MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Constitutional Amendments
Seventy-Second Session
May 9, 2003
The Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendmentswas called to order at 1:04 p.m., on Friday, May 9, 2003. Chairman Harry Mortenson presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Harry Mortenson, Chairman
Mr. Bob McCleary, Vice Chairman
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Michelle L. Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kim Morgan, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel
Sheila Sease, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bob Price, former legislator and former member of this Committee
Lucille Lusk, Cochairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
The Committee on Constitutional Amendments will come to order. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll? [Roll called.] We’ll skip the things on the cell phones and all of that and the testimony and get to work; we have a veteran audience here. Let’s open the hearing on A.J.R. 7.
Assembly Joint Resolution 7: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to provide for limited annual legislative sessions.(BDR C-43)
Chairman Mortenson:
We all have an amendment for A.J.R. 7 (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Giunchigliani isn’t here, is she? It might be a good idea to call her. Mr. Price?
Bob Price, former legislator and former member of the Committee:
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani is in another meeting, and she asked me to keep an eye open for when she should come speak.
Chairman Mortenson:
That’s fine. Do we have one extra copy? Mr. Price, we have amended this bill significantly, and you probably won’t recognize it, based mostly on Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s recommendations, but I think it contains everything you wanted. Ms. Van Geel will go through the bill. If we like it, we’ll amend and do pass.
Michelle L. Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:
All of the Committee members should have in front of them a copy of an amendment (Exhibit C) prepared by the Legal Division on A.J.R. 7. On page 1, you’ll see the language that the Committee discussed that requires the Legislature to adjourn no later than midnight on the 120th legislative day within 140 calendar days. That allows the Legislature to take a break around some of the deadlines, like drafting, for Legal and other divisions to catch up on some of the work. It would also limit regular sessions in the even-numbered years to 45 calendar days. That session would not have any breaks.
On page 2 is the language from Mr. Mortenson’s A.J.R. 13 concerning the Legislature calling itself into special sessions.
On page 3 is the language allowing annual sessions. The top is pretty much cleanup language, since the Legislature would be allowed to call itself into special session. Down further on the page, it would allow the legislators to be paid for 120 days of service in odd-numbered years and 45 days of service in even-numbered years. At the very bottom of page 3, it puts back the language concerning $60 for postage.
On page 4 are limits on the topics the Legislature may consider during special sessions. You’ll recall, at the last hearing, you wanted to tighten up the language so that you can’t hear anything other than what was on the proclamation calling the special session. The last part on Section 12, Article 17, of the Constitution of the State of Nevada deletes the “biennially” regarding sessions. That would allow the Legislature to meet annually. The other is just a change to the summary.
In your work session document (Exhibit D), page 3, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had one other suggestion. It’s under tab A. There was a concern raised at the last meeting and in discussions with the Legal Division that the language limiting the topics to be dealt with in special sessions would have been limited strictly to budget matters only in both of the sessions.
[The amendment under tab A is recognized as the wrong amendment. Ms. Van Geel stated that she would get everybody the correct amendment.]
Chairman Mortenson:
If the Committee would look this over, review it, and if it meets with the approval of the Committee, we’ll do an amend and do pass motion. Look it over the way it is now. We’ll have one more amendment. While we are waiting for copies, I will let Ms. Van Geel read it to you gentlemen.
Michelle Van Geel:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will distribute copies in a moment. This amendment was from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani. There are two different options here that she’s suggesting. The first would be not to limit the scope of an annual session in either year. This option is consistent with existing constitutional provisions that do not limit the scope of the regular session. The proposed amendment would remove subsection 4, lines 11-19, on page 3 of A.J.R. 7. That option provides maximum flexibility for the Legislature to consider legislation on all possible topics. Of the 33 states that have limits on their annual legislative sessions, only 5 limit the scope of either session. If necessary to increase support for the proposed constitutional amendment, the 2005 or 2007 Legislature could pass legislation enacting a statute that would become effective upon approval of A.J.R. 7 that could limit the scope. But, again, that would be done in statute rather than in the Constitution.
