MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session March 21, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 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 Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Assembly District No. 7 Assemblyman Joseph Dini, Jr., Assembly District No. 38 Senator William R. O'Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Richard Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance Ann Drum, Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Senator McGinness called the meeting to order and requested approval for a resolution draft for "Collector Car Week" (Exhibit C) submitted by Senator Jacobsen, and a bill draft request for an interim study on retail wheeling. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION FOR THE OLD CAR DISPLAY. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAWSON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator Raggio asked if the other request is for a study on retail wheeling and if it was requested by Senator Rhoads? Senator McGinness confirmed that it is a request and that Senator Rhoads had received the request from the rural electric cooperatives. Senator Raggio said it is his understanding that eventually the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations will meet first singly, and then jointly with the other house to determine which interim studies will be utilized. Senator McGinness concurred, but indicated this is just a request to get a bill. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE AUTHORIZE A BILL DRAFT TO REQUEST AN INTERIM STUDY OF THE ISSUE OF RETAIL WHEELING. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Raggio indicated that leadership has acted on some nominations from the state archivist and the director of the research division with respect to those who will be honored for induction into the Senate Hall of Fame this session. He noted that there will be six persons, but he did not want to put their names in the record as they have not been notified. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE REQUEST THE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTIONS FOR SIX PERSONS TO BE INDUCTED INTO THE SENATE HALL OF FAME. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Rawson stated that six seemed like a large number and asked if there would be that many every session. Senator Raggio indicated that these nominations are based on recommendations; there are three who are "old timers," two from the modern era, and one honorary. Senator Rawson commented that with multiple numbers every year, they will run out of wall space very quickly. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman McGinness opened discussion on two committee introductions noting that BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) R-597 came from the interim tax committee, but would be treated like any other study request coming back to the committee for a decision toward the end of the session. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-597: Establish subcommittee on consolidation of services provided by state, county, city and special district. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1815: Designates March 30, 1995, as Kiwanis Day in Nevada. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-597 and BDR R-1815. SENATOR MATTHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (A.C.R.) 8. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to remove provisions requiring 2-week adjournment during legislative session. (BDR R-1649) Morse Arberry, Assembly District 7, indicated that A.C.R. 8 would eliminate the 2- week formal adjournment that has been part of the legislative session during the past three sessions. He stated that the primary purpose of the 2-week adjournment had been to allow the two money committees to conduct all day hearings over the 2-week period early in the session with the goal of speeding up the budget review process. He noted the 2-week adjournment has been successful for that purpose; however, the adjournment has been not been productive for the other morning committees which met in Las Vegas during the adjournment. He stated that legislators who met down south indicated to him that it had been an inefficient use of their committee time, they often must hear the same bills again when they get back to Carson City. Mr. Arberry made the following points:  Citizen turnout at the hearings has declined from 3,561 in 1993 to roughly 2,000 in 1995.  The adjournment helps the money committees in the early stages of the budget process.  For other morning committees, the adjournment comes so early that there is a lack of bills for the full schedule of hearings in southern Nevada.  With the new Grant Sawyer State Office Building, video conferencing of meetings between Carson City and Las Vegas is possible.  Meetings can be conducted in Las Vegas on Friday afternoons as well as Saturdays. He continued suggesting that a process be outlined which will retain the value of the intensive money committee hearings, that will work more efficiently for the other committees, but would not bring the legislative session to a standstill over the 2-week period. Continuing, Mr. Arberry said the process should allow for specific committee hearings on topics of special concerns to southern Nevada where these hearings are necessary, and they should not be just during the 2-week period. He stated the process should also provide for at least two floor sessions in both houses each week. He concluded saying that the main purpose of this bill is to eliminate what is on the books, have both houses come together, appoint a committee, and develop a program that will work for both houses for the north and the south. He noted they are not trying to eliminate the southern Nevadans from the process, but rather to fix what we have. Senator Raggio commented that he agrees entirely with Chairman Arberry and that he is pleased with the alternative suggestion that we have limited floor sessions during the week. He noted that the Senate is currently having floor sessions only 3 days a week and is not experiencing a problem with the flow of bills, and probably 2 days a week up to this point of the session would be adequate. Senator Raggio commented that this would give the morning committees, particularly the money committees, a great deal of time in which to have extensive hearings on the budget. He indicated that 96 percent of the budgets have been fully reviewed and they are now down to short reviews of the various budgets, but it has expanded itself into something that was more than was ever anticipated. He said the legislators who sit on the money committees are unable to participate in afternoon committees; this was never intended and Senator Raggio thinks it has outgrown its purpose. He commended Mr. Arberry for bringing this up at this time and he intends to support the measure. Senator Rawson, too, indicated his support because he thinks they lose some steam in the process. He said they do need to make allowance for some committee meetings to be held in other areas of the state simply to get that discussion and that involvement of the people. Senator Titus commended Mr. Arberry for his efforts in trying to make this operate as efficiently as possible, but as a representative from southern Nevada, she finds it very difficult voting on something that will take away access to the process from her constituents. It is hard for people from southern Nevada to afford to come here to testify, and she noted there were other people having input in Las Vegas, as well as more press coverage. She stated that without something in place to say that there is a commitment to meeting in the south, whether it is actually in this form or some other form, she would not take that access away because one has to balance efficiency and accountability and right now the public tilts towards the need for accountability. Mr. Arberry assured Senator Titus that it is not his intention to totally take southern Nevada out of the process. He said this is the first step in eliminating what is on the books, and considering all the negative comments he received on returning from Las Vegas, he thinks this is the right direction. He said many freshmen remarked that they had lost momentum, and he feels that this body is intelligent enough to come up with a new solution; otherwise, in the next session the legislature is "going to have a black eye." Senator James noted he has some serious misgivings about throwing out the 2- week session, particularly when there is no replacement. He, too, commended Mr. Arberry for trying to make the Legislature more efficient by eliminating something that is not either efficient or well appreciated, but, he said, this allows the money committees to proceed expeditiously with the budget review, and also allows the rest of the Legislature to take the process closer to the people in the southern part of the state. He explained that the Senate Committee on Judiciary, of which he is chairman, had seven bills heard in southern Nevada that have gone to the other house, and one has been sent to the Governor. He noted that when they met in Las Vegas there were days when we had a lot of people in the meeting rooms, particularly when they were dealing with the home owners association legislation. Senator James asked if there is any reason why a reasonable alternative for southern Nevada meetings of committees cannot become part of the legislation? Assemblyman Arberry explained that he hopes eliminating the 2-week session will be the first step, followed by the establishment of a committee by leadership which would be charged with bringing a solution back to both bodies within the next 2 to 3 weeks. He noted his concern that if they do not take action soon, the bill will stall, the session will adjourn, and next session the legislature will be right back where it is now. Senator James again expressed his concern regarding eliminating the 2-week session until he knows what the alternative for access is going to be for his constituents. He reminded the committee that the southern Nevada media, the television media, and to some extent the print media pays more attention to what the Legislature is doing when it meets in Las Vegas. This gives the people of Las Vegas and southern Nevada the ability to view their legislators in action, and provides access to them both physically and via press coverage. Senator Coffin indicated he also feels the current system is failing. He commented that there were twice as many legislators in Las Vegas as in Carson City, and momentum was lost as well as contact with colleagues because members of the money committees were not able to meet with their other committees. For these reasons, he hopes Mr. Arberry would entertain amendments to his bill as he agreed that an alternative should be included. He suggested the following alternative: Take all the committees to southern Nevada for the 2-week session. Have leadership decide on which days the committees of finance and ways and means would meet jointly, and on other days the other committees would meet in their ordinary rotation. Senator Coffin stressed the value of the money committees meeting in Las Vegas, because the he feels the people would have a different opinion about how this Legislature operates when they see how thoroughly the budget is studied. He concluded stating he would not support eliminating the 2-week session, but would support changing the procedure. Senator Rawson noted he stays in Carson City during the 2-week period, but he also serves on the Senate Committee on Human Resources which is a committee that carries a large responsibility regarding where the state's money is spent. He stated that 80 percent of the state budget is directed toward human resource items; education, welfare, public safety issues, fire Marshal, etc. He agreed that most of the state is really excluded from the discussions of the bills that affect them and he is sympathetic with the concern to bring people into it. He suggested that there are other ways that they can reach out to the state without having to take this recess. He said: I don't know if the recess is as productive for people that go to southern