MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session June 13, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:15 p.m., on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson Senator Mark A. James Senator Dina Titus Senator Bernice Mathews COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Bob Coffin (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Jack D. Close, Clark County Assembly District No. 15 Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Michelle Erb, Student Aide, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ande Engleman, Private Citizen Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County Donald J. Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts Donald R. Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association The chairman announced that he had approved a bill draft request (BDR) for Dr. Kenny C. Guinn for his efforts during the interim at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and that he had also approved BDR R-2108. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2108: Commends Arlene Hayes for her courage and efforts to support victims of violent crime. Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 279, and introduced Assemblyman Jack Close. ASSEMBLY BILL 279: Revises provisions governing requests for legislative measures. (BDR 17-1366) Assemblyman Jack D. Close, Clark County Assembly District No. 15, provided written testimony for the committee regarding A.B. 279 (Exhibit C), and noted he thinks that the committee agrees with the need to try to reduce the number of bill draft requests that are submitted on a biennial basis to the Legislature. He discussed his process for determining the number of BDRs to be provided to various entities, noting that he met with members of the Legislature, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), cities, counties, organizations, and associations, to find out how they felt in regard to this issue. Assembly Bill 279 is, he stated, the compilation of a compromise dealing with the issue of trying to limit the number of bill draft requests. Senator Raggio complimented Mr. Close because, as a new member of the Legislature, he has honed in on one of the real problems that has been plaguing the Legislature for a long time. He indicated that the committee has been looking at an even more limiting version, which would be to require that bill drafts be submitted only by legislators. Senator Raggio noted that in Exhibit C, Mr. Close has ascertained that the average amount for each bill, just to do a bill draft, is $600 to $650, and he said that several sessions ago, the cost was about $550. He remarked that legislators do not realize how much it costs just to draft these requests. He suggested that they ought to pool all of these ideas, see how legislators can work together on these measures to establish reasonable limits, and still protect the public's interest by making sure that something that is needed is not precluded from being considered. Mr. Close indicated that one thing which is different, from what has been requested by the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, is that local government would have the responsibility to have a public hearing on their bill draft requests before they are submitted to the Legislature. He noted that some of their testimony indicated that heads of county governments do not even know that bill drafts are being requested. Having a public forum, he continued, would open up the government process, because the people would know what the government entities are requesting. Senator Raggio mentioned that he has also suggested that they prioritize their requests. Mr. Close replied in the affirmative. He stated that, because local governments have to submit their requests in August, priorities can change by the time January arrives. Senator McGinness asked if, in fact, he was eliminating all different associations or nonelected persons? Mr. Close confirmed that is correct, noting that obviously this is going to be difficult for some individuals, but he believes it still has to go through their county government. Senator McGinness indicated they would continue to take testimony on A.B. 279 but would also allow testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 563 which limits bill draft requests even further. SENATE BILL 563: Limits sources and number of requests which may be submitted to legislative counsel for preparation of legislative measures. (BDR 17-2063) Ande Engleman, Private Citizen, said that A.B. 279 is her second choice, and that obviously what she likes about the bill is the public hearing. She noted, that all too often, the public never knows that their city, or their county is requesting legislation. She stated she has long felt that it was unfair that government got special treatment that the people, who elected them, did not have. She said that there should not be the "attorney-client" privilege for local government and the Legislative Counsel Bureau, because how else is the public to know, that what has been requested from the bill drafter, is exactly as was presented in a public hearing. She indicated that S.B. 563 makes an even playing field for everyone throughout the state, and she supports it completely. It goes to the heart of the matter right away, it simplifies things, everybody has to go to a legislator, and that is the way it should be. Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, indicated he had some amendments to offer on A.B. 279 and distributed Exhibit D. The reason for the amendments, he explained, is that on line 3 of the first reprint, the school district is completely left out. He stated that the school districts are not mentioned anywhere in the bill, and they feel that the school districts should have equal status with the other local governments, as they have in the past, with respect to the ability to make bill drafts requests. The intent, he emphasized, is to put the school districts and the school boards in the same connotation as the cities and counties, because they feel that they have, and should have, equal status when it comes to the authority and ability to request bill drafts. Senator McGinness asked what his comment is on public hearings on bill drafts before they are presented, as provided for in A.B. 279? Mr. Etchemendy said they would have no concern about that; they could be placed on the regular agenda and discussed, and he agreed that it is appropriate public information. Senator McGinness asked if they testified on this bill in the Assembly? Mr. Etchemendy said they did not, noting that