MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
May 1, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Tom Grady
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Chad Christensen
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Joseph Neal, District No. 4, Clark County
Senator Dennis Nolan, District No. 9, Clark County
Senator William Raggio, District No. 3, Washoe County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Good afternoon. I’d like to call the Committee to order. [Roll called] I’d like to welcome Senator Neal to our Committee. We will open the hearing [on S.B. 262].
Senate Bill 262 (1st Reprint): Requires certain abstracts of votes to be posted on certain websites or transmitted to certain public libraries. (BDR 24-906
Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4, Clark County:
[Introduced himself] The bill that you have before you today, S.B. 262, is a measure designed to have the voter abstracts from election departments delivered to the various libraries throughout the state. This bill has wide support. It came out of our Government Affairs Committee with seven votes in favor of it, and I think it passed unanimously on the Senate Floor. Various election departments throughout the state have given their support to this particular measure. We think it would enhance the voter understanding of the process by having these abstracts available in the various libraries.
The reason for the bill is I happened to have some kids who wanted to do some research, and they couldn’t get the abstracts. They had to go to the Election Department. The Election Department has a tendency, in some areas, to charge for these things. They decided that maybe we should have these abstracts at the various libraries since it is public information and involves the electoral process in terms of votes received by various candidates.
The bill before you is to allow the placement of the abstracts within the various libraries of the state. I ask for your passage of this bill.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Senator Neal. We have a question.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Senator Neal, I like the bill. My question is with regards to the abstract itself. I have picked up the abstracts from my election, and I got only one. Is there only one available, the one that lists by precinct and each candidate and then the number of votes by mail-in ballot, early vote ballot, and Election Day ballot? Is that the only abstract that’s available, or are there other numbers out there? If there are other numbers, does this want to get at all the abstracts?
Senator Neal:
That’s the only abstract that I know, per election, in which they combine the various races, and unless the number of votes that each candidate should receive by precinct, that’s the only one that I know of.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m glad you asked that, because that’s the only one I’m aware of. I know individual mail houses and companies that deal with that may have their own. But that’s not what we’re trying to get at here. You may be able to purchase those, otherwise.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Senator Neal, I like the concept of this bill. I don’t have any problem with the way it’s written. What would be your opinion on having these election departments post the abstracts on their Web sites? Would that be something you could see in the future?
Senator Neal:
I don’t have a problem with that. I think in Las Vegas they have some portion of that posted, but not by precinct levels where you can get the real feel of how the people are voting. What they give is the total amount of votes of each candidate, and you can get that on the Web sites right now. To ask them to post them on the Web site where you can go down and look at it, I don’t have a problem with that.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I was just thinking in the future I could see having that on the Web site, the actual abstracts of these. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Mr. Anderson and then Mr. Beers. You woke everybody up, Senator.
Senator Neal:
I thought it was a simple bill.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I like the first part of the bill. I’m a little concerned about the part where the city library is required to maintain a Web site by the city clerk. Aren’t all of the libraries in the state county-operated except for the university ones? Maybe you have something going on in Clark County I’m not aware of. Are there some special kinds of libraries in Clark County?
Senator Neal:
I think the intent was that we could have this put on the Web site. It’s good for people who have access, but there are a lot of libraries in communities throughout the state that might not have this particular technology to do that. So we ask that where it could be done they do it by electronic means. If not, then by having it placed in the library where people could go pick it up off the shelf and take a look at it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think, Senator, it’s on page 2, subsection 5, lines 40 through 43.
Senator Neal:
You’re talking about the transmission of it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Right. It’s an “or,” so I don’t think there should be a problem. I think Mr. Anderson’s asking, “Do we have city libraries?” I think the inference here is we have county libraries by library district, but they’re located in cities. I suspect maybe that’s why it was written that way.
Assemblyman Anderson:
If the county clerk in that county and the municipal clerk in the city and the Secretary of State are maintaining their Web sites by precincts of the various votes cast, are you envisioning another Web site being created? Why wouldn’t they all utilize a simple, one-size-fits-all? I’m trying to make it easier for the kids. How many Web sites are you envisioning them going to to get the number of abstracts there are? Are we making it more difficult?
