MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS

	Sixty-eighth Session
	May 2, 1995


The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by 
Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, in Room 119 
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:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5


STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary

 
OTHERS PRESENT:

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Charles Horn, Retired State Senator, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Philip Meranda, Private Citizen
Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Dorothy Orr, Private Citizen

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities
Juanita Clark, Member, Independent Party of Clark County & Tenth Amendment
Group
Leonard Stoute, Private Citizen
Richard Klinfelter, Private Citizen
Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America
Elizabeth Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby

   
The chairman announced that Senator Rawson is participating from Las Vegas and 
he welcomed Senator Washington.  Senator McGinness reminded the members that 
the committee had asked for the bill draft request (BDR) condemning the bombing 
of the United States Forest Service office and asked for a committee introduction 
motion for BDR R-1981.

BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1981:		Condemning the bombing of the United States 
Forest Service office in Carson City.

SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1981.

SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

	*****

The chairman indicated that he had reviewed the following BDRs:

BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-173:		Memorializes Gary A. Owen

BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1838:		Memorializes former Assemblyman Frank E. 
"Pete" Walters.

BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1298:		Congratulating the Las Vegas Dustdevils on 
becoming the indoor soccer league champions.


Senator Raggio requested an appropriate resolution to honor former Assemblyman 
and District Judge, Bill Beko.


Senator McGinness indicated that he believes that resolution is already being 
prepared.  Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 342 and 
introduced Senator O'Connell.

SENATE BILL 342:	Creates legislative committee on federal and state mandates and 
establishes policy of taxation for State of Nevada.  (BDR 17-
1163)

Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, distributed Exhibit 
C and indicated that S.B. 342 had been requested and was in the works long 
before Congress took its action.  She stated that during the 10 years that she has 
served in the Senate, no one has ever been able to give her a bottom line total on 
what, we, as a state, pay in both unfunded and partially funded mandates.  Senator 
O'Connell provided examples of mandates which result in waste and insanity that 
are perpetuated at the expense of the taxpayers; millions of dollars spent to 
measure the dust in the air in our Nevada desert; the $30 million fund required in 
Clark County to protect endangered and threatened species when the federal 
government has not yet defined what endangered or threatened really is.  She 
discussed the example, written by Carole Valardo in Taxtopics under the title A 
Matter of Waste (Exhibit D), of the 1991 federal law which required all sewage 
treatment plants to remove 30 percent of the organic waste from incoming 
sewage.  She said mandates which equal a one-size-fits-all approach to 
government, not only does it not work, but it probably creates more problems than 
it attempts to solve; and she continued, that is why it is so important that we have 
provisions in our law which force the review and effect of demands caused by 
mandates.  Senator O'Connell stated section 5 of the bill, which establishes the 
criteria of how a mandate would be viewed and reported to the Legislature, is 
intended to do several things: to provide the Legislature with a comprehensive 
study which would identify contradictory or inconsistent requirements; to identify 
duplication or obsolete requirements; to obtain information creating a data base of 
mandates at all levels of government; to afford the opportunity for the Legislature 
to develop a level of expertise as it relates to mandates; and to give lawmakers a 
broader picture as to the effect of mandates at all levels of government.  She said 
section 8 in the bill is there to provide the state with a tax policy, because 
mandates are probably going to result in a tax increase, and Legislators need to 
spend more time studying the possible impacts of actions on fiscal matters, as well 
as having specific guidelines to measure the reason for passing an additional tax. 
 She concluded, noting that S.B. 342 is a method by which the state could be 
proactive rather than reactive to a very important issue facing the Legislature.


Senator Coffin asked if Senator O'Connell could tell the committee about the bill? 
 
Senator O'Connell replied that the bill sets up a seven-member standing legislative 
committee whose primary purpose would be to address mandates.  She described 
briefly the types of procedures for the committee, and indicated that section 5 and 
section 8 are the two substantive sections of the bill. 

Referring to section 3, Senator Coffin asked whether it would make a difference 
to Senator O'Connell if the Legislative Commission could appoint these people as 
opposed to various individual leaders?

Senator O'Connell replied it would not.

Senator Coffin indicated that is the structure that the Legislature used for most 
committees, noting that there might be a committee or two that are appointed in 
that other fashion.

Senator Raggio noted that a number of committees are appointed by the majority 
leader and the speaker, and some are presently appointed by the Legislative 
Commission. 

Senator O'Connell informed the committee that Mr. Michael A. Pitlock, Public 
Service Commission of Nevada, left a bill with her and indicated that he supports 
the bill, but suggests, that in the following lines of section 8, the word `should' 
should replace the word `must':

on line 28-29 `government must provide' change to `should provide'
on line 36 replace `must' with `should'
on line 39 right after `each tax must' use the word `should'
on line 41 replace `must' with `should'
on line 43, on line 45, and on line 47, replace `must' with `should'
on page 6, line 1 replace `must' with `should'

Senator McGinness asked if Senator O'Connell would agree with those changes? 
She indicated she would have no problem with that.


Senator Raggio identified a couple of issues which the committee needs to have a 
definitive answer for under section 8 which, according to the language, would 
create a tax policy, or a policy for taxation, or establishes the word, and he would 
like to know the effect of establishing that policy on existing taxes.  He stated he 
knows that section 8 is a directive to a standing committee which is hearing a 
proposed new tax, or changing provisions governing an existing tax; for example, 
the restriction in subsection 11 about dedicated taxes.  He noted that Nevada 
presently has some existing dedicated taxes, such as the liquor tax which has a 
dedication feature, and he would like to know if that would violate the established 
tax policy. 

Senator O'Connell agreed with Senator Raggio stating that another one would be 
taxes on a marriage license that goes to abused women and children, and she 
thinks that  is not retroactive, but is something that would be reviewed.

Senator Raggio indicated he thinks the committee should have clarification as he 
is not certain if this law, which talks about a tax, would apply to the marriage 
license fee, or the filing fee for litigation.  However, he stated, he does know that 
the one on the liquor tax is a dedicated tax, and he would like to request that the 
committee get a firm opinion on how this bill affects existing taxes.  Continuing, 
Senator Raggio questioned subsection 3 of section 8 which would establish, as a 
policy of taxation, that the tax must be a stable and predictable tax and noted there 
are differences of opinion or interpretation as to what constitutes a stable tax.  He 
said when one asks for someone's perception or definition of a stable tax, one 
ordinarily gets three answers;  income tax, sales tax, and ad valorem property tax. 
 Beyond those three, he said, one usually does not get any response as to whether 
or not any other kind of tax is stable, but he would not want the Legislature to 
establish a policy of taxation, which by that subsection, would preclude any 
existing tax or an extension of an existing tax.  He again requested clarification.

Senator O'Connell noted she thinks the business tax and the sales tax could 
probably be put on an equal basis as far as the stability of the tax coming in, but 
indicated she does understand what Senator Raggio is saying, and she appreciates 
his comments.

Regarding section 5, subsection 5, Senator James asked if the developing 
recommendations for administrating the provisions of a mandate are transmitted 
to an agency after it is determined that there is a mandate?

Senator O'Connell replied, no to the Legislature.

Senator Titus indicated that there is one thing that troubles her, because she sees 
a trend of a full-time Legislature emerging.  She noted it is disingenuous to say the 
Legislature can get all its work done in 120 days, but then have all of these 
permanent committees meet during the interim.  She asked Senator O'Connell if 
she sees a trend?

Senator O'Connell replied saying that her personal opinion is the only basis from 
which she can answer the question.  She said the interim committees have been 
set up in the past because they are dealing with issues that are so vast that it is 
 very hard to really grapple with them on a complete basis during the limited time 
of the session.  Because of the growth of the state and the complexity of the 
issues that we are now being faced with, she said that to have a person come in 
who has not had prior experience on the committee, and has not dealt with the 
issue, it is almost impossible for that person to be able to grasp all the things that 
he needs to know. Senator O'Connell noted that as a state the Legislature is not 
left with many choices; Legislators do not want to be in session because it costs 
the taxpayers so much money, and the interim committees seem to be the answer 
to developing the needed expertise.  She concluded stating she does not know how 
you strike that balance as a citizens' Legislature without having interim studies. 

Senator Titus confirmed that she supports the interim study committees, but 
reminded them of the report about the deficiency of the Nevada Legislature, which 
had ranked 36th out of the 50 states for the cost of the Legislature.  She compared 
that to the cost of the interim study committees which also adds to the cost of 
government.