the original A.B. 279 was considerably different from the first reprint. He noted they were not aware that anything was going to occur, and they had no indication that something like this would come up. Senator McGinness observed that the original bill says "the local government" which would have included school districts. Mr. Etchemendy agreed, noting that there are several places in the statutes where the school districts are identified as local government. The chairman asked if he had reviewed S.B. 563? Mr. Etchemendy said he had reviewed that bill, and that they have no insight as to its intent; it appears that the only way that anyone can have a bill draft request made on their behalf is through a legislator. He stated that, from his rough numbers, it seems like the potential for the number of bills would be approximately equal to those of the current session. Senator McGinness asked if S.B. 563 were in effect, would the session get even more bills, or approximately the same? Mr. Etchemendy said approximately the same, and described his procedure for arriving at that conclusion. Senator James said that is like comparing apples and oranges; that it is comparing the maximum potential that would be introduced under S.B. 563 with what was actually introduced under the existing law. He stated it seems one should compare the maximum potential under existing law with the maximum potential under S.B. 563. Mr. Etchemendy said the other concern they have is that under S.B. 563 organizations, such as theirs, would not have equal access to requesting bill drafts as do others who have more public stature. Senator McGinness said this came about when the committee was discussing limiting the session, and limiting bill drafts is a way to shorten the session which is the intent of S.B. 563. Mr. Etchemendy replied that the school districts and the school boards association do not request a tremendous amount of bills, and he is sure that they could be accommodated somewhere "down the road." James T. Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance, said in S.B. 563, page 7, it appears the bill repeals references to the Board of Regents and their right to request bills on their own, along with constitutional officers. He asked if this is being taken care of somewhere else, or does S.B. 563 intend to preclude a constitutionally autonomous Board of Regents from requesting directly to the Legislative Counsel Bureau for bill draft requests? Dr. Richardson stated it is not clear what A.B. 279 would do in terms of impacting the Board of Regents' ability to request bill drafts, but in S.B. 563 it actually seems to preclude that. Senator McGinness replied that is correct; legislators are the only people that can request bills in S.B. 563. Dr. Richardson confirmed that a constitutionally autonomous Board of Regents would be forced to come to an individual legislator in order to seek introduction of a bill? Senator McGinness agreed and stated that A.B. 279 allows the constitutional officers and the Board of Regents to submit requests to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Dr. Richardson remarked that since that is being left in A.B. 279 then he would have to argue in favor of A.B. 279, at least as regards that provision, and go on record with that registration of opinion. Senator Raggio explained that over the course of time, the Legislature has developed a laundry list of officers, entities, public sectors, associations, and groups, who have direct entre into the legislative and bill drafting process. He asked how do you allow one entity on the list, and turn other people down? He stated that the consensus was, and it was pretty much bipartisan, that the Legislature ought to get back to having the people, who are elected by the public, handle the bill draft requests, and that it should not be a practical problem, because everybody has access to the legislators. Dr. Richardson answered that he appreciated that, but he made the point that a duly elected Board of Regents is significantly different from an employee organization. Senator Raggio said he was not singling out any particular associations, but he noted that cities and counties are also elected people, and if you start opening the door it becomes unmanageable, and that is the problem that the Legislature has run into. He commented that a lot of legislators, who are elected to represent the public, have expressed concern that their requests are placed in a secondary position to all these other requests that do not come from elected legislators. Senator James adding to what Senator Raggio had said, noted that the average citizen who is not a governmental entity of some kind, has to convince a legislator in order to get something introduced in the Legislature. But, he continued, any other governmental entity, and all kinds of different associations and groups, can just go directly and get things considered: The average citizen, who is the most constitutionally autonomous body in the state, is not able to get past that hurdle without convincing a legislator. Senator Titus noted she has been on record for years voting in favor of narrowing requests, and making the very same arguments. She said she has 125,000 constituents and she can only put in 20 bills, and she asked why should Clark County get to have 85 bills? Senator Raggio described the process in Colorado which limit bill draft requests to legislators. He said they have a late bill committee which further limits the number of bills that come in during a session. Nancy Howard, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, stated they are in support of A.B. 279. They think it is a fair compromise. Regarding S.B. 563, she cautioned that the Legislature not tie the hands of cities and counties even further from governing their own jurisdictions. Senator McGinness asked if S.B. 563 should pass, would the system be workable, if the Clark County bills were divided up among their legislators, providing about 2 per legislator? Ms. Howard stated she is not sure, indicating that they have discussed this scenario previously, and their biggest concern is that legislators wanted to keep their bill drafts for their constituents. Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Strategic Issues Manager, Clark County, indicated she would like to echo some of the concerns that Ms. Howard brought up. She said if you look at the total number of bills that came in from southern Nevada, from Clark County in total, that there were a lot more than 85 bills when you include the cities, school districts, and all the special districts. She agreed that they would encourage evaluating this very closely. She noted that they worked closely with Mr. Close throughout the preparation of amendments on his bill to try and reach a compromise to get the best of both worlds without abusing the system. Senator Raggio said both Ms. Howard and Ms. Fretwell represent legislative bodies, the city council and the county commission, and he asked does not a citizen have to go to a member to get an ordinance introduced? He stated their members should be able to convince a legislator that something is worthy enough to get a bill draft request, and, also, that this would probably free up the time of a legislator who would handle those kinds of requests. He noted that they may be overreacting, because this process is in effect in major legislatures throughout the country. Ms. Fretwell said she understands exactly where Senator Raggio is coming from, and yes, that is their process for creating agenda items. She stated that of the things that may help S.B. 563 work well, is if they had more flexibility at the local government level to clean up some things. She declared, that as long as they are entirely dependent upon the state, that the problem is that this may tie their hands, and in effect, make them less able to serve the public at the local level. She pointed out that they just want to be able to strike a balance so that they are not inundating the Legislature with things it does not want to deal with, or does not need to deal with, and at the same time balance the state's interest versus the local interest, without compromising either of them. Donald J. Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, expressed his concern that allowing only legislators to request bill drafts, as proposed in S.B. 563, may cause some inefficiency and increase the cost of government, at least with respect to his office. Currently, he stated the three judicial associations get together, discuss concerns, and come up with the bills they believe are needed. Senator Titus requested that the committee make a comparison of the two bills. Senator McGinness began by stating that in S.B. 563 the bill drafts come only from the legislators, everybody else is precluded, and would have to come to a legislator for a BDR. Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, continued, noting that standing committees could still request bill drafts as they do now, and that there were no limitations on the number of measures which may be recommended by interim studies, or requested by standing or special committees. A.B. 279 limited interim studies to 10 per study. Discussion continued on the limitations of BDRs placed on legislators, committees, constitutional officers, local governments, and associations. Senator Titus noted that A.B. 279 does not change the existing limitations on legislators or constitutional officers. Mr. Erickson indicated that if it is the desire of the Legislature to continue those limits, the Legislature would have to pass another concurrent resolution this session in addition to a bill. Senator McGinness indicated that the committee discussed that at the end of the last session, and decided not to make any changes. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 563 and A.B. 279 and opened the hearing on S.B. 553. SENATE BILL 553: Makes various changes concerning legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1278) Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), said that S.B. 553 is a bill that LCB requested through the Legislative Commission that combines several minor changes in the law, that are based on suggestions from the LCB staff. He spoke from Exhibit E which summarizes each section of S.B. 553. Asking if he could digress for the moment, Mr. Malkiewich indicated the need for a Senate resolution to appoint the members of the Legislative Commission, stating he is currently working on drafting the legislation, but he needs a bill number. He requested committee approval of a bill draft for a Senate resolution appointing the members of the commission. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR A SENATE RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN AMD RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Ande Engleman spoke as a citizen of Carson City, and a member of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, indicating that she has problems with section 1 of S.B. 553 (which deals with establishing a gift shop in the legislative building), in that it allows the government to go into competition with the private sector. She stated she would not mind if the space were leased out, with some oversight by the Legislature, similar to the gift shop in the Nevada State Museum which carries only items from the museum. Senator McGinness asked if that is not the same thing? Ms. Engleman replied not necessarily, because I think they were going to sell newspapers and things like that. She reiterated that she is opposed to government getting into competition with the private sector, and would prefer that it were done through a privatization or public-private partnership. Referring to A.B. 279, she pointed out that on page 2, lines 27-29, the confidentiality of the legal work product is insured, and she does not have a problem with that unless the bill is going to allow local governments to directly request bills. Then, she said, she does not feel that the bill draft requests made by local governments, which are supposed to be on behalf of the public, should be kept confidential from the public, who, after all, is the client. Senator McGinness confirmed that this was not a problem if they passed S.B. 563. Ms. Engleman agreed, but expressed concern that the passage of S.B. 563 means that there will be almost total confidentiality on the bill draft request list. Mr. Malkiewich stated that S.B. 553 is not an all or nothing proposition, and If the committee wants to limit it to leasing the space, or to only selling very limited things, they have no objections. He said the important thing to them is that whatever is agreeable to the committee gets passed. Senator Titus stated she thinks selling souvenirs in this building is a good idea, and she does not think it is in competition with other businesses in town, because other businesses are not selling things that say the Nevada Legislature on them. She continued, noting that many visitors might want a lapel pin, or a flag set, or a legislator might want to buy something to give to some constituent who is in town visiting. She noted that these are not things that are available anywhere else in town. Mr. Malkiewich asserted that was exactly where the requests came from, and that they would be glad to limit it to souvenirs that specifically refer to the Nevada Legislature, or whatever the committee desires. Senator Mathews said she absolutely would not want to see the government running a shop in the building, that it has to be a bid process. Mr. Malkiewich said he would not want to see the other things in the bill held up because they could not absolutely get everything they asked for. He concluded that the gift shop is something people have expressed an interest in, but it does not matter to him whether it is private or handled by LCB. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on Senate Bill 553 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 32. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to require that standing committee hear and consider only information made available to public. (BDR R-1988) Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated that A.C.R. 32 is a committee introduction in response to concerns expressed that there always should be adequate notice for the public regarding measures that are being heard or debated in committees. She explained that their committee felt that the six items in A.C.R. 32 are the items that needed further clarification, and she explained each item. Senator McGinness asked if this would have to be adopted every session? Ms. Giunchigliani said yes, that they would add it in now, and in the next legislative session they would determine whether or not they wanted to keep it as part of the rules. Senator Rawson said, as he interprets the bill, it would limit a committee from hearing issues that are not already in law, or proposed to change a law, or drafted to change a law. He explained that sometimes, in his committee, they will discuss subjects that are informing the committee, but they do not address a particular section of law. He asked if this is covered by this bill? Ms. Giunchigliani replied that item 5 is where they had discussed that concept. Senator James indicated that the committee that he chairs started at the beginning of the session to work through the difficult problem of crime, and to come up with a comprehensive crime bill, and he asked if that would come under item 5? Ms. Giunchigliani said yes, and provided examples such as: If the committee was looking at repealing certain sections, those section numbers would be posted. If the committee would be discussing certain sections in a document, those section numbers would be posted. Senator James asked if the language on line 18 would prevent a committee, who is working toward the development of a bill, from using a report or presentation that is not related to a specific bill, but is related to something that is going to be a bill? Ms. Giunchigliani said it would not prevent that. She clarified that if there are any documents that are being made available as a process is going through the committee, that at least the public would have access to the documents. Senator McGinness asked if a committee had some documents, and if it was posted on the agenda that copies of this document are available in a particular room, would that suffice? Ms. Giunchigliani agreed that it would, and indicated that currently in the Assembly, they list, in the work session part of the agenda, the bills that they might be taking up, and make available any amendments. Senator Titus said this would have been helpful to have this in place when they did the crime bill, or the SIIS bill. She noted it is helpful to constituents, helpful to the press, and helpful to the members of the committee to stay informed, when they do not happen to be on the specific subcommittee. Senator James pointed out that this was the process they used in the crime bill development process. Ms. Engleman indicated her support of A.C.R. 32, noting that she has had problems in both the Assembly and the Senate. She stated what is important is that the Legislature insure that adequate information, adequate notice, and adequate access to information is provided for the public, thus allowing interested parties to know what to prepare for, and what the focus will be. She concluded that this bill is trying to insure that the public can understand the discussion, and follow along with it when they go into an open meeting. Donald R. Ham, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association, said the press association wants to go on record as strongly supporting A.C.R. 32; they think it is another in a number of real positive steps that this Legislature is taking toward more openness and accountability. He stated the better informed the public is, the better job legislators can do for the public. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 32, and opened the hearing on A.C.R. 39. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 39: Designates Director of Legislative Counsel Bureau as energy retrofit coordinator for buildings occupied by legislative branch of government. (BDR R-2067) Michelle Erb, Student Aide, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit F). Senator McGinness thanked Ms. Erb for her presentation. He closed the hearing on A.C.R. 39, and opened the work session. Regarding A.C.R. 11, Senator McGinness said that Ms. Engleman has requested this bill be held while she confirmed the information that Ms. Erdoes, in an Assembly committee meeting, had expressed the opinion the Legislature is not covered by the open meeting law, in or out of session. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 11: Amends Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly to provide for enforcement of requirement that all meetings of legislative committees be open to public. (BDR R-442) Senator McGinness opened discussion on A.C.R. 12 reminding the committee that Assemblyman Bache testified earlier regarding the reorganizing of chapter 616 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 12: Directs Legislative Counsel to reorganize and divide provisions of chapter 616 of NRS. (BDR R-1465) Senator McGinness noted that Mr. Malkiewich has also indicated that LCB can do this project within their budget, and that it would not take any additional staff. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO ADOPT A.C.R. 12. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS COFFIN, MATHEWS AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. ***** The chairman advised the committee that there would be a Thursday meeting to hear the remaining resolutions. The meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations June 13, 1995 Page