MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session May 16, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:48 p.m., on Tuesday, May 16, 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 Raymond D. Rawson Senator Mark A. James Senator Dina Titus Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5 Senator Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1 Assemblyman Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Jeffrey Burr, Private Citizen Rhonda Nassersharif, Private Citizen Marcia Garcia, Private Citizen Melodee Wilcox, Private Citizen Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Barbara Cegavske, Private Citizen Chairman McGinness asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1829. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1829 Urges state and local governments to establish programs to encourage participation of residents of Nevada in development of public policy and operation of state and local government. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1829. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, RAGGIO, AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 249 and introduced Senator Ann O'Connell. SENATE BILL 249: Requires fiscal note on legislation containing appropriation to indicate if appropriation is included in executive budget. (BDR 17-50) Senator Ann O'Connell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, said the original purpose of the bill was to identify if a bill was either in or out of the executive budget. She stated that prior to the first hearing, some mistakes, both in the bill and with the process, were found. She noted that the proposed amendment to Senate Bill 249 (Exhibit C) had been distributed, and she introduced Dan Miles who would speak to some of the some of the concerns that he had about putting the information on the face of the bill. Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that the original bill, S.B. 249, adds some language that would be printed on the top of each bill. He said the new language indicates, both on the local government fiscal note part, which is sub-a, and the state fiscal note part, which is sub-b, whether or not the bill contains an appropriation, and whether or not that appropriation is in the executive budget. He asserted that the problem with the original language was that this is a determination that the legislative counsel needs to make, because at the time bills are being drafted, the legislative counsel would probably not know whether the bill was going to be in the executive budget or not, even if it came from an executive branch agency. Mr. Miles stated that the proposed amendment would delete the bill, and add a requirement, which is down at the bottom of the first page of the proposed amendment, that any request prepared by the executive branch of state government must indicate whether the anticipated change in appropriations, fiscal liability, or state revenue, will not be included in the executive budget. He noted that would indicate, to the legislative counsel, those bills coming from the executive branch that are not included in the executive budget, and put a requirement on the executive branch to inform the legislative counsel whether they are or not in the executive budget. He said that after reviewing the amendment in advance of this meeting, he would propose that if the committee processes the bill, they adopt the amendment, but don't eliminate section 1, because section 1 actually is the part that requires the message to be printed on the face of the bill. He commented that in order for a legislator to know whether this appropriation was included in the executive budget or not, there needs to be a designator on the bill, in addition to requiring the executive branch to tell the legislative counsel. He suggested that, if the bill is processed, the committee adopt the amendment without deleting section 1. Then, he said, the original bill deletes line 15, and line 15 needs to be kept because that is the line that indicates on a bill, which does not contain an appropriation, whether or not the bill is included in the executive budget. He said that under sub-b there would be the following designations: Effect on state or industrial insurance - yes. Effect on state or industrial insurance - no. Effect on state or industrial insurance contains appropriation included in the executive budget. Effect on state or industrial insurance executive budget (which would be for the bills that do not contain an appropriation). Effect on state or industrial insurance contains appropriation not included in the executive budget. Senator McGinness asked if section 1 is left on the original bill, would the amendment become section 2? Mr. Miles concurred, and recommended that on line 14, the bracket be removed and insert "included in executive budget," line 15 would remain in, and then bracket line 16-17. He noted he is trying to leave all of the current designations within the bill, and add the two new ones which contain whether or not appropriations are included in executive budget. Senator Coffin questioned whether or not it is easier to do it this way, pointing out that the negative could be just as difficult for the executive to prove, when it came time for drafting the bill, versus the time when they are trying to draw up the budget and they may not know. But, he noted, they do have to get the bill in the queue, or it will never get done, so they submit the BDR. He queried whether, until they know the actual cost, they could truthfully say, at any given time, the bill is not going to be in the budget? Mr. Miles responded that there is other legislation, or other statutes, that requires all BDRs, proposed by the executive branch, to flow through the budget director. He stated the budget director is a point of control for the executive branch, and that is the point at which a designation would be made as to whether or not it is included in the budget. Senator Coffin stressed that the same problem that is created by the initial language in the bill, also exists in this language: They do not want to say they are not going to put it in the budget at such an early date. Senator O'Connell stated that it is very difficult for people who are not on a money committee to follow what is mandated, what is or is not funded, and whether it is in or out of the budget, but she thinks it would be very helpful for people who are trying to follow the state's finances, legislators, and local governments, to know if an appropriation was contained in the Governor's budget. Senator Coffin noted that there are competing agencies' interests, who are going to ask for more than there is, and they might be given permission to ask for BDRs, in advance of making the budget, because things change over the 6-month period between the time the agencies begin submitting BDRs and the time when the budget is finished in January. Mr. Miles said that Senator Coffin may be right in some small number of cases where the final decision may not be made until late December; however, there is a point where the bills are drafted, and returned to the maker for approval, that allows a second opportunity for the executive branch to designate whether these bills will be in or out of the budget. He commented that under the current designators that can appear on the top of the bill, the executive is now required to indicate whether it is a bill that is within the executive budget, whether it contains an appropriation, but that there is no designator which indicates the bill contains both appropriations, and is within the executive budget or outside the executive budget. Senator Rawson noted that his concern is that this tends to solidify the position of the executive branch, which is already a strong governor directed system, and that essentially the Legislature changes the budget very little, which means that another equal branch of government has less say over how the resources of the state are really spent. He said if Nevada had a joint legislative-executive branch budget process where input from the Legislature went into the making of the budget, then this would be a perfect solution. He noted that where it is strictly an executive branch budget, this tends to weight it more in favor of the executive. He stated that it makes it extremely difficult to pass a measure, that may be very worthwhile, if it is not included in the budget. Senator O'Connell reemphasized that it would be extremely helpful to those outside the money committees if there was some indicator showing whether or not the bill is part of what the Governor proposed, or if it is an addition to the budget, or outside the budget. She stated that for those on the outside looking in, it would provide a tool, which would eliminate a lot of homework on their part in trying to follow what is going on with the budget process. Senator Coffin said missing from this process is an analysis of bills, but it would probably take three or four more employees to prepare the analysis so that not only legislators, but the public, could understand what a bill does. He thought that would provide the answer for Senator O'Connell, and might be easier to do. Senator James said he supports Senator O'Connell, because he thinks it helps people understand more about each bill and its effect on fiscal impact, and he commends her for bringing it up. Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, indicated her support of the bill. She empathized with Senator O'Connell, stressing this information is important, when reporting to associations, and she agreed with Senator Rawson that it might add credibility, that something was in the executive budget, but also that some associations might lobby a proposal that was in the executive budget differently, if they could show that there could be a re-direction of the existing money. She told Senator Coffin she would love to get interpretations of the bill because associations are always concerned whether they have picked up everything absolutely proper in the bill's context. She said this is just one more element in making the process more user friendly for those people who read bills. She urged the committee to pass the bill, because it is good government. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, indicated the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce would like to go on record as being in support of this bill. The chairman closed the hearing on Senate Bill 249 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 30. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 30: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of desirability and feasibility of dividing large school districts into smaller school districts. (BDR R- 1556) Senator McGinness distributed Exhibit D, and introduced Senator Porter. Senator Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, said one of the biggest topics facing us as public servants is our schools, and most certainly our children, and one of the key areas that he addressed, throughout his campaign, was the size of school districts, specifically in Clark County, which is one of the largest in the country. He spoke of the amount of interest on the part of the parents of Las Vegas, and indicated that many of them wished to be here. He introduced Mr. Jeffrey Burr, School Board President. Senator McGinness noted that Senator Porter tried to get this meeting teleconferenced, but the teleconference room was booked up until early June. The chairman noted that Nye County, which he represents, is the seventh largest county in the nation, and he asked Senator Porter if he envisioned looking at geographical size, pupil size, or both of those in the study. Senator Porter indicated that when they drafted the bill, the intent was not to insult anyone in the state, so they did address the larger counties; however, he said his specific desires are to take a look at Clark county, and if the rest of the state is interested, they can do the same. He said his intention also was to form a bipartisan committee made up of legislators, leadership, and members of the community in southern Nevada. Jeffrey Burr, Private Citizen, indicated that though he is the president of the Clark County School Board he is speaking as a private citizen, since the school board has not taken a position on this matter. He said that when he went to school in California, he prided himself on "being a Nevada resident because we were small, our voices could be heard, [and] we had a real representative form of government." He noted that he was quite disturbed on returning to the Clark county to find that it is the 11th largest school district in the country. As a school board member he represented 150,000 people, and it is difficult to have sufficient time to give the attention needed to parents, and other members of the community who want to have an involvement and a say in their schools. He noted he has several studies, done by nationwide experts, that indicate that smaller school districts are more cost efficient, have more parent involvement, and student achievement appears to be higher in certain cases. He offered to present the interim committee with these studies if the bill passes. Senator Rawson indicated that this issue has been before the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, noting that it is a very complicated issue, and they are particularly concerned about maintaining the constitutional rights of everyone in whatever proposed divisions there might be. He said they have a model bill for financing, and a lot of states look to Nevada to find ways to maintain an equality for small rural or poor districts, and districts that have better financial resources. He stated this issue lends itself well to an interim study, where the staff and the committee do not have the pressures that they have in a session, and he wholeheartedly supports this study approach. Rhonda Nassersharif, Private Citizen, said that as a parent she was never really sold on de-consolidation; however, in the last 3 years as her children have been involved in the public schools, her opinion has changed rapidly, and she really believes that they need to seriously consider de-consolidation. She noted that the Clark County Council of the Nevada PTA (Parent Teachers Association) has already de- consolidated into three councils, and described how they work. She noted that recently she went to her first school board meeting, and heard one of the seasoned trustees speaking, and the trustee said "those aren't my kids," and she thought what does she mean they are not her kids? Parents do not feel that every trustee is looking out for the interests of all the children. She stated that de-consolidating the district will bring down the number of voters that each trustee is held accountable for, and the number that all the trustees must attend to. She indicated that another appealing aspect of de-consolidation is that it will create competition; that out of competition each district will be elevated to a higher level. She said that the de-consolidation study is a stepping stone to action that will provide the children with the opportunity for a better education, and that parents in the district will feel that the district personnel are accessible, that their needs will be listened to, understood, and acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Marcia Garcia, Private Citizen, indicated that what Clark County has now is not working; that the frightening statistics of dropout rates, test scores, teen suicide, and teen incarceration should be setting ear-piercing alarms that major systemic changes are needed. She stated that they need a smaller district to be able to better hold schools strictly accountable for results; to involve and be responsive to parents and the community; and to cut lose from the bureaucracy that is currently so stifling. She described the situation in the Shawnee Mission School District in Johnson County, Kansas, which has approximately 35,000 children, where communication and access was readily available to all, innovation flourished, and there was a sense of pride that does not exist in the Clark County School District. She asked the committee to support the funding of this study. Senator Titus indicated she was going to vote for this resolution, because we can not overlook any possibility for a way to improve education, but, she noted, most of the older schools in her district have reservations about pitting parents against parents, but they see the competition becoming worse as one district is pitted against another. She asked if Ms. Garcia if she thinks that is likely to happen if the districts are divided? Ms. Garcia responded that she did not think so, because instead of fighting for the same small piece of the pie, they will each have their own pie to fight for and, she noted, as a parent who does volunteer work in Henderson, there is a cooperation among them to do the best for all of the children. Senator James asked if she also supported letting students go from one district to another? Ms. Garcia said she thinks districts are going to have to have some interdistrict cooperation because you are looking at magnet schools, as well as vocational schools or schools for the severely handicapped, where you would have interdistrict agreements, and the children, and the dollars for those children, would follow to the other schools. Senator Coffin indicated that his district is an old one which has very little new construction, and that the construction is within the redevelopment area of downtown which only incrementally assists the education budget. Consequently, he noted, his school district would, and does currently, enjoy a benefit from being part of a larger district, because it shares in the wealth of the Nevada plan. He stated his district is barely growing, so not only is the growth of construction practically nonexistent, but the growth of assessed evaluation is almost nonexistent. He stated he can support this measure, as he has always felt that it was needed, and he thought that maybe making smaller districts would enable districts to compete against each other, creating a spirit of competition as opposed to competition for dollars. Ms. Garcia commented that being a member of the group that has been studying de-consolidation for over 2 years, they are looking at a funding mechanism, and one of the things suggested was special assessment districts which would benefit all children throughout the valley. She stated that the other thing is that the committee is concerned about equity for all children within this system; the committee does not want to tamper with the equity of the Nevada Plan, they just want to enhance what is already in existence. Melodee Wilcox, Private Citizen, who serves on the Attendance Zoning Advisory Commission described her difficulties in trying to effectively serve an area in which the schools she is assigned to are 30 to 40 miles from her home. She described school board meetings where 200 people have signed up to speak. She stated that to get almost any concern addressed with the district, a person must be on an inside track, know who to get to, and who to see. She said she does not blame any of the Clark County School District officials, as for the most part, they are all good hard working people, but in a district this large, they cannot function to the best of their ability. She indicated her support for S.C.R. 30. Barbara Cegavske, Private Citizen, indicated her support of S.C.R. 30. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, also indicated her support of the bill for the following reasons: Smaller school districts would allow for the creation of a greater sense of community and involvement. There would be more local control and local input especially by parents and taxpayers. The school district representing the smaller area would be more responsive, and there would be more representation in terms of the number of people on the school board as compared with the total number of voters. The people would have more access to the members of the school board who would then become more responsive to their concerns. There would be more flexibility in a smaller school district in meeting the needs of an individual, neighborhood, or area, instead of trying to cope with such large school districts. It would help to reduce the labyrinths of bureaucracy. Ms. Hansen said the Nevada Eagle Forum thinks this bill will be better for parents, better for taxpayers, better for children, and better for schools in terms of really being responsive to local communities. Senator Porter commended the presentations, and expressed his appreciation to the committee for their help and support. He stated that they have no intentions of changing the process in the Nevada Plan, which has worked so well for Nevada and is the envy of many states. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 30 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 21. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 21: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions. (BDR C-8) Assemblyman Robert Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17 reviewed his presentations to the committee from previous sessions. He stated that many states who supposedly have biennial sessions really have annual sessions; Nevada, North Dakota and one other state really have biennial sessions. The others, he said, either recess their regular session and come back the following year to handle budget matters, or they just simply call themselves into special sessions. Senator McGinness asked if it was true that sometimes they have some of special sessions running concurrently with the regular session; that they will meet in the morning in a special session on some topic, and meet in regular session in the afternoon? Mr. Price agreed that is not an uncommon practice. He then discussed the practices followed by different states having annual sessions, concluding that most have a regular session one year, and just a budget session the other year. He explained Utah's system, which meets 45 days a year; standing committees meet in the morning and joint standing committees meet in the afternoon, acting as a joint budget committee, taking testimony and sending back recommendations. Senator McGinness asked if they meet 2 days a week when they are not in session? Mr. Price said they meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays when they are in session. He then described their operation more fully, noting their sessions have a "time certain" for ending, and stated that A.J.R. 21 calls for 60-day sessions, absolute. He then discussed opinion polls identified in a pamphlet he had assembled for the committee. (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) He stressed some of the advantages of annual sessions. It would encourage more people to get involved because there was a "time certain" that they would be away from their businesses The same people could be serving on the same committees for the 2-year periods, making a smoother transition. Bills that were not completed in the first part of the 2-year cycle could be carried over to the second year. It provides a better balance of power on behalf of the legislature. A 2-year budget could be maintained, with yearly adjustments if desired. Mr. Price then described the rest of the contents of Exhibit E. Senator James asked Mr. Price how he came up with the average daily operating cost. Mr. Price answered that every session the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) furnishes him the average daily cost, and he used their figures. Senator James spoke to the problem of how the average daily cost is computed, because when comparing annual sessions with biennial sessions, legislators receive compensation for a different number of days. Mr. Price conceded that might be a problem and that some further mathematical adjustments could be made, but noted that the amount taken off on the end would help equalize the additional pay. He said he would work on it some more, but also noted that the amount of pay was also different. Senator Coffin stated that he thinks that the cost of the session is not necessarily the main driver here, it is good government, and noted that as a professional and a businessman, he is having a difficult time being here an indeterminate length of time. He noted they cannot get people to serve now, and that if there was some predictability of their absence from work, they would be able to recruit more good people to serve. Mr. Price agreed and indicated that there are charts in Exhibit E that indicate the mix of professions among other states that are on annual sessions, and he noted that the annual session does not dilute the mix. Senator McGinness indicated to the committee that in their packet there is a letter from Leola Armstrong, Lobbyist, Common Cause, indicating her support of A.J.R. 21, and said she had a conflict with this meeting (Exhibit F). Ms. Hansen indicated the Nevada Eagle Forum support for A.J.R. 21, particularly because there is a "time certain" when the Legislature is over. She spoke of the difficulties encountered for a citizen lobbyist to be here an indeterminate length of time, as well as the difficulties of getting citizens involved. Ms. Hansen described her experiences in other states which have annual sessions, and indicated that she thinks it is very important, that the Legislature have a definite date when it finishes, as well as a limited number of days in the session. She said it would be a movement toward better limited government, and one way to limit government is by limiting the time that they are in session. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.J.R. 21, and indicated that Robert Erickson had an informational item on the census, and informed the committee that there was a letter in their packet from the Bureau of the Census (Exhibit G) Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated that 10 years ago the State of Nevada was invited by the Bureau of the Census to participate in the block boundary suggestion program. The Legislature consented to participate because if they did the state gets to help the census bureau define the boundaries for the blocks that are used to put together the districting plans; if Nevada does not participate then the decisions, on the block boundaries, would be made strictly by the census bureau. Mr. Erickson said that this time the staff feels that they could get the feedback needed from the Legislative Commission or a subcommittee of the commission, but nevertheless, Mr. Malkiewich and he would recommend that the state agree to participate again in this program with the census bureau. He indicated he has already presented this information to the appropriate counterpart committee in the Assembly, which has agreed. A letter that goes to the census bureau, by the end of June, would include the signature of the majority and minority leaders of both parties, in both houses, and also the signature of the Governor. LCB is recommending that Mr. Malkiewich be designated as liaison with the census bureau since they are asking for a nonpartisan entity to serve in this capacity. Senator McGinness asked if Mr. Erickson wanted committee approval to send that letter or if is this just an informational item. Mr. Erickson said it was an informational item, unless the committee has objections. Senator McGinness summarized that basically they are asking the state to participate and if the state does not participate they are going to do it without input from the state. He stated the letter will have the signatures of both the majority leader and the minority leader of both houses. There were no objections. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Erickson if he knows about the amendment on S.C.R. 20 and how Senator Titus feels on that? Mr. Erickson replied that he has the contents of that amendment, and that he presented it to Senator Titus, and she said that it looks fine. Senator McGinness indicated that they would hold both Senate Bill 342 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 20 until next Tuesday because both bills need amendments, and Senator McGinness indicated that he needed to visit with Senator O'Connell on S.B. 342. The meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations May 16, 1995 Page