If the Committee does not like the first option, then the second option could be not to limit the scope of the annual sessions in either year but to provide language that the Legislature’s first priority, in the regular session in the even-numbered years, must be the preparation and consideration of budgetary matters. I guess the priority of both sessions would be that, and a variation of the amendment could be to include the priority requirement only in the provisions relating to the even-numbered year. That’s for the Committee’s discussion.
Chairman Mortenson:
So you’re saying, when the first priorities have no restrictions on either session, the second option is to have no restrictions on the odd-numbered years but have budgetary matters only?
Michelle Van Geel:
The second option here would make budgetary matters a priority, but, technically, there wouldn’t be any limit on the scope. I think some of the rationale here was that the Legislature would need to limit it in some way, even if it were just with BDR limits. If you only have 45 days, you can’t hear as many bills. Basically, you leave it up to the Legislature to internally require those limits, rather than putting it in the Constitution.
Chairman Mortenson:
Comments from the Committee?
Assemblyman McCleary:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, because presently we’re regulated by our leadership as to how many BDRs [bill draft requests] and such are heard, they’re just going to use reason and do the same with the 45-day session. I don’t think that we need to touch on this, unless somebody has any argument to the contrary.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the original purpose of having annual sessions was to have the 45-day session just for budgetary items to begin with. I really have a problem with trying to open it up to anything else at this point in time. If they want to do that in 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, they could take a look then. If we were to go to annual sessions, we should just keep that 45-day session for budgetary items.
Chairman Mortenson:
I agree with you. I think we’d have that same rat race then that we are having now, only a little worse, because everybody would want their bills passed during that session, on every subject. Further comment?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with you and Mr. Gustavson that if we are going to have annual sessions, we need to just open it up to a little bit, not the whole gamut of everything, unless there’s some special considerations or special things at the time. That might be necessary but, until then, no.
Donald Williams, Committee Policy Analyst:
This is a follow-up to the research that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked me to do. There are only 5 states that have limits on their scope of the 33 states that have annual sessions. One of the items is purely a policy decision. If you limit it to budgetary matters, that means there are no other matters, including emergency measures that may not be budgetary, which can be considered. It would strictly be budget and, for any emergency measure, it would require the governor to call a special session, so that is something to consider. Of course, your provision for the Legislature calling itself into special session would require a special session and not a regular session.
Chairman Mortenson:
Do some of the states say budgetary and emergency measures?
Donald Williams:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. The memo I provided last meeting stated that four of the five states have provisions for emergency measures, and two or three of them vetoed measures from their previous session. Louisiana is the only state that focuses strictly on fiscal matters, which includes both taxes and budget. This is just for your consideration. I’m letting you know what some of the states provide. I’m not making a recommendation or suggestion. That’s up to the Committee. If you want to go purely budgetary, that would be something that can be drafted. The Legal Division can draft it. It’s already basically drafted in the current A.J.R. 7, as it exists.
Chairman Mortenson:
In my opinion, it might be a good idea to add budgetary and emergency measures. Any comments?
Assemblyman McCleary:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My feeling on this is that we live in a world that is changing so quickly. The reason I supported annual sessions is so that we maintain flexibility to respond to things as they change, not just budgetary, so I have to put that out to you. If you want to keep it mostly budgetary, we need some kind of flexibility in there to allow us to respond to changing needs.
Chairman Mortenson:
Mr. McCleary, I agree with you. I think the best Constitution is the most flexible, but there is also a question in my mind of getting this past the public. I can see where there will be an enormous number of people who oppose this simply because it’s just adding more bills and more bills, especially if we were to allow other bills of all varieties to be considered. That’s my opinion. Are there any further opinions, gentlemen?