Senator Neal:
I envision going to one particular Web site if that could be transferred to the library sites. You and I have been in these elections, and what we’re attempting to get at here is the fact that that information, in terms of precinct level, is not available on the Web sites that the Secretary of State has up. I think they have a booklet that you can get. To look at that information in terms of precinct level, they don’t have that. This would allow the person doing research to look at it from the precinct level up.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I don’t see this as mandatory, but they don’t have to create another Web site. It’s more like you can go into the library, call up the election Web site, and it’s linked to it. It’s still the property of the election, but it’s made available to those other locations via link if they happen to have one up and running.
Senator Neal:
If they don’t have it up and running, a copy of the abstract is available.
Assemblyman Beers:
I mean no disrespect, but when I see you Senators dabbling and writing technology into law, it gives me shivers. I think what you’re trying to do here is very commendable, not just because it’s a good idea for adults, but because you’re doing it for some kids that have the impetus to learn about this as well.
Here is what I would envision. I would envision that the Election Department would post on its Web site in each county, and I guess the Secretary of State stepping for those counties that aren’t big enough to have a Web site for their Election Department, the abstract in question, probably in the same raw text file that it is currently prepared by Clark County. You could probably, if they were really going to be helpful, they could do with it what we end up doing it once we get the text file, which is sucking it up into [Microsoft] Access, which makes it a little bit more useable and searchable, and then posting that file as something that you could download, then e-mailing the library district that it is now posted and available at this location and the library district, then disseminating that information to its branches. I say that because in Clark County, as you know, we have a number of different branches, and it might be a little complicated for the Election Department to track all of them, but it’s something that the library district headquarters does as a matter of routine business.
I’m not sure what I just described is what would happen the way this is written now, and I’m not sure that what I just described is what you have in mind, but that’s how I would see it going down.
Senator Neal:
What I’m envisioning with this particular bill is that the abstract data, organized by precinct, would be available to anyone who wants to see how a precinct across town voted at election time. That’s the idea of getting the abstract. How that is delivered, we tried to put in here that it could be delivered electronically to the library. I would presume in doing that that they would be able to download that to the various branches throughout our county. As I indicated, if they cannot do that, then the abstract would have to be mailed out.
Assemblyman Beers:
As I look at the original bill before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs got a hold of it, it’s pretty straightforward and not electronic at all. Then they came along and did the electronic part. What I’m suggesting is that the amendment they tried to get on I could probably make a little bit clearer if what I just described was the vision that you had. I would also think that we want to have the paper copy as well at these libraries, which is, I think, your original legislation.
Senator Neal:
Yes. That’s what it was about. The Senate committee did change that, and the people who were participating from the various election departments in the Senate agreed with it, and I didn’t have any problem with it. Of course, I was surprised at the number of people who came in and supported the measure. I thought we might have some opposition, which we did not.
Assemblyman Beers:
It’s a good idea.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I’m not sure what we resolved.
Senator Neal:
Well, we resolved that Mr. Beers is going to try to clarify this and make it more valuable.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think you’re absolutely correct, because I think paper is key. Some people want to copy it and then walk away, and they should be able to do that if they want to do it. Just looking at it on the Web does not avail them of that, so I think that’s your point, Mr. Beers, and I think that’s what Senator Neal’s original intent was. We will work to change that. If we have any language, we’ll get back with you before we take any action.
Senator Neal:
Let me just remind the Chair that in Clark County, in the general election, that abstract is thick. I’m not too sure whether or not that could be done without some type of cost being attached to it in terms of the paper that might be used to put this on. If someone were talking about getting it from the library, then I think the library would have to put a cost on that in terms of the paper to be used to develop the written copy.
Assemblyman Grady:
Maybe this question needs to go to Renee [Parker]. On city elections, they do not report directly to you in a timely manner to the Secretary of State’s Office. The city elections, with the exception of Sparks and Reno, are in the springtime of the year, rather than at the general election. Do they report those results to you, or would each city have to do what the Senator is envisioning?
