolutions. He indicated this bill makes various changes related to prefiling bills and resolutions. However, he indicated, he did not know whether it would come to the Senate first. He said there will be a measure this session too, because they do need to fix up the statutes to make the prefiling process more definite in the law, and some amendments might come forth during that hearing. Senator McGinness indicated that would be a good place to put it, and stated if they cannot get the law changed to require people to put their names on bills when they request BDRs, perhaps if they prefile them, they could be asked at that time. Senator Titus concurred. Senator James stated he wanted to echo Senator Titus' concern and added his concern that committee chairman do not even get notice. He said he, as a committee chairman, cannot just authorize a bill to be introduced. He has to go to the committee and have a vote of a majority of the members of the committee, to even introduce the bill. He noted that anyone who happens to have a bill draft request can just put it in for prefiling and the first thing a chairman ever sees about it is when it "pops" up on the board, and it is being introduced by the judiciary committee. He commended Mr. Erickson' efforts and the committee's efforts in coming up with the prefiling, because it did expedite things in the early part of the session, but these two concerns really need to be addressed. He pointed out the incongruity that the committee members all have to vote on the bill, but anybody, who is not even a member of the legislature, can introduce a bill by whatever committee they want, and not even let the chairman know that it is coming. Mr. Erickson reiterated that the committee will certainly have a chance to address the process more thoroughly, indicating that they tried to get the prefiling on by using existing statutes. Senator McGinness asked Senator James if the problem would be taken care of if legislators were asked to put their names on prefiled bills. Then the bill, regardless of which committee it was referred to, would still have an agency or someone's name on it. Senator James replied that if the requirements in A.B. 202 were extended to the prefiled bills, as was suggested by Senator Titus, then added a requirement that the Chairman receive notice that a prefiled bill was going to be introduced from his committee, that would cure the problem. Mr. Erickson said that even though this committee did not have a whole lot of measures before it 2 years ago, it looked, at least from the BDR listing, that this time there will be a lot....over 50 measures. He noted that if they all end up coming through this committee, they will probably have twice the bill load they had last time, and this did not even include Interim Study Resolutions. Indicating that Paula Winne prepared this part of the Issue Brief (Exhibit D), Mr. Erickson called attention to Other Legislative Issues which provided a summary of what is going on in the other states on term limits. He said he did not know if this committee dealt with term limits, but he thought they should at least have a summary of what is happening in the other states on term limits, and initiative petitions, as well as the matter that went before the State Supreme Court on removing the judges and justices from Question 9. Mr Erickson indicated he would be happy to respond to any other questions the committee might have. Senator McGinness expressed the committee's appreciation for his report saying it was very well done, and gives the them a good idea of where they are going to start. Senator Rawson echoed the Chairman's appreciation and said he thought we have one of the best counsel bureaus with regard to research that he has seen around the country. He stated he associates with other legislators and he thinks we are very fortunate. Senator McGinness agreed saying that the committee puts some tremendous burdens on them and they always seem to complete the tasks on schedule. Senator Coffin asked where he can find the list of organizations which are allowed to request bills and what their limitations are? Mr. Erickson indicated that he did not have the measure with him, but that he could provide it to Senator Coffin's office in a few minutes. Senator Coffin expressed his thanks. Chairman McGinness informed the committee that he would keep committee meetings to a minimum, but that they would get the business at hand done. He acknowledged that each member sits on other committees from which a lot of interim study ideas originate. He invited members to let him know of any of the ideas and stated that perhaps they could talk about them. The meeting adjourned at 2:09 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations January 24, 1995 Page