Assemblyman Sherer:
That’s where I’m coming from, too. I think we need to start in baby steps. We don’t need to open this up all at once. Maybe that’s something they can do down the road. I think this is something we definitely need to do so we’re up here annually, so we don’t have to wait two years to fix what we have to fix.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I have another suggestion, which just came to my mind. Think this over. What if we limited bill drafts to committees so that the committees as a whole would have to bring it up, if they felt it was important enough, with no BDRs for individual legislators during the 45-day session?
Chairman Mortenson:
That’s an interesting concept. Mr. Price, do you want to comment on this? This is your bill, so to speak. While Mr. Price is coming up, Mr. Gustavson?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn’t have much of a problem opening it to emergency measures, but we would need a definition of what emergency measures are.
Chairman Mortenson:
Good point.
Bob Price:
I was going to point out what Mr. Gustavson just said with regards to the emergency. Having served 28 years, you know that everything comes down to someone’s opinion or a committee’s opinion of what an emergency is. This is something I’ve been working on for many years. I have felt, and I think most states do, that the Legislature itself has the authority to decide what it wants to do once it gets going. If you put restrictions in the Constitution, that actually, in my opinion, limits the options available to the Legislature, those members who are elected to be the people’s representatives. I’m glad to hear the talk about the Legislature calling itself into session, and not just the governor. I respectfully feel that the language should be as open as possible. I could see a limit on the number of bills in a period of time, but I think all those options should be left up to the Legislature itself in the adoptions of rules and leadership.
There was a mention about citizens’ response to this. In every single poll that has been done for years, going way back, the percentage is about 70 percent who feel we should have annual sessions. Now, I have said before to some degree, since everyone is coming from states that have annual sessions, while they may not like politicians, they recognize that business does need to be taken care of. The percentage of support for annual sessions is way, way up there, and it has been for quite a number of years. It’s also been supported by several of the newspapers. I would respectfully hope and request that you give consideration to your widest possible options and just have session. If we want to make rules and so forth on limitations, that certainly is reasonable.
Chairman Mortenson:
Are there any questions for Mr. Price? Ms. Lusk, you have a long history of watching this process go on far longer than most of us up here. I value your opinion, especially on whether you think there will be repercussions of opening it up as wide as possible. Do you think we can open it up and let the Legislature set the agenda for the short sessions?
Lucille Lusk, Cochairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
Thank you, Mr. Mortenson, and members of the Committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to address that. It’s actually very difficult to say what public response might be. It’s been my experience, over the years, that polls are like a snapshot in time, that’s what people are thinking at that time. But when campaigns get going and the issue gets discussed from both sides, opinions often change. Our view is that another session that is completely unlimited would be a serious mistake.
However, in listening to your discussion of budgetary matters and emergency issues, if you were to look at doing emergency items, Mr. Gustavson’s point is well taken. As you know, the Legislature almost daily declares items to be an emergency, and that definition of emergency is simply, “We want to get it out of here today.” I understand that, but I don’t believe it’s what the people would have in mind. When that constitutional provision was put in requiring the declaration of emergencies for certain items, the people did not perceive them being declared so freely. They had in mind there being a common sense interpretation of emergency, such as a significant fiscal harm to the state, a significant safety risk to the people, that kind of thing. If you wanted to do emergencies, it would be that kind of definition I think you would need for the people to believe it really meant emergencies.
[Ms. Lusk continues.] Mr. Price has a point, and others have stated it, too. If you are going to have an annual session and you view it as necessary to do the business of the state on a regular basis, you want to give yourselves the maximum options, which would be to place no limit on it. But you are correct, there will be those, including us, who will oppose it, if it is unlimited and creates another pressure cooker every additional year.
Could I ask a consideration of one other item? Would you consider the possibility of perhaps breaking up some of these issues into more than one bill so that, when they are placed on the ballot, the people are not faced with having to accept annual sessions and increased pay, all in one bill? I would really like to see a bill passed that would get the legislators paid for every day of service. But, if you mix it in with all these other things, I think it weakens its chance for passage. I would like to see them divided into individual items so that the people can find the ones they really support and pass those, and not have the ballot question so mixed up that it ends up like a “Christmas tree” bill. That’s just a thought for you to consider, and, of course, it is your decision, as always.
Chairman Mortenson:
I have chanted that mantra over and over and over again to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and she has been totally the opposite. She’s saying, when you give many different choices, it will be confusing, and nothing will get voted through. I personally don’t believe that. I would like to hear from Mr. Price on that issue. We must have five constitutional amendments in here. My feeling is if one person doesn’t like one of them, he will reject them all. Ms. Lusk has suggested what I have suggested. Mr. Price, if you don’t mind, I’d like to hear your point of view.
Bob Price:
Thank you. I’m inclined to think, if we got too many questions, it does get confusing. If the citizenry was looking at five different constitutional amendments, and passed this one and not that one, I think there would be some confusion. I personally have favored leaving as broad a spectrum of options to the Legislature itself, but I think, either way, it would be an improvement over what we have now. I really have felt it’s so difficult to get all the information out to the citizens, particularly if you are dealing with something you’re probably not going to have various groups putting out mailings and doing TV commercials every five minutes about, like many companies do. And, here we are, the fastest growing state in the country.
[Mr. Price continues.] One other problem to a small degree, or to some degree, exists if we are thinking of only dealing with financial items. I didn’t mention this a while ago, but it is when members come in who have not served on the money committees, the process becomes more difficult. All of us take the words and follow the actions pretty much that are recommended by our different committees. I think my personal first choice would be to have it be as we outlined, an annual session in which the Legislature could handle all of the items, including limiting the number of bills. As opposed to doing nothing, I certainly would support breaking it up into other questions. I personally think it would be better to have it all in one, though.
Chairman Mortenson:
Comments from the Committee on multiple bills or all in one?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I agree with Ms. Lusk. By putting everything into one bill, there are things I would agree with to help pass this out of the Committee, but with everything in here right now, I would not vote for the bill. If we want to put this into multiple bills, and I think the public feels the same way, three or four questions would not be too confusing.
Chairman Mortenson:
Further comments?
Assemblyman Sherer:
I agree with you, too, Mr. Chairman. We need to split this into a couple of separate bills, if we have a chance to get it out. That way, it will have a much better chance for a couple of them getting by and, next session repeating the process of change again.
Chairman Mortenson:
Any further comments? This bill is getting a lot of work. Mr. Gustavson, go ahead.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Mr. Chairman, I might ask a question of Legal or LCB here. Can we break this up into separate bills at this point in time, or do we have to have separate committee sponsorship, or what? It is a resolution, so I’m not sure.
Michelle Van Geel:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, at this point in session, the Committee may request a resolution, which is what this is.
Chairman Mortenson:
It looks like we are unanimous on feeling it would have a much better chance if it were broken up. Suggestions on how we should split it? Mr. Gustavson, which one don’t you like?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
The annual session should be one bill. The pay for every day of service should be a separate bill. Also, calling ourselves into special session is a bill.
Chairman Mortenson:
We could leave that one out, because we have the exact language in A.J.R. 13. Then, there’s another provision in here that would allow us to break up the 120‑day session into a 140-day length, but it would still be the same 120 days that we would work. We would give Legal, those hard-working people, a break, so they could catch up on the bills and amendments. We would be home and not getting paid.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
That would be four, if you separated each one.
Chairman Mortenson:
Annual sessions, pay, calling into special sessions, which is taken care of by A.J.R. 13, so we don’t need to worry about that, so that’s only three. Do we break it into three, or two and have two in one?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
My opinion would be three. We have A.J.R. 13, which makes a total of three.
Assemblyman Sherer:
I also think it should be three.
Chairman Mortenson:
Let’s work on the provision of the restriction on the 45-day session. Do we try to leave it as wide as possible and say that the Legislature shall make regulations on what will be done in this 45-day session, or do we restrict it to budgetary or budgetary and emergency, where we define emergency?
Assemblyman Horne:
I understand the argument. If you put restrictions in the Constitution, it limits our movement, but I think it also provides parameters. The rationale of why we were considering the 45-day session was to handle limited matters so we did not have to wait the full two years. I think it’s appropriate to say budgetary concerns and, as Ms. Lusk stated, it is true that the definition of emergency measures in practice, as opposed to what is in the dictionary, is quite different. If we were to do that, we would end up with a 45-day session with 700 bills, so it should be just budgetary. That would probably fall into a truer definition of emergency measures, should those arise.
Chairman Mortenson:
Ms. Morgan, do we have any statutory definition of emergency or emergency measures, or does it include everything?
Kim Morgan, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel:
For this purpose, there is not a definition of emergency, which would mean that the normal definition of emergency would be thought to apply, as some of your folks have pointed out. You have another provision in the Constitution that says, “except in cases of emergency,” bills have to be read three times. Your body, toward the end of session, declares things an emergency. That’s probably the Webster’s definition there, so you have some practice already at expanding that word. The short answer is, no, there’s not a definition.
Chairman Mortenson:
I’m wondering if we have enough time to define emergency or do we leave it out and do budgetary? Comments from the Committee?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
The main purpose is budgetary. How can we add something to it without it being open-ended and without constitutionally restricting it to certain items? Maybe Legal could give us an idea of how we could put some type of limits in there, but what type?
Kim Morgan:
It seems the policy choice that you’re making is whether you want the Constitution to set the parameters of what you can consider in the shorter session, or whether you want the body at the time, under its rules, to limit it. Now, you are very clearly limited on how many measures you can request and the time frame in which you can do it. When you get to topics outside of the budget, many of you will be disappointed if it only says budget, because of that notion that “Oh, well, we need to fix it,” or, “That isn’t really what we meant last time.” Unless, you wouldn’t be angry when we say, “That isn’t monetarily related or is unrelated to the Executive Budget.” If you can live with that, then go for it. You may want more room.
Chairman Mortenson:
One possibility is that the 45 days will be regulated by the legislative rules and regulations. Mr. McCleary.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I brought this up earlier. I don’t really want to limit it to budgetary items, because we could run into other things in that session. At the same time, I don’t want it open-ended so that we can go on forever and have 700 bills. That’ll be a mess. If we worded it right, we could authorize leadership to give each committee so many BDRs and put it in some kind of wording like one or two BDRs, whatever they wanted to do. You have to leave that open, I think. I don’t want it to say an urgent or a pending matter, not necessarily emergency, but something that the legislative body or that standing committee feels is important and needs to be addressed at this time, and it cannot wait until the next session.
Chairman Mortenson:
That could be done legislatively, right?
Assemblyman McCleary:
Could it? You don’t think it’s something we need to put into this language?
Chairman Mortenson:
I believe the leadership will not want the boiler pot going on during the 45-day session, and they will restrict it properly. They work harder than we do, and they’re going to make sure this is not chaos.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I’m just looking for a way to put some type of restrictions on what we can do up here during that period of time, without tying our hands completely from being able to respond to urgent, pressing matters.
Assemblyman Horne:
Leadership changes. While present leadership may adopt that philosophy, in two to six sessions from now, that may not be the case. People might be asking us why we didn’t limit the kinds of issues that could be considered. Didn’t you say that someone might abuse your intent?
Chairman Mortenson:
A suggestion, Mr. Horne? I don’t want to put you on the spot. I thought maybe you had one.
Assemblyman Horne:
I understand what Mr. McCleary is saying. However, I think that it may well have been addressed, and it could have been tackled earlier in the session. But now we are coming down to the wire, and I don’t know if we can do that. I don’t like to rush something through that is going to be bad. It seems we are trying to force something to fit. Maybe we shouldn’t be.
Chairman Mortenson:
Time is getting short. Maybe if we break this up, pass several of them through and let this one hang for a little while, for a week perhaps, we can come up with something. Maybe our legislative counsel can help us out on this. I think they hear what we are saying. Mr. Sherer?
Assemblyman Sherer:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking, since we don’t want to tie our hands, maybe we could cut back on the number of BDRs we request. Each legislator could have one or two and a committee could have five, something like that, or maybe two per committee. That gives a little leeway but doesn’t open it up to a myriad of items.
Chairman Mortenson:
I agree we can set, legislatively, what we need to do, but, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, it ought to be legislative and not constitutional for those matters. Do we have any further suggestions?
Kim Morgan:
After hearing the words you all have been saying, a possibility is to limit it to the consideration of the budgetary matters and matters needing expedient attention. Then you have made the point that it needs to be important, maybe time is of the essence, but you haven’t limited it by topic. Vital and pressing are very good words. If you just wanted a sense of urgency, we could go there instead of by subject matter.
Chairman Mortenson:
Could we ask the Legal Division to come up with some language for our next work session on that particular section of the bill? Mr. Gustavson?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I’d like to add that this expediency has to be determined by somebody, so I suggest leadership. We all realize leadership changes, but each and every one of us, regardless of party affiliation, chooses our leaders to represent us because we respect them as persons to make these decisions.
Chairman Mortenson:
Let us take a vote on whether or not we believe this should be broken up into three different bills: the 45-day session and its regulation, the change in the 120-day session to make it 140 days, and the pay for days worked. Do I hear a motion?
Assemblyman Gustavson MOVED TO BREAK a.j.r. 7 into three different bills: the 45-day session and its regulation, the change in the 120-day session to make it 140 days, and the pay for days worked.
Assemblyman McCleary SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
Let’s talk about the 120-day session. Does it look fine as far as you can see? We could move to make a new A.J.R. out of Section 29A.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Mr. Chairman, we could use the same A.J.R. 7 for one of the three, so it’s only one or two more that we need. We have A.J.R. 13 and A.J.R. 7; we just probably need two more.
Chairman Mortenson:
Yes, we could make that one A.J.R. 7.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Just amend the other two portions out of it.
Chairman Mortenson:
I have a motion then, I believe, to amend A.J.R. 7 to include only Section 29A.
Ms. Morgan:
Before you become very concrete in your motions like that, some of these provisions overlap, and it would help me if what I got was a direction to have a resolution on pay, a resolution on special sessions, or one for annual sessions. I’m going to need to probably go further than 29A, for example, in that one. So, maybe, just let us do what we need to do.
Chairman Mortenson:
I would accept a motion to amend A.J.R. 7 to have the language indicating 120 days within 140 days. Is that your motion, Mr. Gustavson?
Assemblyman Gustavson MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 7 with the language that the Legislature shall adjourn sine die each regular session held in an odd-numbered year not later than midnight on the 120th legislative day of the 140th calendar day, whichever occurs first, and any legislative action taken after midnight of the 120th legislative day of the 140th calendar day of that session is void unless legislative action is conducted during a special session.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
We will now consider requesting a new BDR that will address the salary question. Do I hear a motion that we request a BDR to address the salary provision?
Assemblyman Gustavson Moved TO request a BDR to address the salary provision.
Assemblyman McCleary SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
We will request a BDR and, I guess, then, if we’re requesting a BDR, we cannot go any further on this, Ms. Morgan?
Ms. Morgan:
You can probably decide that once you have it, and you’re free to introduce without another meeting.
Chairman Mortenson:
The Chair will accept a motion that once we accept the BDR regarding the language change for salaries, as you see it on this yellow paper (Exhibit C), we are free to introduce it without further permission. We received a motion and a second to request a new BDR. That is passed. I would accept a motion that when the BDR is returned, it will be introduced without introduction.
Assemblyman McCLEARY MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BDR WITH THE LANGUAGE CHANGE FOR SALARIES AND INTRODUCE IT WITHOUT FURTHER PERMISSION.
Assemblyman Sherer SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
The Chair would accept a motion for a new BDR for annual sessions.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER MOVED FOR A NEW BDR FOR ANNUAL SESSIONS.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
Now the Chair would accept a motion that when the BDR is received, it will be introduced.
Assemblyman McCleary MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE BDR WHEN IT IS RECEIVED.
Assemblyman Sherer SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
Mr. Price, you are looking puzzled.
Bob Price:
The only thing I am wondering, because I don’t quite understand the procedure, when you consider it introduced, are you saying that you would not be expecting to have any more hearings?
Chairman Mortenson:
Just the BDR is introduced to the Committee in order that we won’t need to meet behind the Bar to do that. Today, we have taken care of all four provisions of A.J.R. 7. A.J.R. 13 went to the Floor on Thursday. We will close the hearing on A.J.R. 7 and open the hearing on A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session.
Kim Morgan:
Just from a drafting standpoint, given that you have no limit on the number of resolutions you can draft, given that basically we have already drafted much of this anyway, is there any chance that you want to leave one of these as a vehicle that has everything, and have your separate ones, in case you want to handle it as a package, and there aren’t changes along the way? Or, do you to get rid of the total package, even though you have the option?
Chairman Mortenson:
We have a few Assembly Joint Resolutions left, but I get differences of opinion on whether they must absolutely strictly stick to the title number or whether there is a little leeway in there. We have A.J.R. 1 and A.J.R. 2, for example. Those are lottery bills, which are currently going nowhere. Could we not use those for a vehicle for any other measures we might have?
Kim Morgan:
I’m sorry. I was meaning as a measure that handles all of these issues in one bill, the one you have before you, using A.J.R. 7 as all of these issues and having a couple new ones that break out each of those into separate bills. Now what I hear you saying is you’re taking A.J.R. 7 and making it just one topic. You have a couple of new ones with one topic. What you don’t have anymore is one that really does have all the issues as an option. If you don’t want that as an option, that’s fine. I wanted to make it clear what I was hearing.
Chairman Mortenson:
We are getting so close to the end, I find it hard to believe that we’re going to do much else. Maybe you have more knowledge than I do on this. Do you think it would be wise to preserve A.J.R. 7 and have another BDR?
Kim Morgan:
I’m not talking as a vehicle for something else. I’m talking as a vehicle for what you have. If you don’t want to run this as a package, the answer to my question is, “No.” That’s fine.
Chairman Mortenson:
I think we voted that we do not think it would ever get passed as a package. We will open the hearing on A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session and A.J.R. 9 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Joint Resolution 1 of the 17th Special Session: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise certain provisions relating to system of county and township government and compensation of certain elected officers. (BDR C-27)
Assembly Joint Resolution 9: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to require each board of county commissioners to determine salaries of certain county officers in its respective county. (BDR C-1301)
If I remember from our last work session on A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session, virtually everything in that bill was rejected by this Committee. I am wondering if we might use this as a vehicle to try to fix the problem where the Legislature just does not give people raises. It would probably be smarter to use A.J.R. 9 as the vehicle. The Constitution says the Legislature will be the entity that raises salaries for elected officials, but we don’t do it. We are way behind. We have discussed various ways that we might fix this problem. One way was a commission, but this body soundly defeated that idea.
Another suggestion was that every session the Legislature will address the question and take action on salaries. In other words, the Legislature will vote on a salary for the county sheriffs, either up or down or the same, but we have to do something. The thought behind this is to force the Legislature to consider it every session, then they will, at least, do something and probably, at a minimum, put in a 2 or 3 percent cost of living increase. We won’t get so far behind as we have in the past. I’d like to hear some discussion. We’ve trounced A.J.R. 1 of the 17th Special Session and taken out everything except the matter of providing salaries for elected officials, unless this Committee desires to fix, or alter slightly, the Constitution.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
We do have an unlimited number of resolutions we can use, and as this has already passed in the 17th Special Session, it either passes identical to what it is now or we throw it out and start all over. We would start with a new bill with whatever ideas we come up with, if we come up with an idea.