Senator Neal:
What actually happened with the city election, they report the cumulative vote of the candidate, but not by precinct. What you can get off of the Web site is “X candidate is running and has a total amount of votes,” and show a percentage of those particular votes. They do not give a breakdown or the abstract of where those votes came from and who. They will tell you it was early voting or they voted on Election Day or absentee ballots.
Assemblyman Grady:
Would that satisfy what you are looking for?
Senator Neal:
It wouldn’t satisfy what I’m looking for in terms of this particular measure. I’m looking for the abstract that would show from the precinct level who voted and why. That becomes an area where the students who were concerned about this could go out and work and try to find out what’s happening with those people. If you look at 100 people and saw that 15 voted, they would go out and try to do research on it and try to find out why. That’s why we got involved with this. They wanted to have that information and get it from the library as a project, and they were not able to do it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I think that’s probably why your original bill had the election departments transmitting the actual abstracts, because that way everybody would have the same. Did the local governments testify in opposition to that part of it, Senator, or was the Senate just adding some more, and maybe we lost the initial gist of what you wanted?
Senator Neal:
Someone in the Senate, I’ve forgotten whom, suggested that we add the electronic part of it in terms of transmitting the data electronically.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So we could look at Section 1, for example, where it says, “Transmit on paper” and, if available, by electronic mail. I think that way we might capture what Mr. Beers was talking about.
Assemblyman Beers:
I would imagine that there would be no fiscal note on the electronic concept, or negligible. Potentially, as you pointed out, if it is a big election, and they’ve got a lot of library branches conceivably, there could be a paper cost, a shipping cost, associated with it. Electronically, I wouldn’t think there would be any cost at all. That may be part of what whoever suggested that was thinking. I think going paper or electronic removes the fiscal cost altogether, because nobody would do paper.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Mr. Anderson may have a point on that.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I think Mr. Beers is correct. It should remove the fiscal cost, but I believe currently the county clerks charge by the page to copy that abstract when you come in. I pay a fairly hefty sum of money for it each time in order to get a complete abstract of all the precincts. I get more precincts than just my own, because I want to know how the county is doing.
Assemblyman Beers:
And you pay for that?
Assemblyman Anderson:
I pay for that.
Assemblyman Beers:
In Clark County, it’s distributed in electronic form to the major parties at no cost.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Or one copy.
Assemblyman Beers:
Yes, I think so. But once it’s electronic—
Senator Neal:
Not to the public, though.
Assemblyman Anderson:
The advantage of having it all done electronically is that you can print that off at home, but there is still the cost of paper. We’re not making the local library pay for the cost of paper to provide to the patron to walk out the door with, are we?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
No. Let’s go back. If you put it online, there’s no cost, because they can download it if they have a computer. If they don’t have a computer to download it to, I think that’s why the Senator says there should at least be a hard copy available which they could then make a copy of if they wish to in the library—put their dime into the machine. I would also say, because it’s a public library, they shouldn’t be charging the county for that. It’s a public access. It’s a public entity to a public entity. If I, as a candidate, choose to buy it, then I may have a different vested interest, and I should pay for it. I think we’re making this more complicated than we need.
Assemblyman Beers:
I had some legislation that drew the attention of the library and archives folks earlier in the session. It was colorful legislation, actually. At any rate, as part of that discussion, I believe they stated that they have been the recent recipient of a very significant grant from Microsoft, and if it’s not already true, it will soon be true that there are no libraries in Nevada that do not have computers with public Internet access as part of their equipment.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
That would be wonderful. In fact, that would allow that if somebody did have access, that would open it up a great deal. That’s good to hear.
