MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session April 4, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 4, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Janice L. Thomas, Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mouryne B. Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Legislative Counsel Bureau Rachel Parsons, Intern, University of Nevada, Reno Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association In accordance with Joint Rule 7, Senator McGinness, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, said he had reviewed the following Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) and bill draft requests (BDRs): SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17: Commends Holocaust survivor, Leopold Page. (BDR R- 1886) BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1774: Memorializes native Nevadan philanthropist, Clarence K. Jones. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1753: Memorializes former Senator B. Mahlon Brown. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1916: Designates last week in April as "Collector Car Week". Senator McGinness requested committee introductions for the following BDRs: BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1723: Memorializes Las Vegas community leader and philanthropist James Cashman III. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1748: Memorializes former Senator John Fransway. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1723 AND BDR R-1748. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO AND SENATOR JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The chairman indicated he had received requests for BDRs for Brian Blakemore, the young man who is going to skydive over and land on the north pole; and a request from Senator Regan for a resolution commending the work and community activities of the Loral Range Management, a Department of Defense contractor that works in southern Nevada and at the Fallon Naval Air Station. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO REQUEST THE DRAFTING OF A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR BRIAN BLAKEMORE AND FOR THE LORAL RANGE MANAGEMENT. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO AND SENATOR JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 246 noting that it makes changes on prefiling of bills. SENATE BILL 246: Makes various changes relating to prefiling of legislative bills and resolutions. (BDR 17-224) Chairman McGinness then introduced his intern, Rachel Parsons, who would present a summary on prefiling and what it meant this year. Rachel Parsons, Intern, University of Nevada, Reno, distributed Exhibit C and spoke from Exhibit D. Senator McGinness then asked Jan Thomas and Mouryne Landing to give the committee their overview of what happened this session, and their comments on S.B. 246. Jan Thomas, Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said she thinks their main purpose was to make sure the legislation was introduced and provided to the public and the legislators before session in order to give the legislators time to review the bills and prepare for hearings. She noted that this purpose was accomplished. She said staff was brought on about 2 weeks earlier than usual, but because of the differences in the houses, and waiting for the Assembly, bills were not prefiled as soon as originally anticipated. However, she said the staff had other duties so it was not a waste to have them begin early. Ms. Thomas indicated that she and Ms. Landing have discussed Senate Bill 246 and that Ms. Landing has some suggestions and recommendations as to how to revise the bill. Senator Coffin asked Ms. Thomas if she had any data regarding the number of the prefiled bills that have been heard? Ms. Thomas replied that in the Senate four bills have been signed by the Governor, 10 were indefinitely postponed, 14 are now in the Assembly, committee action was taken on 13, and there are 69 in committee. Senator Coffin asked for clarification on the committee action taken on the 13 bills. Ms. Thomas replied that the bills may be still pending, but action of some kind has been taken. Senator Coffin confirmed that a hearing could have been held, and the bill possibly passed, but it has not gotten to the floor. Ms. Thomas concurred and reaffirmed that there are a total of 69 bills still in committees. Senator Coffin confirmed that the Assembly was slower because they did not have leadership chosen. Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated to Senator Coffin that she feels that lack of leadership played a big part in the Assembly. She said it is her understanding that the main purpose for prefiling was to get the bills printed, get them distributed, and get them to the chairman so that committees meetings could be scheduled during the first week of session. She noted they did not have committee chairs until practically the time the session convened, and indicated for that reason, this is a difficult year to test. She stated she would hate to say that it could not be effective, but she does not see that it benefited the Assembly this session. Ms. Landing indicated she noticed several things that the committee might want to amend such as resolutions that should be joint resolutions, and the functions of the clerk and secretary which were not included. She offered to work with Mr. Erickson, if the committee so desired in order to develop ideas. Senator McGinness confirmed that the duties of the secretary and the clerk relating to prefiling should be included. Ms. Landing concurred and indicated that she has written suggestions if the committee would like to have them. Copies were distributed (Exhibit E), and Ms. Landing spoke from them. Senator Titus asked if most of the bills that were prefiled were agency bills and not bills of individual legislators? Ms. Thomas said not many bills were prefiled by legislators, but they did have some. Ms. Landing indicated that this is one of the things that she feels should be changed. She stated that the way the bill is currently written it mentions members who have been elected and who have received their certificates of election. She noted legislators do not receive their certificates of elections until the first day of session. Senator McGinness asked if adding the language "been certified as winner" would take care of that. Ms. Landing agreed. Senator Coffin said he thought that if a legislator prefiles a bill before the session, the legislator would not have his name on it, but that it would be a committee name. Senator McGinness said that if a member prefiles a bill, the legislator's name could be on it, but the bill probably could not have cosponsors, as it is very difficult to confirm the approval of cosponsors before the session. Senator Coffin asked if there is some way to add cosponsors as he feels it would help get more bills introduced. Ms. Thomas said it is possible for individual sponsors to be on the bills or joint resolutions, but staff would have to contact each cosponsor. Senator McGinness said he thinks that is something that perhaps the committee needs to address, and suggested that Mr. Erickson might have some ideas about a procedure; however, he said he was not sure that staff should have to call everyone to double check. Senator Raggio asked Ms. Thomas or Ms. Landing for their opinion generally on the prefiling: Was it of any assistance to them? Did it make their job easier? What is their reaction to doing it on this scale? Ms. Landing replied that this was a very difficult year to judge. Because, she noted, with two chairs and not knowing who was going to be chairman, they were not able to get their bills out. She stated that it did increase the workload, and that if every year is like this year, there would be no benefit. However, she stated that with a year like this, she would hate to see it discounted after a first try, and she thinks that it can be improved. Ms. Landing noted there could be benefits if the chairmen are expecting the prefiled bills, they realize that the bills can be scheduled a week or two in advance of the session, they could get their agendas out, and they could have meetings possibly the third day into session. Ms. Thomas agreed that it did increase the workload as they had to start a history earlier to make sure that everyone knew what the prefiled bills were. She also questioned the benefit for this session noting that currently there are 23 less bills introduced this session than in the 1993 session. Senator James asked who requested the language on lines 8 through 9? Senator McGinness said there were some technical changes that needed to be made concerning prefiling, and the committee took the prefiling request to the Legislative Commission, who then identified some areas from the 1979 legislation that didn't apply to today, and they requested the language change. Senator James said one thing about prefiling that disturbs him is that when he arrived for the session, he found a whole bunch of bills that said "Introduced by the Committee on Judiciary" and they were neither authorized by him nor the committee. He stated that during session, a person must appear before the committee and get the authorization from the committee before the bill is introduced. He indicated he is concerned about this incongruity and he would appreciate it if the committee could consider that because he thinks this language might even broaden and further divorce the legislative function from their auspices. Senator McGinness asked Ms. Thomas and Ms. Landing if a prefiled bill could be introduced and identified with the agency or the branch of state government that it came from? Ms. Landing said she feels it probably could be done, but that it should be through legal counsel rather than through the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. Senator McGinness indicated they would consider the matter. Ms. Thomas said, in regard to Senator James' comment, that once legal counsel determines the appropriate committee for prefiled bills, the bills could be sent to the committee chairman for his approval. Senator McGinness, noting that comments and ideas like this are very good, stated he thinks the committee should get something out to all legislators asking for their comments on prefiling before the committee processes the bill. He added that he thinks one of the prefiling rules was that the sponsor's name had to be on the bill. Ms. Landing indicated that the area of actual referral of the bill needs to be smoothed out, noting that she and Ms. Thomas, working in conjunction with the legal department, ended up doing it by statute. McGinness said the committee will also take that into consideration. Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association, indicated they have found that prefiled bills actually to be very popular, both with the public and with the press, because they had time to sit down and read the bills rather than have a thousand thrown at them at one time. She noted that the press association would support the names being on the bills, stating that they are now seeing bills that are introduced by a committee and in parenthesis requested by the organization that originally requested the legislation. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on Senate Bill 246, and indicated that they have some bills to consider on work session. He stated that Assembly Bill (A.B.) 79 is Assemblyman Dini's bill and that he would be happy to come to the meeting if anyone has any questions for him. ASSEMBLY BILL 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) Senator Coffin said that after the last meeting of the committee, he asked Speaker Dini if he would object to a proposal which would not the take the money from the university system, but rather from general appropriated funds. He stated that Speaker Dini has no objection. But, Senator Coffin indicated, that the part of the bills he is troubled about was that the Board of Regents is named as a subject of the audit. Mr. Erickson noted that the regents were not included in the first version of the bill, but that the Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures was of the opinion that the affairs of the system and the regents were so closely tied that the audit should address the entire system, including the regents. SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 79. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Coffin said he would like to amend the bill to have the $70,000 come from the General Fund appropriations instead of from the university system. He indicated that approval of the amendment would probably require the bill go to the finance committee because it now has direct fiscal impact, but he feels that this bill forced the system to raise their fees, and he feels that, if the state wants to audit the system, the state should pay for it. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND ASSEMBLY BILL 79 BY CHANGING SECTION 2, LINES 13 AND 14 TO HAVE THE MONEY COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio indicated he would oppose the amendment, because, first, he is having a great difficulty seeing the necessity for the audit, and second, it is usual that an agency is charged with the cost of the audit. THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED. (SENATORS JAMES, RAWSON, RAGGIO, MCGINNESS VOTED NO.) ***** THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR COFFIN VOTED NO, SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Senator Raggio explained his abstention stating that he still does not see the need for the audit. Senator McGinness opened discussion on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 4 informing the committee that Mr. Hettrick would answer any questions the committee had. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint committee to continue review of Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. (BDR R-321) SENATOR RAGGIO MOVE TO ADOPT A.C.R. 4. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Coffin asked if this simply continued the oversight function that the committee had been doing? Senator McGinness confirmed this does continue the oversight. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the discussion on Assembly Concurrent Resolution 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) SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 8. SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Coffin stated this would remove the 2-week adjournment, thus disallowing a session in southern Nevada. He stated he does not think Mr. Arberry envisioned that this bill could kill the 2-week session adjournment to Las Vegas, and he would hope that the committee would not leave this standing for the next session to decide. Senator Raggio said he thinks Senator Coffin is seeing something that is not in the bill; that what is being taken out is the adjournment that is mandated, and that there is nothing in the bill which mandated holding hearings in Las Vegas. He stated what Mr. Arberry wants to remove the mandatory adjournment. Senator Raggio indicated he thinks everybody understands and endorses the idea that all standing committees may still hold hearings any place they want to in the state; it is up to the chairmen of the committees. He thinks what Mr. Arberry and others are trying to suggest, is that rather than have a formal adjournment, there can be adjustments made which will allow the money committees to meet in longer sessions without having to formally adjourn the Legislature; and, if the other house does not hold a floor session every day, the money committees would be free, two or three times a week, to hold extended meetings, and that can be done without a formal adjournment. Senator Raggio said legislators are finding the formal adjournment is probably extending, rather than limiting, the length of the Legislature, and if they pass this measure, the committees can still hold sessions wherever they wish; Las Vegas, Elko, Ely, Fallon, and chairmen should be encouraged to do so. He reaffirmed that all they are doing is taking away the mandated adjournment that was adopted several sessions ago. Senator McGinness indicated he sees some positive results from this, such as the creative floor sessions in the Senate. He noted that by not having Friday sessions, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources was able to go to Las Vegas and tour some southern Nevada water facilities, and by continuing to have one or two floor sessions a week, the bills continue to come into the system, so the committees can have new bills. Senator James stated, as a representative of a large district in southern Nevada, and also as someone who expressed some concern about this repeal of the 2-week adjournment in the prior hearing, he has investigated the situation and is comfortable that the flexibility is in the system now to continue involvement of southern Nevada and other parts of the state in the legislative process in a meaningful way, providing the committees are encouraged to take issues to southern Nevada that specifically would affect them. He said his concern is to be able to bring the process home to people as much as possible, and that it would be his intention to do so as long as he is a member of this body. Senator Titus indicated she understands that the flexibility is in place, but there are no guarantees that there will be sessions only three days a week, and there are no guarantees that committees will meet in the south. She stated that they have a pledge from the members of this committee, but they do not know what the circumstances might be in the next session. She emphasized that accountability and access are the two biggest concerns that the public has right now, and the Legislature should not do away with this adjournment so that committees can meet in the south. She asked how many members of the public were involved in the tour of the water facilities, and said that there is a big difference between touring water facilities sponsored by the county or the southern Nevada water authority, and having a public hearing on water bills. Senator James said he thinks what they are trying to do is to reach out to other parts of the state that are not as accessible to Carson City and try to involve them in issues. He stated that, in a lot of ways, the adjournment has not been effective, and he does not think there is any reason to hamstring themselves into a certain way of doing things. He stated that some committees have no issues that are of interest but they could have some 3 weeks later, and flexibility is reduced if an adjournment was required at a certain period of time. He noted the original reason for the adjournment is so that the money committees could accomplish their purpose and streamline the session. Senator James concluded saying he thinks that if this measure passes, and the Legislature makes a pledge to involve other parts of the state, this leaves the flexibility, and he intends to make use of it. Senator Titus stated she does not think it is a good idea, that even though they do have some flexibility, they do not have any guarantees. Senator Coffin noted that in his seven sessions he has learned that leadership controls where the committees go and when they go, and a chairman of a committee cannot, on his or her own, just simply schedule a meeting outside of this capital city. He said it is very difficult because the leadership wants the floor to move, and it has good reasons for that. However, he noted that chairmen do not have that much power; although morning committee chairmen have more power than afternoon committee chairmen in affecting the order of things, and minority members have no power. He said that during any 2-week period in Carson City hearings do not get 3,000 people as they did in Las Vegas, unless the bill under discussion is of enormous importance. He agrees that something is wrong and needs to be fixed and he would like to introduce an amendment when the discussion is concluded. Senator James reminded the committee that Mr. Arberry did present them with options, and he argued very strongly before the committee that the committee not adopt those options, that the committee pass this bill as it is, which is what the suggested motion would do. McGinness confirmed that Mr. Arberry did say that, and very reluctantly finally brought his options out, because he did not want the options to cloud this issue. Senator Raggio said the purpose of the formal adjournment was single-fold, to allow the money committees to work on an expedited schedule which hopefully would also shorten the length of the legislative session. Then as an afterthought, he noted, someone came up with the idea that the other committees should have something to do, so it was decided to hold some hearings in Las Vegas, but, he emphasized, that is not what the bill is amending here. He stated the bill is amending out a mandatory adjournment, and there is nothing in this bill that says this Legislature has to hold hearings in Las Vegas. He emphasized that he is the first to say the chair of any committee in this house, or the other house, ought to take advantage of the opportunity to meet wherever it serves a useful purpose, whether in Las Vegas, Elko, Fallon or Lake Tahoe. But, he continued, it is a step in the wrong direction, to amend this bill with inflexible rules that require meetings to be held in certain places at certain times. He summarized that what this bill does is recognize that the adjournment process did not serve the purpose for which it was intended, that there are better ways to do it, and he thanked Mr. Arberry and others who have supported the bill. He concluded noting they are concerned about getting the Legislature's business over in an orderly and an expeditious way, and this bill is a good step towards doing that. Senator Titus said that many times legislators do things that have unintended consequences, and though the original purpose of this bill was to give the money committees more time, a secondary consequence was that the Legislature was able to take government to the people of southern Nevada, which she thinks is a worthwhile consequence whether it was the original, primary intention of the bill or not. She stated that she cannot go back to her district in southern Nevada, and say to them she voted to not go to Las Vegas and hold meetings; that she voted to not use the expensive state office building with all the accommodations for the Legislature in order to remain in Carson City and get through a little faster. Senator James said this bill says nothing about not going to southern Nevada; It says the Legislature wants to retain the flexibility to accomplish its goals as effectively and expeditiously as possible while maintaining the flexibility to take committees to southern Nevada or anywhere else the chairman feels is important. Senator Coffin asked if it was time for him to propose an amendment? He stated he was revising option 3 from Mr. Arberry's notes which included the following points.  Current practice for weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4 which would increase the time for bills to be referred to committees.  For weeks 5 and 6 committees would meet on the following basis. On Mondays and Tuesdays all committees would meet at their regularly scheduled times in Las Vegas, at the Sawyer Building and Cashman Center. This would allow progress of all committees to be sustained because each afternoon committee would have an opportunity to meet at least once, not counting the possibilities of evening meetings. On Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, the morning committees would meet in Carson City, jointly, and if they chose all day long. Morning floor sessions would be held in Carson City on Wednesdays and Fridays so that introduction of bills could then continue, Senator Coffin noted that this option addresses all the problems presented, and that exist in the present legislation. He stated that it eliminates the problem of floor sessions not having the ability to introduce bills as the Legislature is brought back into session, that every committee gets to meet, and the Legislature can show the process to about 85 percent of the population of the state instead of 10 percent. He concluded indicating that he thinks it makes a good public policy since it improves the image of the Legislature by allowing more people to meet the legislators, they see the process is not a mystery, particularly in the case of the money committees who would have the opportunity to show the citizens how hard they work. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND A.C.R. 8 AS FOLLOWS: WEEKS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 - CURRENT PRACTICE WEEKS 5 AND 6 ALL COMMITTEES MEET AT THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TIMES IN LAS VEGAS (SAWYER BUILDING AND CASHMAN CENTER) ON MONDAYS AND TUESDAYS. MORNING COMMITTEES MEET ALL DAY IN CARSON CITY ON WEDNESDAYS, THURSDAYS, AND FRIDAYS. MORNING FLOOR SESSIONS IN CARSON CITY ON WEDNESDAYS AND FRIDAYS, ONLY. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Raggio asked if the entire Legislature would meet and actually hold floor sessions in Las Vegas? Senator Coffin replied no, that everybody would return to Carson City. Senator Raggio indicated, that in addition to what he had said before, this amendment would not only extend the time of the session, but would extend the cost of the session, and he would be opposed to the amendment. Senator Rawson asked if all committees would meet on certain days in Las Vegas? Senator Coffin indicated committees would meet on Mondays and Tuesdays. Senator Rawson asked where the money committees would meet? Senator Coffin responded that all committees would meet in southern Nevada or a place to be named on Monday and Tuesday; then all committees would return to Carson City for the remainder of the week, and there could be two floor sessions. He indicated that afternoon committees could also meet in the evening, or the chairmen of the money committees could suspend session and only meet for half a day. Senator Rawson indicated that his concern is if the money committees meet in southern Nevada or in other places, the cost of travel is greatly increased for all of the state people that have to support the agencies that are being heard at the time; and he would advocate something simpler, that Fridays are left available for meetings wherever the chairman chose, extending this through at least the first half of the session. He said that chairmen could arrange to have various meetings wherever they wanted to have them in the state, but that he was hesitant to put something so concrete down in such a way that it keeps the legislators from really picking the most efficient or the more flexible way to do it. Senator Coffin noted he had heard, for 5 or 6 years, the argument that the money committees cannot move at any time to southern Nevada because too many witnesses would have to travel. He said he had analyzed the Las Vegas sign-in sheets of the people who came to the meeting that were logical witnesses, and that 40 to 50 percent of the people who were required to testify came from southern Nevada or some other part of the state. He said agency heads have travel budgets and can go anywhere at any time, and witnesses who have great interest and are serious stakeholders in the outcome of any action, come from all over the state, but usually from southern Nevada. Senator Coffin asked if Senator Rawson has in mind an amendment to the amendment to be considered, and if so he would certainly listen to some reasonable change. Senator Rawson said it would seem to him that with a simple letter of intent the Legislature could express the desire that Fridays be available for committees to meet in various locations. He expressed his concern that writing something in stone eliminates the flexibility to be creative during a session; whereas if we prepare a legislative intent stating that it is the intent of the Legislature to try to take this process to as many people in the state as possible, this accomplishes the Senator Coffin's purpose, but it does not hamstring us with having to change the law or change a statute. THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS JAMES, RAWSON, RAGGIO AND MCGINNESS VOTED NO.) ***** Senator Mathews asked about Senator Rawson's amendment. Senator McGinness indicated that Senator Rawson did not propose an amendment, but indicated some sort of a letter of intent, and that the committee was now back to the original motion which was to do pass A.C.R. 8. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND COFFIN VOTED NO. SENATOR MATHEWS ABSTAINED.) ***** Senator McGinness indicated that since prefiling has been sort of his stepchild, if there was no objection by the committee, he would like to work with Mrs. Landing, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Erickson to try to get some ideas on change to bring back to the committee. There was no objection. Senator Rawson said he requested Mr. Erickson to research the various methods regarding shared sponsorship with the other house, and distributed Exhibit F which shows two ways that have been used in the past, and that could implemented with reasonable ease. He noted that the first method, used around the turn of the century, was where the Legislature had a jointly sponsored bill, composed of similar bills sponsored by different people, and a committee combined them into a single, substitute bill which contained all their names. He said he is recommending that the committee look at option two where a legislator wants to have both senators and assemblymen as sponsors; a joint bill would be prepared with the names of the cosponsors listed in the order of the house of the original sponsor. Senator Rawson said this is something they may not use all the time, but it would give legislators the option to be able to issue bills through both houses without losing all of the supporters. SENATOR JAMES MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST ON JOINTLY SPONSORED AND SUBSTITUTE BILLS. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There being no further business, Chairman McGinness adjourned the meeting at 2:48 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations April 4, 1995 Page