Chairman Mortenson:
A.J.R. 9 would be the better vehicle. We have already been advised of that. We are working on A.J.R. 9, essentially one provision, if that is the will of the Committee. Do we leave the Constitution exactly the way it is or do we fix a system that is not working? I personally believe this would be a fix. If the Legislature has to look and act on the salaries of elected officials, we wouldn’t be so many years behind at this point. We would probably at least give them a 3 percent raise as a minimum. Any discussion?
Assemblyman McCleary:
As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying that we are going to add a provision in the Constitution that states that we must review the pay of all elected officials biennially and must take some action. I don’t have any problem with that.
Assemblyman Horne:
The whole commission would be gone, and we are placing the responsibility of pay raises solely with the Legislature?
Chairman Mortenson:
In the last meeting, the Committee was unanimously against a commission.
Assemblyman Horne:
I would need to see what it looks like before I voted on anything, particularly on the raises of elected officials. I know we would like to give them all the raises that are long overdue. I agree, and it’s our responsibility. However, one of the responsibilities of the Legislature is recognizing the “pain of the populace.” Now we are also asking for enormous tax increases.
Chairman Mortenson:
Mr. Horne, in my opinion that problem is going to be solved legislatively. There are several bills now talking about a 30 percent increase or smaller increases. I don’t think this Constitutional Committee should have anything to do with that. I think we should set broad policy in the Constitution. What I am saying is that we have a vehicle here, A.J.R. 9, which deals with the compensation of elected officials. I don’t think the Committee has any appetite for the way it is written, judging by our last meeting. What do we do? Do we ignore the problem or do we use this vehicle to change the Constitution to fix the problem. If we change the Constitution to say that the Legislature every year will act on the salary increases of elected officials, then they will have to do something. We are not specifying what they are to do; we are saying that they must consider it every session. Does the Committee have an appetite to pass a constitutional amendment that says the Legislature will consider the salaries of elected officials every year and either increase, decrease, or do nothing with them? It is a slight modification of the Constitution.
Kim Morgan:
It would help to have some concrete language in front of you. From what I think I hear you saying, what I would draft would be “the Legislature shall biennially set the compensation of” those officials.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
I thank Ms. Morgan for that language, because I wasn’t sure what to come up with. We do take action every session on these issues, usually by taking no action on the bills. So, if it says, “biennially set,” we would have to do something.
Donald Williams:
You might want to clarify in your motion whether you are talking about both state and local officers.
Chairman Mortenson:
I would clarify it to say all officers for whose salaries we have a constitutional responsibility, including us.
Kim Morgan:
So including you and the governor, every tier of elected official?
Chairman Mortenson:
Do I hear a motion?
Assemblyman Gustavson:
So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mortenson:
The language of the motion would be what Kim said.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
The Legislature shall set salaries during each odd-numbered year session.
“The Legislature shall biennially set the compensation of” followed by whom it applies to. I was starting to work on all state and county elected officers, but what I’ll need to do is figure out how to describe all of the salaries that the Legislature sets.
Chairman Mortenson:
Does this put an enormous burden on the Legislature or can this be done relatively simply?
Kim Morgan:
The mechanism of having a bill in front of you where you figure out what number to put in it isn’t particularly an onerous burden. As you say, we already drafted a budget bill. There is a state salary bill that comes every year. As you’ve noticed, you do consider several local government salary bills. I don’t think the workload will increase. You will now have the duty to make a decision. That might be hardest part.
Chairman Mortenson:
Do we have a motion?
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.J.R. 9 TO ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT “BIENNIALLY THE LEGISLATURE WILL SET THE COMPENSATION.”
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Mortenson:
Is there any further discussion?
Donald Williams:
We have completed the business you brought before us today. Unless you have any other items to bring before the Committee, we are finished.
Chairman Mortenson:
If there is no further business before this Committee, the Committee is adjourned [at 2:28 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Chairman
DATE: