MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session May 9, 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 9, 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 Dina Titus Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Mark A. James (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1 Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Ande Engleman, Private Citizen Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities Chairman McGinness indicated he had reviewed Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1994. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1994: Memorializes former District Court Judge William Beko. Senator Coffin said he had two resolutions memorializing people, and wondered if he could do something different. He proposed not to invite the people to come to Carson City for the resolution, but rather have the resolution presented on the floor, complete with speeches, and then he would deliver the resolutions to them at their home. He asked if the committee had given any thought to changing the process in order to speed up the process, instead of restricting the number of resolutions. Senator McGinness indicated that he sometimes had the pictures taken before the session which eliminates the break in the session. Senator Raggio stated arranging for the pictures to be taken before the session is a good suggestion. Senator Coffin noted he has two resolutions coming up, one to honor Joe and Mary Blasco, and one to honor the daughters of the Utah pioneers. Senator McGinness opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 246 while the committee waited for Senator Porter and Senator Rhoads. SENATE BILL 246: Makes various changes relating to prefiling of legislative bills and resolutions. (BDR 17-224) Chairman McGinness called the members attention to Exhibit C and indicated that he and Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, had met with Jan Thomas, Secretary of the Senate, and Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, this morning to accomplish the changes that they had talked about. The committee discussed the proposed changes. Regarding inserting the word "joint" before "resolution," Senator Raggio asked if that meant that only joint resolutions and bills can be prefiled? Senator McGinness confirmed that was so. Senator Rawson asked about the issue of the person that finishes a term, and then has to stand election before another session. He noted that they are still an elected official, and they still have constituents they are responsible for, and he wondered if there is a reason to wait for a certificate of election instead of just waiting until the results of the election are in? Senator McGinness replied that there is a bill to seat that person even if there was a challenge, but he noted that it remains to be seen if that is going to pass. Senator Rawson queried that if a legislator finishes a session, and has to stand for reelection before the next session, and they wanted to have a bill drafted and prefiled, is there really anything wrong with them being able to go through that process, even if their intention is not to come back the next session? Senator McGinness replied no, and said if you look at the person in that instance, whether or not they have decided to stand for election, they can request the measure to be prefiled, but it would not actually be prefiled until they are certified as elected. Senator Rawson noted in that case, someone else could pick the bill up and have it prefiled. Senator McGinness agreed and indicated that the bill could already have been drafted and written in order to speed up the process. He asked Mr. Erickson if he remembered why Ms. Landing wanted only the joint resolutions prefiled, rather than just resolutions? Mr. Erickson replied he thought she felt that concurrent resolutions, and the one house resolution, were just not necessary for the process. Senator McGinness said that on page 2 they tried to address Senator James' concern that the bill include the date of the prefiling; the name of the agency, officer, or other entity who requested the drafting of the measure; and the standing committee to which the measure is proposed to be referred. He noted this was done under the appropriate standing rules or guidelines for bill introduction; standing rules in the Senate, and guidelines for bill introduction in the Assembly. Chairman McGinness continued explaining the proposed changes. He stated that Mrs. Thomas and Ms. Landing expressed concern that the process for bill introduction took a lot of time on opening day. Ms. Landing had indicated that the Assembly did not consider the prefiled bills until the second day. They suggested that as long as the appropriations bill was requested first, as Senate Bill 1, they felt that procedurally it could be handled on the second day, so that on opening day, when all the families are there and it is pretty much ceremonial, everybody would not have to sit for 45 minutes while the legislators "cranked out" those bills. Senator Raggio asked if, constitutionally, it could be handled like a consent calendar, where a single motion, applying to all the bills on a list, could be referred to the designated committee, unless a legislator had an objection? Senator McGinness asked the committee if they wanted to have an amendment drafted, or were they comfortable with these changes. Stating he did not have any problem with the substance of what they had been discussing, Senator Raggio expressed his concern that there are still too many agencies, individuals, organizations, etc. who, by rule or statute, are given the right to go in and request bill drafts. He said, "I would like us to take the bull-by-the- horns and reduce that list to something that is manageable." He stated that in talking with legislators from other states, they think Nevada is "crazy" either to have that quantity of bills, or to let others than legislators submit bill draft requests. Stating he did not want to derail the original concern, he reiterated that legislators, without party concerns or otherwise, should get a handle on the volume and the procedure for handling all the bills that legislators deal with. Senator Titus indicated she has served on the commission for the last 3 interims, and every time this issue comes up. She said every time different people come with a list of people, or different groups, who want to be able to request bills; and, she continued, every time she votes against giving these people the ability to request, she always loses. She emphasized that she is in complete agreement with Senator Raggio, is on record for having supported it, and will support it again if the committee wants to go forward with it. Senator Raggio stated that Senator Titus is absolutely right, and he invited the committee, and indicated his support, to return to where legislators are the ones who introduce and request the bills; agencies or organizations would have to request a legislator to sponsor a bill for them. Mr. Erickson indicated that the Assembly Committee on Elections and Procedures is currently dealing with that very subject. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated that Assemblyman Jack Close, her cochair and sponsor of Assembly Bill 279, has been meeting with local governments to try to resolve some of these very issues. She thinks they will be coming back with a recommendation, dealing with duplication or lack of duplication, to limit the number of bills, by requiring local governments to pay to go beyond a certain amount. She spoke about the problem of capping the number of bill drafts, possibly limiting interim studies to 10. Assembly Bill (A.B.) 279: Revises various changes concerning legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1278) Senator Raggio indicated that the current concern is about limiting bill draft requests to legislators, and others who want bill drafts would have to come through legislators to get requests. Senator Coffin indicated his complete support, and noted that in 1983 he was asked by agency people to either request a bill draft or to introduce a bill. He stated that his research showed that in the last session a minority of bills were introduced by legislators; the others came in through this automatic process. Stating that legislators are the ones who are elected to do this work, not the local governments, Senator Coffin emphasized his complete support for withdrawing, from all entities, the privilege of having a bill draft, and that it only be done by legislators. Senator Raggio indicated that since there apparently is a consensus, the committee should request a bill draft that does exactly that. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO LIMIT BILL DRAFT REQUESTS TO LEGISLATORS. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator Raggio said he would move to amend S.B. 246, but noted there may be a conflict with existing subsection 2, which refers to all of those who are authorized to request bills. Senator McGinness said they may have to amend it on the other side, but asked Mr Erickson, if it would clean it up, if they put "any member of the state Legislature or any other qualified requestor?" Senator Raggio said he thinks one could say "any member of the state Legislature or other qualified requestors." SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 246, THE AMENDMENT TO CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING: 1) IN THE NATURE OF A CONSENT CALENDAR, THE LIST OF BILLS TO BE PREFILED WOULD INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE BILLS WOULD BE REFERRED AND COULD BE HANDLED IN A SINGLE MOTION, UNLESS ANY LEGISLATOR OBJECTED, AND THEN THAT BILL WOULD HAVE TO BE HANDLED BY ITSELF. 2) ADD "ANY MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE OR OTHER QUALIFIED REQUESTORS." SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR JAMES WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Senator Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 14, and introduced Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14: Creates committee to study consolidation of governmental services (BDR R-597). Ms.Giunchigliani indicated she served on the interim committee that made this recommendation. She stated that S.C.R. 14 allows for the legislative commission to establish a committee to actually study what areas could be consolidated, and if there is a potential for a constitutional amendment, to be able to bring that type of legislation back to the next legislative session. She indicated that she thinks it is time that mutual areas, at least in Clark County, are consolidated. She noted that Clark County consolidated the metropolitan police years ago, and that it has worked well for both city and county government. She declared that it is something their constituents would like, and she would urge the committee's support. Senator McGinness asked if this would be beyond a reorganization of state agencies, but would allow states, counties, or cities to jointly consolidate? Ms. Giunchigliani concurred, and provided additional information and examples. She said they need to look at the whole picture, eliminate duplicate services, determine who can do what best, and stated that she thinks part of what this study could potentially bring out is what is, local versus state. Senator McGinness asked if this is just an interim study? Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed it was. Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke as a member of the Interim Committee just addressed by Ms. Giunchigliani. She stated that revenue and taxation was discussed, and since it is expenditures that drive the need for revenue, the committee agreed that a bill like this had its proper place to determine who is best at delivering the service. She indicated that Senator Rhoads, as chairman of the committee, apologized for not being at the meeting, but he asked Ms. Vilardo to provide the background as to how that particular committee got into this issue. Senator Raggio said it appears to be a continuing committee, not an interim study of any kind. Ms. Vilardo stated it is an interim study whose purpose is to try to determine the service delivery areas that could best be consolidated; but it is definitely an interim, not a standing committee. Senator Raggio confirmed they were looking at Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, and stated that this bill provides for an ongoing committee for this purpose, and has nothing to do with an interim study, or even an interim committee. Ms. Vilardo further explained the discussions of the committee and how the confusion might have occurred. Mr. Erickson said he believed that since this is a concurrent resolution, its effect could only last through the interim until the next session, and the following Legislature would have to enact something like this again, if they wanted it to continue in the future. Senator McGinness confirmed that if the committee approves this measure, they would not have to amend it because it is a concurrent resolution. Ande Engleman, Private Citizen, former director of the Nevada Press Association, indicated that there was much confusion around the state last year as various entities attempted to organize some sort of consolidation. She declared her support for this issue, and noted that if the press association were aware of the bill, they would support it too. Senator Raggio said he thinks that Mr. Erickson is essentially right, that since it is a concurrent resolution, that it would have limited applicability, "but that flies in the face still of the language, for example on page 2, where it says `except during a regular special session, each member is entitled to receive compensation, etc.', so I think we need to make it clear, if we did do this, that it is limited in scope." Mr. Erickson suggested that when it talks about making a report to the 69th session, that would terminate its life. Senator Raggio agreed. Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Government Affairs Director, Washoe County, indicated that the Senate Committee on Government Affairs is proposing an interim study on home rule which will coincide with many of the overlapping areas, and help sort out some of the areas of responsibility. She suggested that the committee consider having members of local government, or government, participate as a nonvoting technical advisory group sitting with the committee. She noted that, from past experience, having a group of this nature participate in the discussion brings forth some points of view that might not otherwise be considered. Senator McGinness asked if the government affairs study is accepted, then would this one be needed? Ms. Henderson replied that some potential exists for overlap, but that it really depends on the scope of the home rule study and how it is written. She indicated that there is definitely a need to start sorting through, defining whose responsibility it is for certain functions of government, and who is best to provide that service. Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County, said she would like to echo the concerns that Ms. Henderson presented, and that Clark County would like to be involved in this process. She noted that there is a difference between consolidation and home rule, and that they may overlap in some areas. She informed the committee that Clark County has been aware of consolidation for years, and that she was staff liaison on the most recent study in 1993. She offered her assistance to the committee, and stated that Clark County would like to be involved in an advisory capacity to this interim study committee. Senator Titus asked Ms. Fretwell to elaborate on the study that occurred in Clark County in 1993, noting that if they have already done this to a great extent, why does the Legislature need to do it again? Ms. Fretwell said in 1993 the chairman of the Board of Commissioners and the Mayor formed a committee of citizens from the area, and that she worked as staff liaison with the consultant that was hired by that committee of citizens. She indicated that they did a comprehensive review of all the different functions that Clark County provides that were not county-wide functions. She noted that most of the functions were looked at, but that some areas, like social functions, were not. Since that time, she said, the Clark County Commission and the City Council have created a joint subcommittee of both elected bodies, which meets on a quarterly basis to evaluate whether or not functional consolidations would be the answer, or if an interlocal agreement will suffice; for example, the regional jail commission is an outcome of that, and they have been working to streamline the business licensing code so that the city's business license codes resemble those of the county, or are similar so that people do not get confused. She indicated they are pleased with the results; it is very methodical, and it is working well. Tom Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated that the cities do have many interlocal agreements that this piece of legislation addresses and that Ms. Henderson expressed very well the feeling of the Nevada League of Cities. He said they offer their services, and would like to be a part of this interim committee to help in any way that they can. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 14, and announced that late last evening, Assemblyman Price said he needed to attend a funeral in Las Vegas this afternoon. Chairman McGinness indicated that the bill will be rescheduled for next Tuesday, but if anyone wants to testify today on Assembly Joint Resolution 21, they can do so. The chairman indicated further, that at the request of Senator O'Connell, the work session on Senate Bill 342, will also be delayed until next week. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-8) SENATE BILL 342: Creates legislative committee on federal and state mandates and establishes policy of taxation for State of Nevada. (BDR 17-1163) The chairman opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 28. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 28: Directs Legislative Counsel to conduct interim study to identify unnecessary or obsolete provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes and submit any recommendations for legislation to 69th session of Nevada Legislature. (BDR R-1663) Senator Raggio asked if there would be input from the legal Legislative Counsel as to the need, advisability, or practicality of this measure? Senator McGinness indicated he was not sure if Senator Porter had arranged for the Legal Division to do that. He stated that Mr. Erickson had indicated that there would be some joint discussions. Senator Raggio said the reason that he was asking, is that some years back the Legislature went through this, and did do away with a lot of obsolete provisions, and he was just curious as to whether the counsel still felt there was some need to do this. Mr. Erickson indicated he did not know what the Legal Division believes, but he indicated that the Research Division have found a good number of sections that look to be obsolete, and noted that they have provided information of this sort to legislators in the past. He also stated that he does not believe the Legal Division does this on a routine basis; they just look mainly for conflicting statutes, rather than those that are obsolete. Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, indicated that throughout his campaign, one of the biggest questions concerned the fact that there are a lot of obsolete laws that are in the statutes. He said that Mr. Erickson provided some information for him from the Research Division, and he cited some examples of laws that would be considered obsolete. Noting that if it is an ongoing process, he thought it certainly would not take a lot of time or dollars to invest. He said the bill draft does comment about the Legislative Counsel Bureau in the legal section, but he would also like to have the Research Division involved as part of the process. Senator Coffin asked why not just incorporate the examples cited by Senator Porter into the bill, and repeal them with the bill. Senator Porter replied, that he thinks that they are going to find statutes, not just the humorous statutes, that should be removed; for instance, there are some that should really not be in place today that maybe 100 years ago were important. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Erickson if when either the Research Division or the Legal Division is going through the statutes, and they come across something that is obviously outdated, do they mark that statute, or do they have the authority to set it aside? Mr. Erickson said researchers maintain a list of measures that look obsolete, and that in the past, some legislators would introduce a bill to get rid of them. He said he does not know if the Legal Division keeps a list of antiquated bills or not. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 28, and adjourned the meeting at 3:43 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations May 9, 1995 Page