Assemblyman Conklin:
There’s a lot of banter going on between paper and electronic, and I think it’s important to note maybe somewhere in the rural counties there is a library out there that does not have Internet access. If we simply require the Secretary of State and the governing election body—for instance, in Clark County, it’s not the city, it’s the county, and the county runs all the elections—to post this data on their Web site, then every library has immediate access. We could put something in here that requires them to print that copy and publish it within their library in the periodic section or whatever, but once it’s posted on those primary Web sites, this information is out for free to anybody who wants it. For those who don’t have a computer, I would almost absolutely guarantee you in this day and age they could have access to a computer if they will go to the library. All of our college campuses, many if not most of our high school libraries, and probably all of our public libraries—at least in Clark County, I’m not real sure if there’s a rural county out there that doesn’t have access, but I just don’t see that as a possibility. That would pretty much take away the entire fiscal note for this.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Truthfully, I don’t see a fiscal note on it. There isn’t one attached. They’re normally in the back of the book now. It did say “yes” and “yes,” but I suspect it was a minimal cost. I don’t think we need to worry about whether there’s a fiscal impact. I think it’s more in just the mechanism of how it gets implemented. I would say to what Mr. Beers just spoke to, though, is that there is a grant to bring all of our public libraries on to the Internet. While that’s not a problem right now, they need some time to get that done.
We’ll work on this. I’ll get back to you, Senator, if there are any language changes before we take any action, and I’ll let you know. Thank you.
We’re going to move along. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on S.B. 262? Seeing none, we’ll close the hearing on S.B. 262.
Senate Bill 221 prohibits lobbyists from misrepresenting authorization from legislator. This is Senator Nolan’s bill. I know we contacted the offices. They just got out of Transportation. We’ll move on to Senator Raggio’s bill, S.B. 249. Is there anyone here on this bill? Okay. Let’s try A.C.R. 14. I can do that, because I wrote it.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 14: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint subcommittee to study election, ethics and campaign laws in this state. (BDR R-684)
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Basically, after last session, talking with many of the different clerks about some concerns, even in our Committee here we were discussing the whole problem—with NRS 293, 293B, 293C, 294, 294A, and so on and so forth. We thought it was probably time to take a look at our statutes, because we just add things, and we don’t always add them in the correct sections. Sometimes we have sections that conflict with other ones.
When we added the ethics language years before I got here, some of it was in a different area, but it may impact NRS 294. The thought was maybe it’s time we establish some kind of an interim committee study mostly run or handled by the clerks themselves, giving them the ability to take a look at what’s on page 2, which is reviewing your current election-related statutes, examining those to find inconsistencies, duplications, omissions, and errors, and an analysis of the needs, should certain things be eliminated, brought back as they’re antiquated, try to take into consideration the public, and come back with a recommendation to maybe consolidate.
Basically, it’s a small elections committee. It’s mostly clerks, but also for making sure that it’s staffed by one of our research or legal people so that they’re there and understand exactly what’s being discussed at the time. If they get into any kind of drafting down the road—and I think we talked about a legal person staffing it—they could rule out problems or questions before the clerks and registrars actually came up with any problems. That’s the genesis of this, and I’d be happy to take testimony.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
[Introduced herself] I’m in support of this bill, but I have a couple of things I want to talk about. On line 1, it says, “Whereas, participation in the election process is an important right for citizens of Nevada,” and then down on line 5, it starts, “have access to participation in the election process, whether that participation is as a candidate for office or as an elector.” I think that’s very important if you’ve included candidates because of the proliferation of candidates, I think, increases public interest and will increase the amount of people that are voting. Those are all goals that you’ve talked about in this committee.
Down on line 8, it talks about the statutes being well organized and comprehensible. This is one of the problems that we have found. We’re in court right now with the Ethics Commission over confusing and contradictory language in the statutes. I think that would be a very fine goal for this to be resolved so that the average person and the average candidate would be able to find it all in one place and know what’s going on.
I certainly applaud the effort of doing this. I’m just wondering if the reach of this might be increased to look at the idea of how these particular laws increase or decrease voter and candidate participation. I don’t know if that’s within the realm of your interest in this, if it’s just to organize and get this done, but I think in looking at our statutes with regards to whether they increase or decrease candidate and voter participation.