Senator O'Connell said she understands the fiscal note is around $25,000.

Senator McGinness said the Fiscal Year (FY) 1995-1996 is $13,500, FY 1996-
1997 is $5,580, so FY 1995-1997 about $19,000.

Senator O'Connell said:


The problem is that the mandates and the taxation ... are two 
subjects that don't stop.  The mandates are going on continually from 
Washington ... affecting both the state and the local governments. 
 In fact, we've just had a situation where a local government, ... who 
[is] in a very precarious financial situation already, has just lost a suit 
to the federal government on the landfill issue.  So it's unfortunately, 
it's not something that's limited to when we are in session.  And that 
was really the thinking about the oversight, and so many times we 
come into session and we'll have an agency coming in and saying ... 
this is a federal law and we've received the mandate, and we need to 
have it codified in law; and none of us have ever been aware of the 
situation prior to them coming in and telling us we now have to do it. 
 We don't know the impact, we don't know why we've been 
mandated to do this, and if those mandates could first hit a legislative 
body, and then be presented to the Legislature as to why, then maybe 
we really don't need to do this.  Maybe it really doesn't affect us, and 
we don't need the supporting funds for a program we don't need in 
the first place.  

Senator Coffin stated he would like to echo Senator Titus' comment regarding 
common sense, noting that it is definitely in this bill and he supports that and the 
bill.  He said he would like to have some means of changing the way the committee 
members are chosen, because if you put it to the commissions that takes it out of 
the political arena.  He also asked if it is possible to add a charge to this committee 
that it investigates and report back to the 1997 session on the possibility of home 
rule for the counties, so that we could give some of that power back to the local 
governments.

Senator O'Connell replied that they have had two subcommittees from government 
affairs that are currently putting together language for a bill that will deal with an 
interim study whose purpose is to look at areas of responsibility of the state, of the 
county, and of the city governments.  She said the subcommittee, composed of 
Senator Porter and Senator O'Connell, with all counties represented, had proposed 
the language to come back to government affairs to see if they agree with the idea. 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said when this bill was first 
introduced she concluded that it represented one of the primary purposes of 
government, which is to safeguard the constitutional rights of the citizens; and that 
members of the Legislature are in a unique position to be able to perform the 
review function, to recommend to the Legislature, to Congress, and to Nevada's 
attorney general, actions that will help the state guard those constitutional rights. 
 She expressed the support of Senate Bill 342 by the Nevada Concerned Citizens, 
noting that they think there are good criteria written into the bill both for reviewing 
federal and state mandates.  Referring to the previous discussion on home rule, Ms. 
Lusk reminded the committee that the state is actually the entity, as far as 
government is concerned, with that ultimate responsibility for guarding those 
constitutional rights - a right that should not be transferred to any other level.  

Senator Coffin indicated that it probably would be a good idea to define what 
`home rule' is, noting that in Nevada, legislators have tended to take the taxing 
power to the state government in areas that, traditionally, in the first 180 years 
after the founding of the constitution, were the province of the local governments 
and not the state government. 


Ms. Lusk, replied that she thinks having the interim study committee on that issue 
is an excellent idea.  

Charles Horn, Retired State Senator, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, said 
he was representing the Tenth Amendment Committee of Nevada, which supports 
Senate Bill 342, particularly the statement on lines 7-8 which states, "The 
members of the Legislature of Nevada intend to protect the sovereignty of [the] 
State of Nevada from federal encroachment."  He states this summarizes the 
meaning and message of that which is attempted in this legislation, as well as, 
putting those same types of restraints or constraints upon state government so that 
they will not exceed their authorized powers with local governments.  He opposed 
changing the language in section 8 from a mandatory `must' to a permissive 
`should' because Nevadans want good government by law, and that change would 
simply make it a suggestion. 

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, indicated their 
support for Senate Bill 342 and said she is encouraged that Senator O'Connell 
would bring this forth as another opportunity to establish and assert state 
sovereignty.  She described the concern of many states and the movement 
nationally, to reassert state sovereignty.  Ms. Hansen said Colorado, Oklahoma, and 
Ohio, have recently brought forth bills which would help to implement the idea of 
asserting state sovereignty by creating escrow accounts to escrow federal taxes, 
in order to avoid the federal government from blackmailing the state, if the state 
does not comply with federal mandates.  She stated there is an increasing interest 
on the part of the federal courts in upholding state sovereignty.  She noted that on 
page 3, line 25 of the bill where it says "the committee shall determine whether: 
(a) the federal mandate is within the powers enumerated by and delegated to the 
Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States," that this is the 
whole genesis of the problem of federal mandates; that the federal government has 
gone far beyond the specific enumerated and limited powers identified in the United 
States Constitution and the states have, up until now, had no mechanism to 
oppose federal mandates.  She concluded stating that every state is feeling the 
burden, and she thinks this is an appropriate means to begin to identify, and to 
oppose those federal mandates which we do not find appropriate, but it does not 
eliminate the opportunity for the Legislature to choose those with which they wish 
to comply.


Phil Meranda, Private Citizen, commended Senator O'Connell and her supporters 
on this legislation.  He stated he believes the word "must" should stay the way it 
is, because this particular situation would probably require court action; and Blacks' 
law dictionary states the word "shall" may be construed to mean "may" in a 
constitutional controversy, and the Legislature would not want anyone to construe 
this word to mean "may;" it must be a mandatory "must." 

Senator Titus stated that some federal mandates come with penalties attached. 
 She suggested that the committee needs to look at what is going to be the 
adverse impact of not going along with the sanction: How will the state be hurt if 
the Legislature does not comply, in terms of the sanctions that might be imposed, 
and recommendations should be included.  She asked where are we going to come 
up with the money to pay for those penalties if they are levied?  

Senator McGinness indicated that is a valid observation.

Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke in support of 
Senate Bill 342 and stated that the regulatory environment, which has been in part 
created by mandates, has made it necessary for some legislation to be drafted.  
She said that not only are the feds (federal government) mandating to the state, 
and the state is passing it onto the local governments, but ultimately what happens 
is that the taxpayer foots the bill.  She discussed the costs that, were actually 
charted by Carson City, and were mandated on local governments.  Relative to the 
second part of the bill, Ms. Vilardo stated the taxpayers' association has no 
problem if some of the provisions within the policy statement become more 
permissive than mandatory.  She noted that most of the principles that are used in 
that point of policy taxation were derived from Samuel Adams "Wealth of Nations" 
which were then modified in 1920 by a British economist.  She stated these 
principles are used worldwide as benchmarks: one cannot meet every one of them 
within one tax or one fee, but if a mandate requires funding and the level of funding 
will be a tax or fee on the general public, then this goes hand-in-hand with 
establishing these policies as part of your standing rules.  


Robert S. Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, 
indicated that Nevada counties have had a keen interest in this issue, and he 
discussed previous actions by the counties, noting that there is still no mechanism 
to respond instead of react.  He stated he believes that Senate Bill 342 has the 
outline of a process whereby people can actually evaluate and understand better 
the impacts of proposed unfunded mandates.  Mr. Hadfield expressed support for 
the committee's efforts to take a look at this and to establish some formal 
mechanism to have in place to review the impact.  However, he added, some of the 
questions mentioned today, regarding clarification, need to be taken into account, 
and he pledged his group's support to work with the committee on establishing a 
process that will clear up and eliminate a lot of the difficulties that have been 
identified in evaluating whether something is an unfunded or funded mandate.  

Dorothy Orr, Private Citizen, stated that there are a lot of the people in Las Vegas 
who are very concerned and very happy to learn of this bill.  She expressed 
concern about the United Nations' mandates, and asked if the committee would 
investigate if, in fact, between 1940 and 1945, the Nevada State Legislature did 
sanction and approve the United Nations Organization prior to ratification by the 
President and Senate, thereby giving the United Nations top priority over the 
constitutional government? 

Joseph L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, stated he was speaking neither in favor 
or in opposition to the bill, but called attention to some environmental issues.  He 
noted that in section 5, the committee will review all of the existing statutes and 
commented that simply the issue of rural treatment of solid waste impact upon 
rural communities could take the entire time of this committee during the interim 
session.  He said the bill sets policy about unfunded mandates going to the county, 
and the issue of local home rule, and of how much or how little taxation,  are all 
issues that should be addressed; but he maintained that this authorization under the 
statutory provisions of section 5 is overly broad and would indeed simply be a 
political forum and a pulpit to talk of sovereignty, but do little.  Mr. Johnson 
concluded saying it is either a major venture and the committee is  going to attack 
it seriously, or this is an effort to address a problem that is out there, in a very 
superficial method. 

Senator Raggio stated:


I guess anybody's viewpoint from day to day differs on what is a 
state issue, and I think the concern, that many of us have, is that the 
definition of state issue by practical operation of the federal process, 
and that includes all three, the legislative, executive and judicial 
branches of the federal government, have certainly compressed the 
original concept of state issues and what was envisioned when the 
constitution was framed, and the residual power of the Tenth 
Amendment was set in place. ... I think it was Mrs. Hansen, perhaps, 
who addressed one of the trends, and whether or not one agrees with 
the basic concern about gun control; I think the recent supreme court 
decision, that she alluded to, is going to bring forth some very strong 
debate, and I'm using debate because I'm using it in a civil sense.  I 
want to say parenthetically, I don't endorse violent objection or 
violent change by anyone regardless of their position, but I think that 
decision is going to bring forth some major change in what has been 
considered to be a state issue.  I would [say], based on my legal 
background and my study of constitutional law, much of what has 
passed as federal issues, vis-a-vis state issues, has been based upon 
the utilization of the commerce clause of the federal constitution.  I 
mean whether it's environmental laws or whether it's dealing in any 
other subject, most of those have been based upon, and 
countenanced, and sustained upon, what I think many people feel is 
a strained interpretation of the commerce clause of the United Stated 
Constitution.  And so I only raise this because I think it's important to 
this discussion, that that decision, whether it was based on gun 
control or something else, certainly portends a change of direction at 
that appellate level of what is or is not a state issue.  So I guess that 
is a strong argument for the state, whether it's the legislative branch, 
and perhaps we're the proper one, to at least have in place a 
mechanism, such as this oversight committee, to let us pass our 
judgment, we're elected officials, upon what is an invasion into a 
state's right.  Now, I would comment parenthetically, that some who 
testified here read into this, I think, some strength ... which is not 
accommodated here.  For example, I don't read in this bill that we can 
mandate the attorney general to take any specific action, and I'm 
saying that to you, because you expressed some concern along those 
lines.  We can recommend to the attorney general, who's a 
constitutional officer, that he or she do certain things, that we can 
recommend, too, when we're dealing with a federal mandate, in that 
case, or otherwise we can recommend to our congressional delegation 
that they attempt some amelioratory action at their level, but I don't 
think anybody should be deluded.  We recognize practical as well as 
legal limitations on what a state legislature can do, but I think to do 
nothing is really inappropriate and I think that's one reason that the 
federal system, again I'm including all three branches, and this is not 
a partisan point because it's occurred under all administrations, has 
encouraged by inaction that kind of enlargement of what is a federal 
power.  What I'm saying in a long way because I want to establish 
my belief here, is that this, I think, is a necessary step and there may 
have to be some adjustments here, but it's a necessary step for the 
state, through its Legislature, and we're the closest to the people 
overall, to take some position, indicating, one,  that we want to 
preserve, to the extent fully possible, the powers that are in the Tenth 
Amendment reserved to states, and secondly, that we create this 
mechanism for some review at the state level, in order that we can 
properly express our point of view.  

Mr. Johnson expressed appreciation for the senator's comments about being in 
simple opposition to violence and indicated the Sierra Club has a similar position. 
 He said he just wanted to express that he thinks this is a little burdensome and 
overly broad.  He said the states are experiencing a time of decentralization and 
reassessment of where the authority and responsibility lies; it is a broad agenda 
about federal mandates and the proper place for them, and he stated the Sierra 
Club would welcome entering into a future debate.  

Senator James stated: 

I just want to state, really for the record, I'm a sponsor of this bill and 
reviewed it in some detail before it was even introduced. ... you 
mentioned that being a judicial role to review whether something was 
constitutional or not as an exercise of authority, particularly under 
federal constitution.  Section 5 embodies the review and evaluation 
of proposed laws both state and federal, as to whether they are 
constitutional, but that is in no sense a judicial type of a review.  So 
we're not seeking to usurp any other role of government, so I want 
to make sure that there's not that interpretation added to this bill that 
would be declared unconstitutional as a usurpation of another 
branch's authority.  That's review with a view to a legislative 
response, recommendations to the Legislature to respond legislatively 
to areas where there's a role, maybe it would be a resolution, maybe 
it would be a bill, maybe it would be a way of directing an agency to 
administer a mandate through legislation.  That's the key here and the 
courts can go about their business and judicial review, but then this 
will be our own way of addressing it.

Mr. Johnson indicated that the Sierra Club understands that also.

Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated she was here today in 
support of S.B. 342 and said they concur with the other proponents of this bill and 
what has been stated here today, and they would like to offer their support and 
assistance in helping the committee work on any problems that arise with these 
bills.

Juanita Clark, Member, Independent Party of Clark County and the Tenth 
Amendment Group, said she was here to speak for Senate Bill 342. (This testimony 
from Las Vegas was garbled.)


Leonard Stoute, Private Citizen testified from Las Vegas.  (This testimony from Las 
Vegas was garbled.)  Mr. Stoute described his feelings as a Vietnam veteran and 
his concern for our country.  He stated, "... We're looking to you to make a 
statement that this is our state, we have a constitution.  We feel like it has been 
taken from us in a way, and there's many like me that are very fearful [of[ what's 
happening with the federal government.  We want the freedoms of this country and 
of our state preserved, and we call upon you to have compassion, to recognize 
your obligation as leaders to support the constitution, and fulfill the intent of the 
forefathers."

Richard Klinfelter, Private Citizen, (This testimony from Las Vegas was garbled.), 
 discussed taxes and said that as members of the state Legislature it is their 
responsibility to make sure that state citizens are not being ripped off on any taxes 
that they are not required to pay.  He stated he supports this bill, emphasizing that 
the federal government has practically no jurisdiction within the state, that the 
founding fathers will prove that the states are sovereign.

Senator Titus said that Mr. Klinfelter seems familiar to her, and thought he was in 
the 4 hour testimony on S.J.R. 1 down in Las Vegas, and indicated that Mr. Stoute 
was there.  She asked if Mr. Klinfelter had been into that group of people who are 
so distressed about having federal intervention in their lives that they might be 
willing to take up arms against that intervention here in the states?
 
Mr. Klinfelter replied: (This testimony from Las Vegas was garbled.):


Well, I believe that we should be able to ... in a responsible way we 
should be able to vote people out. There has been a big turnover in 
Congress and let's hope it continues.  Thomas Jefferson said ... that 
[to] keep these politicians straight we need a revolution every 20 
years.  We're probably well overdue.  But I don't believe a revolution 
is going to occur by the people.  I believe that certain people in the 
federal government, not all of them, most of them are honest people 
you know just doing their job and stuff like this, but you have some 
people here ... that ... are ... powerful, you know hungry for power 
and I don't [think] they believe in the republic themselves. ... but I've 
studied law and stuff like that for a long time as an ex-veteran, you 
know, it's my duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and you 
know, I've got a responsibility to ... my family, I've got a 
responsibility to my neighbors, I've got a responsibility to my state, 
and to my country.  I am an American, I'm also a Nevadan, and if I'm 
forced to do something that I don't particularly want to do, cause the 
only thing I want to do is retire and live happily ever after.  But I think 
these people, certain people like Janet Reno and Bill Clinton and a few 
other ones, they have a different agenda and ...  And it might disrupt 
my plans for retirement.  I hope it doesn't happen, but I'm willing to 
do whatever I have to do to make Patrick Henry proud of me.  

Since his name was mentioned, Mr. Stoute returned to testify regarding his military 
experience in Vietnam, indicating that he was trained to do things that are not 
natural and are not pleasant, but he wants his children and grandchildren to know 
that he stood up for freedom of their lives.  He concluded saying that it is terrible 
what goes on in other countries, and God help us if we cannot get the help from 
the legislators at the state level.

Senator McGinness thanked Mr. Stoute and said the committee appreciated his 
comments.

Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, requested that her written 
statement (Exhibit E) be entered into the record.

The chairman closed the hearing on Senate Bill 342 and opened the hearing on 
Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 20.  

SENATE CONCURRENT     
RESOLUTION 20:				Amends Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly to 
establish policy regarding sexual harassment and 
procedures for administration of related claims.  (BDR 
R-543)

Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7 stated:


S.C.R. 20 is very simple.  It amends the joint rules of the Senate and 
Assembly to firmly establish a policy regarding sexual harassment.  
The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Legislature in line with 
other state agencies and make laws that apply to everyone else apply 
to us as well.  The Legislature is a place where power is a commodity, 
a commodity that can be used or abused, and power is the key to 
harassment.  It's not about sex; it's about power.  The power to 
threaten someone, the power to coerce them into doing something 
perhaps they don't want to do.  And so, it's very highly appropriate 
for us to consider this within the legislative body. ... Several years 
ago the legislative commission approved an LCB [Legislative Counsel 
Bureau] policy on sexual harassment, but if you look closely at it 
you'd find that it applies to staff only.  It sets up an informal method 
of dealing with problems that relate between one attache and another, 
or between an attache and a supervisor.  After this was adopted, 
however, leadership in both houses issued a memo which stated that 
the Legislature had a policy against sexual harassment that applies not 
only to staff members, but also to lobbyists and legislators.  This rule 
change would simply be a way of formalizing that memo, because, I 
think, as a memo that carries less weight than a rule; it has less 
symbolic significance, it says that this is something that is important 
to us, it should be formalized and it should be institutionalized.  And 
the way to do that is not with a memo at the beginning of every 
session, but with an adjustment to the joint rules.  So I would ask for 
your support.  Also, when the bill was introduced, I believe every 
member of the Senate joined on as a sponsor.

Raggio stated:


Senator Titus is correct.  I think every member of the Senate has 
signed on; I agreed to cosponsor the measure because I agree that 
this is an issue of concern not only in legislatures but in private 
sectors and other areas of government at any level, and it's a 
situation that must be clearly defined, and there must be a clear policy 
and procedure for dealing with complaints of this nature.  That is the 
reason that Speaker Dini and I, in the last session, set forth a formal 
policy on sexual harassment.  That was renewed, and I'm going to 
ask that the existing policy be made a part of the record.  This bill 
models, I think, mirrors, the established policy on sexual harassment 
that was established by the speaker and me, and again this session 
by both co-speakers and myself as majority leader.  This policy has 
applied, as Senator Titus points out, to all legislators, lobbyists, and 
employees of the Legislature including supervisors and coworkers.  
We wanted to make a clear statement that it applied to all who come 
in contact with one another in this session or in any session.  The 
reason that it's a memorandum policy, of course, is because we can 
only do it as to any one session.  Even if we pass this resolution 
amending the joint rules, we must again adopt at each session these 
joint rules, but I want to go on record as saying we should do so at 
each session when we adopt the joint rules; this should be an integral 
part of that.  I guess as a legislator, as one who's been in business, 
and  as a professional in an office, I held an elective county office, I 
know that these thing occur in varying degrees, and sometimes if 
they don't occur they're perceived, and there should be a procedure 
where someone can go in an easy, unembarrassing manner, and 
report a complaint, and have it dealt with objectively and carefully. 
 So I want to join with all of the senators in this, and I think it's an 
appropriate action for us to take.  

Senator Coffin indicated that he wanted to understand clearly what some of the 
terms are, particularly in section 2 and in subsection 3b, where the terms 
"derogatory posters, photography, cartoons, drawings" are used:  Noting that the 
members have to be careful to make sure that they do not impress upon 
themselves a political correctness that would inhibit a legislator's ability to display 
things on their walls which might be personal in nature to a person who chooses 
to enjoy those things.  Senator Coffin said he could probably understand if the 
committee could define it to make sure that derogatory posters mean derogatory 
in terms of people of the opposite sex. He said he wants to make sure they are not 
talking about art.  

Senator Titus stated they discussed this with the Legislature's legal counsel and 
with the attorney general, and neither of them had any problems with how those 
definitions would be interrupted. 

Continuing, Senator Coffin said that he wanted to know what a derogatory poster 
is, noting that he has some 19th century political cartoons on the walls of his office 
that are rather harsh, and someone might think they are derogatory. He wanted to 
make sure that he does not violate this legislation.

Senator McGinness said the committee would ask Mr. Erickson if there is anything 
in the record.  

Senator Titus asked Senator Coffin if these posters would cause unwelcome sexual 
advances, requests for favors, etc.

Senator Coffin said, "The ones in my office are mostly political in nature and kind 
of fun because they poke fun at political entities both parties and things.  As long 
as we are clearly defined so we don't trespass into free speech, I certainly can 
support this."  

Senator James stated:

I do have two questions or concerns I want to understand how it 
works.  First thing is that the bill seems to have two definitions of 
sexual harassment.  In subsection 2 it says, "`Sexual harassment' is 
defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, 
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature," and then with a 
qualifier, when, colon, it does one of three things: it is in context of 
a condition of employment; it affects decisions concerning the person; 
or it creates [an] intimidating or hostile environment.  I understand all 
of that.  But then it says in subsection 3, "sexual harassment 
includes" and then it gives another definition, or set of definitions, 
through category e; it doesn't qualify it as being in the context of 
those three things.  My question is, are there two definitions here of 
sexual harassment; one of which is qualified by the three things and 
one of which is not?  And then I have another question.

Senator Titus stated there is not an intention for there to be two separate 
definitions, and if there is a need to clean up that definitional language, she does 
not have a problem doing that.

Senator James stated:


I was going to say, senator, that the ambiguity can be clarified by 
saying that sexual harassment, as the thing that this goes at, is what 
is identified in subsection 2, but the conduct which is directed toward 
those conditions of employment, etc. is what's defined in subsection 
3.  So we could make a change there which would clarify that 
ambiguity.  The second thing I'm concerned about is that the bill 
provides that the committee that is referred to the speaker or the 
majority leader or the Legislative Counsel Bureau director is acted 
upon in a confidential and discrete investigation of the complaint by 
the appointed committee.  But nowhere, that I see in the bill, does it 
provide that the person against whom the complaint is made has a 
right to anything but notice of the final decision of the committee.  
And so in the interest of a due process there should be something in 
here that the person is entitled to come before the committee, and 
have some kind of a due process, because, I think, almost as 
reprehensible as sexual harassment itself, and it certainly is extremely 
reprehensible, would be a false allegation of sexual harassment; and 
then if the person had no ability, and this star chamber was going 
listen to evidence outside their hearing, it could be unfair.  And so I 
would just think maybe we could put something in there that they 
could be present and entitled to speak in their own behalf.

Senator Titus said, "I agree with you Senator James.  We don't want to create a 
star chamber.  We want it to be very fair.  We want people to know that this is the 
procedure, this is what will be followed if you report a complaint, it's not just going 
to be pooh-poohed or we'll look into it, or we'll take care of it. You know that there 
is a formal procedure and certainly both sides deserve to be represented in that 
procedure."

Senator Raggio stated:

I could comment further on that.  This policy that was established 
emanated from a seminar which the Legislature's leadership agreed 
was essential, and we conducted that seminar, and we utilized the 
services of an attorney from ... Sacramento.  It was a very well 
attended and well presented seminar, and it was clear the intent in 
the appointment of a committee, that the committee would operate 
under the procedure whereby there would be notification to the 
person against whom the complaint was lodged, and that person 
would have the fullest opportunity to present any other side to this 
issue.  So that probably was understood and has always been 
intended.  I might say to you that, in the last two sessions ... in which 
I have served as the majority leader, I have not received a complaint 
of this nature.  So we have not actually had to put that into effect. 
 But that would be the intent, certainly under the existing policy, and 
should be the intent under a similar rule.

Elizabeth Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, stated their support of this 
bill and noted that its passage will bring this body into compliance with most other 
bodies in the state. 

Senator McGinness indicated to Senator Titus that everyone is pretty much in 
agreement on S.C.R. 20, and that it is just a matter of getting Mr. Erickson to work 
with her on some language.  He indicated that it would be put on a work session 
at next Tuesday's meeting, along with S.B. 342 and S.B. 246.


The chairman adjourned the committee at 3:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Mavis Scarff,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:





Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman


DATE: 	

Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
May 2, 1995
Page