Nevada as it is for the people that work on the budget. And I don't know how to evaluate that, because we're not able to participate in both parts of it. But I'd like to be able to take human resources to southern Nevada for meetings. I like to be able to go down on a Friday and have hearings on a Friday and start them at noon and go into the evenings so that we have a good chance of being able to get a good representation of people. To do that effectively you have to have the ability to vote on issues and I can see that as something that would enhance it or make it better, but I think I can function well with that committee by seeking those opportunities to both teleconference and occasionally take the committee there when we're dealing with hot issues. Senator Rawson said he would support developing alternatives that would still include all of the people of the state. He emphasized it is valuable to get out, and get the perspective of the people on some of the issues that affect their lives. He concluded saying, "All of the Legislature could have that opportunity if we directed our efforts away from this 2-week recess." Senator McGinness asked Mr. Arberry when the alternatives would be ready for everybody to see. Mr. Arberry said he hopes that as soon as this legislation is passed a cohesive group of the leadership would come together within 2 weeks to decide on an alternative. He pointed out that it was introduced as a resolution so it would not have to go through the committee process. He indicated he does have some solutions that the staff has developed, and he discussed the options presented in Exhibit D. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated she has been asked by numerous people to ask the Legislature not to eliminate the 2-week break in Las Vegas as there are a great number of people who would never be able to come to Carson City that are able to participate in Las Vegas. She agreed that some hearings went a long time because there were a lot people who had something to say. She stated that participation also depends a great deal on what the issues are. Ms. Lusk emphasized that for those who cannot come to Carson City on a regular basis, they feel it is very important for them to have an opportunity to meet legislators, see how the legislators function, and to express their point of view. She remarked that interim committees have been given a general mandate and that the citizens who attend an interim committee sit there and after a while they lose interest because it is not focused, and they do not know where it is going. She reemphasized her concern with eliminating this alternative for the people of southern Nevada without replacing it with something else. She offered to work with the committee to bring a southern Nevada citizen perspective to alternatives that might be considered, to make the people feel it is in their interest that these decisions are made, and not solely in the interest of the efficiency of the Legislature. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 8, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 79 and introduced Assemblyman Dini. A.B. 79 Requires legislative auditor to conduct performance audit of University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR S-1209) Assemblyman Joseph Dini, Jr., Assembly District No. 38, said he introduced this bill for an audit of the university system due to the number of letters of concern he received during the interim from residents of southern Nevada. With a new administration in Las Vegas, he stated that this is an appropriate time to conduct this kind of an audit which would analyze their accounting procedures and check that they have good internal controls. He indicated they had quite a bit of testimony in the Assembly. He then introduced Gary Crews to explain the technical details. Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said based on testimony in the Assembly, it appears that the most interest is in the area of management controls over the university system, and what they are proposing is a high-level review of the management controls. He posed three questions that they would try to answer.  Do we have a comprehensive understanding of the budgetary and expenditure activities of the system?  Are management and the Legislature provided with all the information necessary to carry out their oversight responsibilities, and is the information valid and reliable?  Are there constraints that prohibit the university system from appropriately controlling their operations? Mr. Crews indicated that they anticipate the audit, which would be a high-level review of the system, would begin next summer and be completed prior to the 1997 session. He pointed out that this would not be a "nuts and bolts" type audit as they do not have the resources for that type; they are proposing a top level review basically looking at the management controls. He noted the auditors would have to look at what their current system is, and probably have to go back 3 or 4 years to locate any problems that contributed to the current system. He explained that if the system is not functioning as it should be, the auditors would have to determine how it got into that particular environment. He stated that all their audits are conducted in accordance with generally accepted audit standards and that they would conduct this audit in the same manner as they would any other audit they do of state government. He noted the bill provides for $70,000 to be transferred from the university system to carry out the audit. He reiterated that the auditors need to have some assurances that the overall system is functioning as it should. Senator Raggio stated that since he first heard about this he has been interested in learning about the scope of the proposed audit. He noted that this bill calls for a performance audit, which in common understanding is a pretty comprehensive budget functioning of the entire university system, and Mr. Crews has indicated that the emphasis would be a top level review with the emphasis on management control. Senator Raggio asked if either Mr. Dini or Mr. Crews could outline, with more particularity, what they are talking about, because he really does not think an audit, with this limited time frame and for this amount, is going to get into much depth. Mr Crews concurred that it would not get into a lot of depth, stating that it is not the purpose of this audit to do it in-depth. Senator Raggio asked at what they are going to look? Mr. Crews stated they are going to be looking at the system's reporting structure: for example: How do you control a system with multiple facilities? How does that whole system fit into the chancellor's office? How does it relate to the Board of Regents? How do the foundations relate to it? Do we have a comprehensive control of this entire organization, not is each entity functioning on its own? What are the checks and balances within the system? He concluded saying that he cannot give the committee the answers to those questions, as those are the types of things that they would be trying to address. Senator Coffin indicated he does not think $70,000 would pay for a total performance audit, and asked Mr. Dini if that amount could really finance the audit? Mr. Dini replied that the university system is so big it would take all 22 auditors 2 years to do the job. He emphasized that he is not on a witch hunt, he just wants to be sure that controls are in place, and he does not want any secret funds out there. He stressed that the regents and the management people ought to know what is going on in the system, and that the people of the state deserve an answer. Senator Coffin agreed that there are a lot of problems in the finances which may be only at the one institution, but indicated his concern regarding the elected Board of Regents because they were not in the first draft of the bill. He stated they probably could be trespassing into turf that was legitimately given them by the voters. Mr. Dini noted that the request came from the testimony received from citizens in Clark County, who were connected to them by phone, and they suggested the bill be expanded to the regents and the committee concurred. He again emphasized that this is not a witch hunt, that they are not trying to infringe on the regents, and noted that they are doing an excellent job of turning the system around. He concluded saying that he came forward with the bill because he thought it a worthwhile study, and he thought the system would welcome the Legislature reviewing them just like is done with any other state agency. Richard Jarvis, Chancellor, University and Community College System of Nevada said, "I would just like to put on record the support of the system for the intent of the bill." He noted his concerns about scope and funding stating that they were stretched with quite an extensive internal and external auditing system. He said they had requested additional positions and are hoping to receive one in the Governor's recommendations. He pointed out they would appreciate every effort to keep this audit under the control of the extent of funding proposed for it, and they would certainly appreciate any consideration in helping to deal with the funds required for it. Mr. Jarvis concluded saying, "But I do want to be on record supporting the need for greater accountability on the part of the system, and greater reference that we're currently putting in place to get that kind of information and assurance out to you." Jim Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, stated that if legislators feel that this bill is needed to restore confidence in the University and Community College System, and its administration, and if legislators feel this bill is needed to instill more confidence in the general public in how our system is managed, then he would urge its passage. He urged the committee to consider an allocation out of the state General Fund if they think this audit is necessary to restore the public confidence. He noted his confidence has been greatly restored in the leadership of the system and he does not think that the audit is needed, because they are back on the right track. He concluded that if the committee members need the audit to have confidence in the leadership of the system, and they think the general public needs this kind of audit, the he would recommend passage of the bill with the amendment that $70,000 come out of the state General Fund. Senator Coffin indicated that was the point he did not want to dwell on when he previously asked the question of the speaker. But he stressed it seems to him that in view of the fact that the system is talking about raising tuition on the students, it would appear that this is where the money is going to come from, and he stated he would not support transferring the money from the system. He believes strongly that the Legislature should pay for it. Mr. Richardson said he would not want to go on record saying exactly where the money would come from, but he would make the point that money is short, and if an audit is needed it should be a General Fund expenditure.. Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on A.B. 79 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 4. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT: RESOLUTION 4: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint committee to continue review of Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. (BDR R-321) Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that Speaker Hettrick had a couple of meetings he could not miss and the speaker asked him to do the introductions. He stated that the resolution would direct the Legislative Commission to reappoint a committee to oversee the activities of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the other agencies that function in the Tahoe basin. During the last interim, he stated that the TRPA committee consisted of six legislators, three senators and three assemblymen, whose role was a combination of the typical interim study committee which looks at issues and recommendations as well as an oversight type function which is responsible for reviewing the agency, its activities, its programs, and the way they are being carried out. He noted that since 1985 this oversight committee has been established every interim except one, has reported back to the Legislature, the current committee has had four hearings. Mr. Welden said that Assemblyman Hettrick asked him to relate to the committee his feeling that one of the values of the oversight committee lies in the fact that currently before Congress there are proposed amendments to the bistate compact which would allow one appointment from the Senate and one appointment from the Assembly on the TRPA itself, and until those appointments can be made and ratified in Congress, he feels that having the legislative oversight is valuable from that perspective. Mr Welden indicated that Senator O'Donnell has been on the oversight committee several times and he would defer to him. Senator Bill O'Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, indicated his support of A.C.R. 4. He noted that he has sat on the committee for three times during an interim and has found it to be very valuable. He said it is a conduit for information, ideas, and even controversy whereby individuals can come to the board and explain their differences of opinion, provide information, and present their grievances in a sort of public forum since there is no public forum to the TRPA's actions in the Tahoe basin. He indicated that they have done a good job over the past three interims and that by continuing this particular oversight committee, they would be doing good for the State of Nevada, the state of California, and every individual who resides and benefits from the Tahoe area. Senator Titus noted that when this came up last session there was considerable debate as to whether this large of a committee was needed to provide oversight. She identified two options: 1) The commission could provide oversight and the TRPA would report to the commission; 2) Retain this body but to cut down the number of legislators to three or four as opposed to six. Senator O'Donnell stated that there were several occasions when there was a concern that they could not get enough members to appear, and in order to take any kind of voting action you need to have the members present. He maintained having six members is a good number because it is balanced between assembly and senate, it is enough members that you can get a quorum, and there are enough members to ferret out any issue that may come before the board. Fred Welden indicated there were copies of the report of the committee available (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Pam Drum, Information Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, said: I'm here on behalf of our Executive Director, Jim Baetge, who sends his regrets he was not able to be here this afternoon. We would like to express our real appreciation to the Legislature, the Legislative Commission, and, in particular, to the members of the interim committee who really invested a lot of time and effort in sorting out and resolving a lot of issues that are important to us, as well as important to the Legislature at Lake Tahoe. We really feel that we were able to establish a very productive relationship with the full legislative body through the interim committee and we certainly would support a resolution to continue that relationship. She noted that they do have public hearing opportunities for members of the public and citizens of the Lake Tahoe region to address the Advisory Planning Commission and the Governing Board each month. She said that currently there is not direct representation of the Nevada Legislature on the TRPA Board; however, the legislation which is before Congress would provide representation of the Nevada Legislature on the governing board similar to the representation that the California legislature now has. She urged the continuation of the interim committee until that federal resolution is adopted. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 4, opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 169 and introduced Senator Coffin who had been asked to work on amendments to S.B. 169. SENATE BILL 169: Prohibits certain political contributions by lobbyist during legislative session and prohibits subcontracting by legislators. (BDR 17-31) Senator Coffin spoke to information contained in Exhibit F. He noted he would leave the proper placement in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to the bill drafters. Senator Raggio questioned if 30 days is sufficient time for candidates to determine campaign debts, noting that they do not always get bills that quickly. Following discussion, Senator Coffin indicated that adding a week or 10 days would not do any harm to the intent of the bill because the dead period is eliminated by setting the date from election day instead of the first day of the session. Senator Raggio concurred that 40 days is more realistic. He then asked what is the justification for including "other state officers" who are not part of the legislative process? Senator Coffin said that it is probably not necessary to the intent of the bill, and indicated another phrase "legislator-elect" which he did not think necessary because it essentially duplicates what we already know to be fact. He indicated he does not mind if that portion is removed from the bill. Senator Raggio asked if he would be amenable then to striking legislator-elect because that does not apply (Senator Coffin agreed) or any other elected state officer (Senator Coffin agreed) and using the 40-day period (Senator Coffin agreed). Chairman McGinness summarized the additions to the amendment, omitting the "legislator-elect" and "any other elected state officer" and changing the 30 to 40. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 169 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked if there was also new language on the bottom of the proposed amendment. Senator McGinness said that was current language. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There being no further business, Chairman McGinness adjourned the meeting at 2:53 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations March 21, 1995 Page