Since that’s the overriding goal of the Committee, as it seems to me, that might be a positive thing to do. If you go beyond that very narrow focus, I’m wondering if there shouldn’t be some other representatives from interest groups. I don’t know if that’s important. Are they going to hold hearings so people can go? Maybe that would be the way to have those people participate in that process.
[Ms. Hansen, continued] I’ve been in this committee enough to know the clerks have one point of view, and it’s a very excellent point of view representing the government. People that have actually participated in the process may have another point of view, like people who have participated as a candidate, people who have participated in a recall, or people who have participated in an initiative. It may be a technical aspect that the clerks represent, but the actual participatory process is another thing entirely. Perhaps there should be some people that are actually in that participatory process—at least invited to the hearings so that they can participate there with regards to that.
I wanted to just bring up one other item. Why I’m interested in this idea of increase or decrease in voter is because I think it’s important, especially for our young people, that we provide things that will help to increase their interest in the elections. I think that’s very important, because many of them feel disenfranchised.
I was reading in the May issue of Ballot Access News, a national newsletter that has to do with election issues, particularly ballot access issues all around the country (Exhibit C). I became acquainted with it when I was the ballot access coordinator for the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1996. It has a lot of very interesting election news about what’s going on in the other states.
This has to do with the Federal Election Commission. I bring it up, because I think it has to do with participation. The Federal Election Commission, interestingly enough, voted 4 to 2 to exempt the Socialist Workers Party from having to disclose its campaign contributors and expenditures. The party has held this exemption since 1982, when it won a case in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court said that when a party’s members are subject to severe harassment, it need not disclose the names of people who contribute to its candidates or its employees. This is very interesting, because this is the issue that, to some degree, is brought up in the NAACP case and the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court cases with regards to protecting people in cases where they may belong to an organization that is subject to harassment, discrimination, persecution, et cetera. Of course, when that happens, when the particular organization is subject to that, then it’s very hard for people to participate in it and expose themselves to that. They are limited in their ability to participate in elections.
I told you before my concerns about this issue, because my brother lost his job in a law firm on account of being picketed because of some of his political beliefs in participating in the party. These are just some of the issues that I see in the interest of increasing or decreasing candidate, party, and voter participation. I do support the bill, even if it goes exactly as it is, but I think we need to maybe broaden our outreach and our outlook on those things. As long as we have hearings that are noticed, I would like to be on that list to be noticed. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much, Janine. It would be a public hearing, so I have made a note. I think I wanted to start out with this one being fairly narrow so that we focused and looked at cleaning. Your concept of what we did, if we adopted any of those recommendations the next session, and an analysis of how that might impact people would be kind of interesting. I see that more as a second step, if that makes some sense. I will make a note that we would create a list, what you’ve done with the tax studies in other groups as to who would be contacted as far as that’s concerned.
Assemblyman Grady:
The last time that all of the election laws were looked at, one of the problems is we did not include city clerks. I think it was NRS 293C, if I remember right, is the city election section. I would recommend that maybe we put the city clerks, who have a pretty strong organization, and include at least one of them.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I would say one or two, in fact. Thank you very much, Tom. Are there any further ideas or comments from the Committee? Is there anyone else that wished to testify on A.C.R. 14? [There were none.] We will close the hearing on A.C.R. 14, and we will open up the hearing on S.B. 221.
Senate Bill 221 (1st Reprint): Prohibits lobbyist from misrepresenting authorization from Legislator to request certain services from employee of Legislative Counsel Bureau. (BDR 17-1057)
Senator Dennis Nolan, Senatorial District No. 9, Clark County:
[Introduced himself] With respect to S.B. 221, the bill that you have before you is quite a bit different than how it was originally drafted and came before the Senate. I’ll be honest with you, it was much more draconian on the Senate side. With the help of Lorne Malkiewich, we modified it. I think it’s more palatable and going to be a little bit easier to administer.
The genesis for the bill was, I think it culminated with the last session, with the activities of certain lobbyists that were, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues on the Assembly side, because that is where I had to experience the behavior, their behavior was far-reaching and went well beyond what the normal activities of a lobbyist should have been. In some cases, certain lobbyists were drafting and requesting amendments from staff that should have been drafted and requested by legislators themselves. The original bill would have had the legislator, in those cases, where the lobbyists were representing them to staff, give them specific written directions to those lobbyists on what they were asking them to have staff do on their behalf and to keep some written documentation of that.
[Mr. Nolan, continued] That would have been problematic from the sense that many of us ask lobbyists to work with staff on our bills and on other bills, and they need the flexibility to do that. What you have in front of you is something that doesn’t occur in the rules right now, and it’s in statute. That provides the director the ability to levy penalties against lobbyists, up to and including suspending their lobbying privileges permanently, if a lobbyist misrepresents the scope of authorization or essentially lies to the legislative staff when they are going to them on behalf of a legislator.
That’s pretty much the genesis of the bill. Over the years, especially when we suspend the rules, I know that many of you that have been around for some time, see the same thing where you might have people who are dominating the bill draft rooms so that not even a staff member of mine can get in and request bills or can’t get in to have an amendment brought out, because we have lobbyists who are not giving them access, which I thought was just absurd. This was an attempt to try to address that problem. With that, I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. Unfortunately, it has been a problem from time to time, so I think you’ve landed on an issue.
Assemblywoman Weber:
I wanted to find out if the penalties or consequences of violating this section are also in NRS 218 but not here, because it says it’s a new section.
Senator Nolan:
They are actually listed within the section of statute that provides the authority to the Director of the LCB. The penalties fall wholly within the Director of LCB’s purview.
Assemblywoman Weber:
So they’re already established?
Senator Nolan:
Yes.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
In your original draft, I notice that the Director “shall develop a form for use by legislators for authorizing.” Why did that language go away?
Senator Nolan:
The objections really came from LCB themselves. They felt that they didn’t want to so narrowly define what a legislator could do because often we have lobbyists come up to us, and we’ll make a call to staff and say, “Listen, so and so is on their way down to work this out with you.” You trust those people, and you send them down. Those things would be worked out. Those are 90 percent of the cases, maybe 95 percent of the cases. Five percent might represent where the lobbyist gets down there and actually starts going beyond the scope of what the legislator wanted. They felt that the form probably wasn’t necessary for it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
They could say, “I’ve been sent here by,” and the LCB could work with them, but they would verify at some point whether or not that was accurate in case the legislator had not called.
Senator Nolan:
Apparently, the committee, to consult with the Director, had addressed to some degree that issue as well. That information had been disseminated to staff to verify with the legislator if there’s ever any question about the intent of what the lobbyist is trying to convey.
Assemblyman Anderson:
We took this question up with the Legislative Commission this time, and you were sitting on the Commission at that particular time. You and I were both concerned about—and I know several other members of the Commission—were concerned about some of the things that took place in the last session. Do you think that we need to do much more than we’ve already done in tightening up the rules this time? How is the Director going to determine whether this has really happened, except after the legislative session is already over with and the harm potentially done?
Senator Nolan:
To answer your question, I think that this probably is necessary. It’s not necessarily all the time. Right now, what would happen, if a lobbyist lied to a staff member but was sent by a member of leadership from one house to the other, one party to the other, without this, based upon the rules, it would be up to the leadership to find an appropriate discipline of that lobbyist. It makes it kind of difficult to do that. When I sat down with Lorne Malkiewich and talked about this, what this does is kind of takes out the partiality that’s involved and leaves at the discretion of any sanction to the Director. I’m sure the director would do that in consultation with leadership if they really determined an infraction had occurred.
Assemblyman Anderson:
Is this in some way run around the committee chairmen? We, as individual legislators, still have the right to approach. I don’t like the idea of sending somebody down there. I have taken people down there and asked them to do things that we’ve all agreed to, but I don’t like taking up the time of Research or the bill drafters when we’re so busy doing something to see if it looks good.
Senator Nolan:
I appreciate that concern. I agreed with Lorne about that particular issue, and that’s why we kind of came to this language. The practical application of this would be if you had sent somebody down because you, as a chairman, were overwhelmed, and they went down there and misrepresented to staff what you had told them, and they intentionally misrepresented, and the amendment that was drafted by staff was drafted reflecting their misrepresentation. At that point, you, as a chairman, could say, “Listen, I told you to go down and talk to them about this, and you clearly misrepresented what I said to them,” and as a result, now we have unintended consequences, a bill that passed with a huge amendment. Maybe you get a 200-page amendment with three sentences, or “may” to “must,” or a “shall” to “may,” and all of a sudden you have a calamity. There should be some sanction against somebody who would intentionally do that. That’s kind of where this goes, and all it does is create in statute the ability for the Director to have some sanctions against a lobbyist who intentionally lied to staff.
Assemblyman Anderson:
That is presupposing that the member is not going to read the amendment that was drafted before he submits an amendment to the Floor. I know that we occasionally find things in the middle of amendments that we had not anticipated, but to me it almost speaks to the fact that we don’t trust the member to do what he or she is supposed to do, and that is review the amendments for themselves before they submit. That’s kind of our responsibility. We have to take responsibility for that, too.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
If I might interject at this point, I think you’re quite right. That is our responsibility. If you send someone down to do some work on your behalf, my opinion is you should let them know you’re coming down. It’s your obligation and responsibility to read whatever it is that comes back. I think what you’re trying to get here is simply putting the policy on the book if something does occur. I think it has cleaned up over the years, but we have had problems in the past. At least the Director, if it comes to his or her attention, has an ability to be able to interact. I don’t want to over-read this nor under-read it, but I think that’s really what you’re trying to get at.
Senator Nolan:
That’s correct.
Assemblywoman McClain:
By having this language, it sends a clear message to the lobbyists that we’re not going to tolerate any more of what happened the last session.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. We have no further questions. We appreciate your time. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on S.B. 221? [There were none.] We will close the hearing on S.B. 221 and we will open the hearing on S.B. 249.
Senate Bill 249 (1st Reprint): Creates Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs. (BDR 18-766)
Senator William Raggio, Senatorial District No. 3, Washoe County:
[Introduced himself] I didn’t expect to testify on this measure, because so many other people were interested in it and testified at the Senate hearing. I’m sure they didn’t get notice, or they would have been here.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Right. We only had you and Senator Townsend, and that’s who we contacted.
Senator Raggio:
In fact, I wasn’t told about it. They just advised me that you had scheduled it. I can tell you there are a number of people that are very interested in this measure. Those representing the minority groups in this state requested this. Among those who testified, from memory, was Burt Ramos, from the Reno area, and several from southern Nevada. I can’t recall all the people that did testify.
This was a response to a concern they’ve had for a number of years. They wanted some kind of a commission that had some recognition by the state where they could have some appointees and meet and feel like their voices were being listened to, and that they communicate with one another on the various matters that you see set forth within this commission’s authority. It indicates that they will study matters affecting social and economic welfare, well-being of minorities, disseminate information, and do all these things. They would meet 3 or 4 times a year, and have this kind of a recognition and official status, if you well, to make some recommendations for legislation. That was the primary concern that they addressed. I think this went through our Committee on Government Affairs.
I really can’t add a lot to that. It’s pretty self-explanatory. There is no money put into it. Maybe at some point that could be, but as you know, we have created some other commissions in the past that have developed. We have the Silver Haired Forum that does this. With the increase in the percentage of minorities in this state, we felt it was appropriate, so we did approve this in the Senate. I think it passed unanimously in the Senate. I support it, because I think it’s recognition of the importance of the growing population of minorities, particularly Latino, and certainly African-American. I think this gives them some feeling that those concerns are being more formally recognized. That’s really what it is, to address the concerns that they have.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I see that in Section 10 it allows them to collect revenues or dollars from grants, and so forth. If so, they can pay the commission at least for the purposes—
Senator Raggio:
That’s correct. It also does provide that the Department of Administration would provide some staff assistance to them, and apparently that was not a problem. We received no objection.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I had actually passed a law back in the early 1990s for Hispanic studies based on the business recommendations, and we sunsetted that. Maybe it is time to take a look again. We are, in this Committee, being very sensitive to standing committees, commissions, and so forth. Would you have an objection if we consider a sunset clause at some point?
Senator Raggio:
I wouldn’t care. I think you would have to ask them that. I think they are the ones that feel this is important to them, and I didn’t want to minimize that feeling, so we thought this was the best way to approach it.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
What I might do, for the Committee’s benefit, as well, is see if I can get a copy of those that signed in support from your house, so that they could see who testified in support of it.
I do apologize again, Senator. We had called your office back on the 17th, and they selected this date, so I had made the assumption that you had been notified. So I do apologize.
Senator Raggio:
Then I’ll take them to task.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We just want to make sure, because these are important issues, and when the time is getting crunched, we’re trying to make sure we get with everybody. Are there any questions for Senator Raggio? [There were none.] Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on S.B. 249? Seeing none, we will close the hearing on S.B. 249.
We don’t really have a work session document. I think on Tuesday we’ll bring up the study committee on the public employee benefits. I got some amendments, which I’ll have copied. One is from Tom Grady, who came up with a couple of good ideas of suggesting RPEN [Retired Public Employees of Nevada], local government, labor, medical, health insurance, Medicare, and state employees. I’ll have Michelle [Van Geel] put that into the work document for us to consider as to the makeup of the board. I also have some language from Woody Thorne that suggested some information, and then making sure that some members of private sector and some equitable balance, I had written up some language that I’ll give to you. At least for Tuesday, we will look at that one and try to see if we can get that study moving.
You’ll see that Michelle was kind enough to do a list so far of what interims we have to consider (Exhibit D). Three is usually the magic number. I haven’t reviewed it yet, but we’ll get you that copy. So far, we have 4 in the Assembly and 7 in the Senate. Yes, it’s including yours, Senator Raggio. We listed yours, because we knew it was coming over to us. That way, at least we won’t have as hard a decision to make. Sometimes we might have 10 or 12 to have to pick 3 from. It’s very difficult. We’ve been pretty good. We took the nursing ratio study, and we put it under the statutory Health Care Committee so we didn’t have to create an additional study. We’ve been trying to be sensitive to that part of it so that we deal with some of the more weighty issues. We’ll start with that next week.
I’ll take up Mr. Malkiewich’s LCB bill at that time. If the Committee wishes to discuss anything regarding consolidation or sunsetting standing committees, I found out that we can still request a bill from the Committee to do so if we wish to, so we still have that option. We can take that up next week as well. We’ll probably do A.C.R. 11 next week.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I appreciate the printouts back to 1997. Do we have a compilation table of the total number of bill drafts requested for those past things? It seems to me there was a historic document I remember seeing someplace.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Lorne, I believe, is getting that for you based on what the Legislative Commission had at one time.
Assemblyman Anderson:
There were so many bills that were requested, and then how many were actually introduced. I see these, but I don’t see a comparison. So we don’t have a single piece of paper. There was a single piece of paper at one time that showed how many were requested as a raw number, and how many were actually introduced by the Assembly, how many pieces of legislation were requested in the Assembly, and how many were introduced. In this calendar year, how many were in the Senate?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It’s in the front of our roll books, and we could probably have them pull that out of there. We get the summary of the legislation after we pass in the front of that. How many years back would you like?
Assemblyman Anderson:
At least two sessions before we did the 120 days.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So you want a session or two before the 120 days. If 2,000 were requested and only 1,000 were drafted, how many were passed? We could get a picture of what that volume was.
Assemblywoman McClain:
When did we put those limits in?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It was in 1999. That was when we last updated them, because Barbara and I worked on them with Lorne.
Is there any further business? [There was none. The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kelly Fisher
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: