MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
May 16, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:23 a.m., on Friday, May 16, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 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. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, Elko County and Humboldt County (part)
Mr. Warren Hardy, Senate District No. 12, Clark County
Ms. Maggie Carlton, Senate District No. 2, Clark County
Mr. Dennis Nolan, Senate District No. 9, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Nancy Haywood, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ray Masayko, Mayor of Carson City
Bernie Curtis, Douglas County Commissioner
Norman Frey, Churchill County Commissioner
David Humke, Washoe County Commissioner
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Gary Wolff, Teamsters Local No. 14
Mark Fiorentino, Representing Lincoln County and the Vidler Water Company
Randy Robison, on behalf of the Virgin Valley Water District
John Pappageorge, representing Lincoln County and the Vidler Water Company
Mick Gillins, representing the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning. Assembly Government Affairs, please come to order. Madam Secretary, call the roll. [Roll taken.] I’m going to open the hearing on Senate Bill 53. At about 8:55 a.m., some folks need to leave, so we’re going to be taking about a 20-minute recess at that point.
Senate Bill 53 (2nd Reprint): Increases compensation of elected county officers. (BDR 20-21)
Ray Masayko, Mayor of Carson City:
[Introduced himself.] I’m here on behalf of county officials. Joining me this morning is Douglas County Commissioner Bernie Curtis, Churchill County Commissioner Norm Frey, and Washoe County Commissioner and a former member of this body, Commissioner David Humke.
[Mayor Masayko continued.] We’re here to positively testify on behalf of S.B. 53. We are here on behalf of all county officials. We understand and support the district attorneys’ and sheriffs’ salary bill. I certainly think they support the other county officials who are deserving. These county officials’ salaries were last considered in 1995. They are probably not likely to be considered again until 2009. That’s a pretty good-sized gap.
As county officials, we are all in solidarity. It makes no public policy sense to us to have the sheriffs and district attorneys as a separate salary bill. The clerks, the treasurers, the auditors, and the recorders are here today. They are elected officials and they are professionals. They run and operate an office as a department head. We require them to work at these jobs full-time. We believe that all county officials deserve the salary increases that are proposed and amended into S.B. 53, and at the time that S.B. 53 asks that those salaries be implemented.
There is important work to do in these bodies over the next two weeks. This is a matter that, although the Legislature has purview over, the financial impact of S.B. 53 will not be felt by the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance Committee in this house and in this body. I represent the Legislative Branch of local government, and I commit that we will find the funds to grant these increases. It is a local government financing issue.
Bernie Curtis, Douglas County Commissioner:
[Introduced himself.] I am serving my second term on the Douglas County Commission. I am a former law enforcement officer for over 30 years, and I’ve worked for 6 sheriffs. We support the raises that are anticipated for sheriffs and district attorneys, but we also don’t want you to break up our team. In county government, we all work together for the betterment of our communities and many elected officials are full-time employees. They raise and support their families on the salaries that are given to them and authorized by you. These are their jobs and, at this particular time, one-third or more of their employees are probably making more money than they are. That’s just not correct. That’s unacceptable. We urge your support on this important bill, S.B. 53, to keep the counties and elected officials together.
Most counties have budgeted for this, but if they are unable to do this at that time, there’s a provision for waiving that. I think we’ve taken care of most of your concerns. I was asked last time whether a county commissioner in Douglas County was a full-time job. I’d like to get it down to 40 hours a week. It hasn’t been that way in 6½ years. We all have second jobs in the rural counties to try to make a living. At $18,000, that’s just not appropriate for communities, at least in my case, that have budgets that exceed $100 million. I urge your support of this bill, S.B. 53, and urge you to let this go and let the counties take care of their business.
Chairman Manendo:
I am sympathetic to that. Your statement was keeping them together. If an increase is not approved, where are they going?
Bernie Curtis:
If an increase is not approved, I think you’re going to affect the quality of people we have in county government on a negative basis. It’s more difficult as time goes on and with the salaries being placed in this particular area, it would be 14 or 16 years before raises were thought of for clerk treasurers. You are going to affect the quality of the people or you’re going to make them retired from other things or wealthy when they come into the job. In my estimation, it’s inappropriate to do that. We may differ in opinion, but I believe you need to take care of your elected officials. That’s what we’re trying to do here.
Norman Frey, Churchill County Commissioner:
[Introduced himself.] One of the ways that it negatively impacts the offices is the people we bring up through those offices. A lot of times somebody will come up through the Treasurer’s Office, and if they see that the treasurers are not receiving fair salaries, we’re not going to be bringing people up who are qualified to take those positions in the future. It’s that future that we need to protect for our families, and that goes for every office, the recorders, the assessors, the clerk, and the treasurers. It is truly a team.
In rural Nevada, and in Churchill County where I’m from, our teams are healthy, and our communities are healthy because we have good, qualified people in those positions collecting the taxes, assessing the taxes, and taking care of those jobs. It’s the responsibility of the Legislature from time to time to adjust the salaries, and that time has come and gone. Traditionally, it was done every six years. In the last Legislature, it was split off and the judges got salary adjustments, but everybody else got left behind. We’d like to keep the teams together to keep from having animosity come between our teams.
As was said earlier, these are department heads. We’ve taken care of our employees in our counties already. By and large, our county employees are getting paid appropriate wages. In Churchill County, we’re doing a study to make doubly sure that the salaries paid to all employees are fair. We’d just like to have that consideration.
[Norman Frey continued.] The other thing to consider is if we wait two more years, the situation is not going to get better. Instead of having to raise our salaries 30 or 33 percent, you’re going to be looking at 60 percent, and that’s not going to look any better at that time. I hope you see it in your heart to do what’s right here and give to the hardworking employees in our community. I manage an 800-acre farm and I’m very active in it. We’re irrigating today and I should be there. I’ve had to have neighbors come in and help me, but I thought it was important to be here to take up this very important issue for all of our elected officials.
David Humke, Washoe County Commissioner:
[Introduced himself.] I served on this Committee two years ago, and I enjoyed that very much. On a personal note, it brings me great pain to be here because I have to look the Vice Chairman in the face and try to make a case. That is difficult. Having said that, my perspective is as follows: While I am new on the Washoe County Commission, I am authorized to be here by the balance of the Commission, people who are more veteran than I.
I would make the point that this bill, S.B.53, has to do with the county commissioners, and in theory at least, the district attorney and sheriff. As to those two, there is another vehicle that is working its way through the system. Then, very importantly, the county clerk, county assessor, county recorder, county treasurer, and public administrator.
Mr. Chairman, I sat in chairs like you did for a number of years. I don’t recall how many, but I took some of the lessons I learned to the county and learned that you have to play as a team. We are both legislative and executive branch at the county level. We’ve just gone through a budget cycle, and I had to assist these department heads that happened to be elected to shepherd their budgets through and to get them what they needed. That’s one of the lessons that I learned at this Legislature. There are a lot of lessons to go around.
These people all deserve the pay increases as listed. We who have served in the Legislature understand that, and I know that there are a number of you on that side of the table who have served in local government, including municipalities and counties, and there are other members throughout this Legislature who were similarly situated.
I would end on a personal note by saying that I think we had our own sine die at the Washoe County Commission the other night when we finished at 12:15 a.m. and my ear hit the pillow at 1:30 a.m. That’s sort of like a sine die, not every week, but fairly often. There are some long hours that people are working and, on that note and at this stage of the session, I thank you for the work that you are doing. A lot of people come here wanting something, and obviously I’m one of them, but as a citizen of this great state, I do thank you for the work that you’re doing.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
According to the Nevada State Constitution, Article 4, Section 32, the list of county officers that we have the power to increase, diminish, consolidate, abolish, provide for their election, and fix by law their duties and compensation, includes county clerks, recorders, auditors, sheriffs, district attorneys, and public administrators. It doesn’t refer to county commissioners. That indicates to me that you can raise your salaries.
Norman Frey:
It’s my understanding on that issue that authority has not been expressly granted to the counties by the Legislature, so we sit in a “no-man’s-land” on this issue. Maybe it’s something we need to look into. We don’t have any powers that are not expressly granted to us by the Legislature, so we’re sitting here kind of out on the end of the limb.
David Humke:
Without going into a legal analysis on my part, I will tell you what the counsel from the Washoe District Attorney’s Office tells me repeatedly on each and every issue that involves the County of Washoe, vis-à-vis the state of Nevada, and that is a very simple statement: Counties are creatures of statute. Tying that in with Commissioner Frey’s testimony, I will let stand at that.
Mayor Masayko:
Regarding the Assemblywoman’s comments about the ability to raise one’s own salary, in my position I look like a county commissioner, but I’m called a mayor. I associate with the cities. As you look across the cities of the state of Nevada to those salaries paid, similar offices, whether they be city councilmen, mayors, appointed officials, or police chiefs who are doing the same job as these elected officials, their salaries have kept up with the market and commensurately with the cost of living. They are not in a situation like we as county officers are. I ask you to correct that. That’s an issue that certainly needs to be addressed.
Finally, if it’s satisfactory, I will ask those elected county officials who are here today, a few sheriffs, but there are also clerks, assessors, recorders, treasurers, and administrators from all over the state, to stand and say they are in solidarity behind S.B. 53, the bill we are testifying on behalf of today. It’s important to county government and to fairness.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Looking at Article 4, Section 32, one county officer that’s noticeably absent is the assessor.
Chairman Manendo:
The Legislature would specifically need to grant authority before the boards could set their own salaries, according to the legal opinion that was just sent to me. The Legislature needs to specifically grant the authority before the boards can set their own salaries.
Mayor Masayko:
We believe that to be the case also.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Can we amend that into this bill, S.B. 53?
Chairman Manendo:
I think we have a few vehicles that we could amend that into.
Assemblyman McCleary:
This is my first elective office and it has been a pleasure to serve. I enjoy this. It’s been financially difficult. I wanted to express to those other elected officials in this room that I understand what you’re going through, and I’m very sympathetic, and I support you on this.
Assemblyman Williams:
It is a pleasure to see my former colleague, Mr. Humke. When I came here as a freshman, I sat next to Mr. Humke on the Floor, and the information and knowledge that he passed on to me as a freshman I’ll never forget, and it’s forever rewarding. The thing that I enjoyed even more than that was the time that we served on this Committee together. We sat on opposite ends and the chairman called us “bookends.” We debated issues with a lot of spirit, and it’s good to see him.
In reference to the bill, S.B. 53, the presenters talk about fairness and equity. Just one question to anyone on the panel, when you look at the salaries and even the increases, in every single case the salaries of positions that have been traditionally, for whatever reason, held by women, is a lot less than those held by men. Even with the proposed increases, the dollars of the female members of these positions are still not up to par with the males. Can anybody answer why that is that way?
Mayor Masayko:
These are elective offices. Any qualified elector has the right to file for these offices, campaign, and be elected regardless of their gender. If you look at Carson City, we do not have a female in the offices of clerk, assessor, and recorder. They’re all held by males. These are the people who filed for these jobs, ran, and got elected. There are two females on the Board of Supervisors. They ran for office and they get paid what we get paid. I don’t see that as an issue or a question that I could respond to.
Assemblyman Williams:
I know they can run for any position they want to, but the salaries are suggested by the people that present the bill. I think the duties are, in everybody’s mind, different, but the positions that are usually held by mostly females in the state are as important as the other ones. I just wonder why we’re not suggesting some equal pay. We have an equal pay bill every session, and it feels good today that we’re talking about the resolution, but it never carries over into the Legislature.
Norman Frey:
I think what happened here is the increases were recommended on a percentage basis. I believe it was a 33 percent basis, so that the salaries have evolved over many years. This increase was done on an across the board percentage increase. It’s a very astute observation because I believe that approximately 75 percent of the people that hold these elective offices are female.
David Humke:
I can only speak to the Washoe County line in the bill, and in that line I see a trend. The county clerk, county assessor, county recorder, county treasurer, and county administrator are all at the same dollar amount. That makes them co-equal. There are men and women incumbents in those positions. With the county recorder, I recall a male who held that job in Washoe County, and a woman now holds that job.
The main point I wish to make is that the differences that you see, aside from the county commissioners which in our county has both males and females serving co-equally, the district attorney and sheriff are at disparate amounts compared to the other four or five offices that I named. I would point to a specialty requirement for those terms and offices.
I’m not an expert on sheriffs, but I did read a local newspaper account of some action in this Legislative Session where there was a short-lived bill that would have required POST [Police Officer Standards and Training] in order to file for the office of sheriff. I believe that bill is no longer in the system. It is my understanding that once a sheriff does take office, it is required that she or he must become POST certified shortly thereafter. That is a specialty.
[David Humke continued.] There is also a specialty as to the district attorney. I believe in all counties at this time, in order to serve as district attorney, a person must be a State Bar of Nevada member with graduation from an accredited law school. That is an additional specialty for that office, and that is the difference. With the other offices I believe the requirement is that you be an elector, and that is a significant difference as to specialty or specialty requirements.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I would support the bill, S.B. 53, in toto, and that’s not referencing Kansas in any way. Having served on a city council before, I recognize the difficulty with which you have to raise any salary for an elected official. I feel that the county commissioners who spend their time and talents serving and truly are public servants, and I appreciate the service that you folks render, should be included in the bill, S.B. 53. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with my personal county commissioner in whose district I live, and I concur with his assessment that this is appropriate for the county commissioners to be in the bill and get the appropriate, agreed-upon 33 percent across-the-board raise that occurs for the other officials. I would be supportive of the bill, S.B. 53, and of the work that the county commissioners do. I feel comfortable with it.
Assemblyman Collins:
Because local governments have collective bargaining and we’ve been exempting out folks, is there any way you can get back into your collective bargaining groups? Is that available to you? [Someone in the audience indicated that it was not available.] That’s not available. That being the case, although we get paid a lot less than these folks and most of them don’t get paid enough, we’re doing the people’s business here, and I would make a motion to pass this bill, S.B. 53, whenever you’re ready to take one. I support this bill fully.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I want to make a few brief points, and the most important ones are fundamental fairness and the public interest. I want to say thanks to all the local elected officials in this room for the job you’ve done and you continue to do, and I want to say thanks to your colleagues who aren’t here today. You’ve been laboring under an unfair burden. This should have been passed last session. It should have been passed before. It’s way overdue. Thank you for a good job and thank you for putting up with the fact that you’re not getting fairly compensated. I’d like to see us give you some fundamental fairness today.
[Assemblyman Knecht continued.] On the public interest, I think the point was well-made that when we look toward the future, if we don’t have adequate compensation, we’re not going to get the people in these positions that the public deserves, so the public interest is vitally served by passing S.B. 53 today. On the politics of this, I think it’s a travesty that this hasn’t already been done this session, that it wasn’t done last session, and that it’s been mixed up with other things.
I would point out that I have personally taken the initiative to talk to my friends and colleagues among the “hold the line on taxes and spending crowd.” They’ve heard the message. They’ve understood it, and they’ve even testified in support of this, so politics shouldn’t stand in the way. On home rule, I think we need to give you all the authority and give you the opportunity to do this and let your voters hold you responsible.
Finally, on gender, if we don’t pass S.B. 53 now, then whatever gender‑related pay problems there are will remain worse than they would be if we do pass it. This may not solve all those problems, but it’s the necessary next step. If I had been allowed to speak before Mr. Collins, I would have offered the motion, but I salute him for offering it and I will be happy to second it, and happy to vote for this because it is a matter of fundamental fairness and the public interest.
Assemblyman Grady:
I was very reluctant to even ask for permission to speak on this issue because I think it’s well known to this Committee that I am from local government. I support local government and I support government closest to the people. Right here in this Legislative body we have used many of the people, and many of them that are seated out there today, to advise us and to help us. I have sat in committees until 7 or 8 o’clock at night or later with Alan Glover and Barbara Reed asking for their guidance on election matters. Maggie Lowther has been here at least once a week, and Al Kramer. I could go on. These are the people whom I have called and asked for their assistance. I believe these people are professional. They work hard at their jobs. They work hard at training their people. I think they deserve just compensation and I would encourage my colleagues on this Committee to support S.B. 53. I would like to see a former county commissioner on this Committee be allowed to make the motion.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I’d be proud to do that.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33, Elko County, Humboldt County (part):
[Introduced himself.] I was a county commissioner for 14 years and I don’t think there’s any question that the Legislature made a mistake in letting this go this long. Now it’s hard for some people to swallow an increase of this magnitude.
I would like to reiterate that Elko County’s position on this is, whatever amount you decide is proper for the increase, by an amendment or an allowance, the counties could do this over a two-year period. In Elko we are having some difficulty with our budget and they feel it would be easier for them to do it over two years rather than all at once. If you could see your way fit to give those counties that want to do that the authority to spread it over two years, that is their feeling.
I didn’t know about the Nevada State Constitution. It was always my belief that commissioners came to the Legislature to ask for pay increases and you may want to give them that authority some time, but it probably isn’t the thing to do right now. I think it takes some more study. I think there’s a bill to put in some kind of a pay board that would decide these things, but I’ve always been under the impression that the Legislature had to control the commissioners’ salaries too. My long-standing belief was that, and I know when I was commissioner, the Legislature handled our salaries.
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Carpenter, it’s always a pleasure to have you here. We appreciate it. In my opinion, other than Assembly Bill 23, that’s the first reasonable suggested amendment that I’ve heard. The approximate fiscal impact on Elko County would be about $216,000. I could certainly understand why they would have to split that up if something moved forward.
Assemblyman Collins:
Section 3 allows you to not pass any increase at all. You have the provision in the bill, S.B. 53, to not do any increase.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I understand that is in there and I think that’s probably wise to do because there are some counties that probably cannot afford these raises at all. In Elko, they feel that if they could spread it out two years, it would be an easier situation because they have had to lay off a number of people and cut back on programs. It isn’t like when I was commissioner. In Elko County, we had plenty of money. We were always conservative, but when we needed to spend the bucks, we had them. Right now, things are not that great, so if we could put some kind of amendment so they could make that decision to spread them over two years, I believe that would satisfy my folks.
Assemblyman Collins:
This is enabling language, so if we vote for it, we’re not voting a raise for anybody. We’re just voting for enabling legislation that would allow local government to pass the raises if they choose. We’re not spending a penny as a legislature. We’re not allowing one penny to be spent. We’re only allowing the local governments enabling power to give their folks an increase. We did that because of their problem with some rural counties in the past. That’s the way I’m reading it.
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel:
No. This bill, S.B. 53, sets the salaries and unless you have a waiver, they have to be implemented.
Assemblyman Collins:
They have the right to vote to waive the pay raise.
Chairman Manendo:
But we’re setting it.
Assemblyman Collins:
They can request to not accept the pay. Maybe we do need clarification. It was my understanding they don’t have to take the raise.
Chairman Manendo:
They do have to.
Eileen O’Grady:
They do have to implement the raise unless they get a waiver from the Committee on Local Government Finance based on financial hardship.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I just ask that they be given the opportunity to raise them over a period of two years rather than one.
Chairman Manendo:
I understand.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think page 3, lines 22 and 23, of S.B. 53, addresses your concern, Assemblyman Carpenter. As mentioned above, in Section 3 it talks about applying for the waiver, but on the waiver itself on lines 22 and 23, it says there is no limitation of the number of waivers for consecutive fiscal years that the board of county commissioners may be granted, if the board of county commissioners finds that the financial resources of the county, et cetera. As I read that, you can apply year by year. There’s no limit to that fiscal year’s limitation.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think that is right, but I would think that if you put an amendment in that the counties can do it over a period of two years if they desire, then there is no question about what they can do, and they don’t have to go to this other board, and I feel it would be a simpler and cleaner way to do it.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Then you are proposing enabling language that, in lieu of applying for a waiver, a local board of county commissioners could go to the Committee on Local Government Finance and request that those salaries be installed over a two-year period. Just a couple of lines’ amendment is what you’re saying?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
It’s my feeling that if you put in the language that they have the opportunity to initiate these salaries over two years, then they don’t have to go to the Committee on Local Government Finance, that the Legislature would give them that authority, rather than having to go to the board. That’s just another step. I think the Legislature has the authority to give the option to go to two years if they feel that, because of financial situations, that’s what they should do.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I definitely agree with that. The problem with the waiver is it only compounds the problem. If you wait two more years before you try to grant the raise, or another four years, and then you don’t get there, you could ultimately be faced with another round of raises down the road and still not be able to meet it. So, I agree. If we can get language in here that allows a jurisdiction that’s having some financial problems to put this 33 percent raise in over time, I think it’s a good move.
Assemblyman Knecht:
My offer to amend and do pass was to incorporate Mr. Carpenter’s amendment. I understand that we could go without it. Elko County could seek a waiver and that might solve their problem, but in an abundance of caution, it would seem to me to be a good idea to put this provision in there just to make it easy for Elko County. It comes back to a matter of allowing them to be held accountable by their voters, and I’d like to give them that opportunity.
If it pleases the Chair at some point after the hearing is closed, I will offer the amend and do pass motion to incorporate Mr. Carpenter’s amendment. This is fundamental fairness in the public interest and the sooner we get it on, the better.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I do have a letter from Elko County (Exhibit C) asking that this consideration be given.
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorneys Association:
I have strong feelings about what I want to say today. It’s hard for us as mere mortals to not equate everything to personalities and say, “that no-good commissioner,” or ”that no good sheriff,” or “that no-good DA that’s in the body right now doesn’t deserve a raise.” It’s not that officeholder that we’re talking about. It is a position that we’re talking about. It’s important to remember the issue above the personality.
Obviously, something has happened here. I’m going to go to the final thing and the gender equity thing. I have five daughters, so I’m sure they’re anxious for that to be addressed. I’m asking this Committee and the Legislature to do what the Las Vegas Review-Journal asks you to do. The Las Vegas Review-Journal said, “County, you should be setting your own officials’ salaries. You should be doing the recording and whatnot, and you need to take whatever steps it takes to do that.” Well, we’ve done that.
The only steps available, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal said that, is to go to the Legislature. We’re asking you to do it. You are our vehicle, and that’s all. It’s not your fault or your blame, but you sure as heck get some credit. There really hasn’t been a big issue over the amounts and the whatnot. What Assemblyman Carpenter was saying, rather than going through the formality of a total waiver, they could be given an option, and it would still be constitutionally sound, to spread it over two years, if the county preferred to do that. It wouldn’t be a total waiver. I think that we could probably do that.
Regarding the issue of constitutionality of the commissioners setting their own salaries, I believe your Legal Division has done considerable research on that area and there are probably opinions available on that. I’m here with the Nevada District Attorneys Association. I’m here with Lieutenant Olsen on my right and Captain Nadeau on my left. We work with these people. I’m a Nevadan by choice. I’ve only been here 27 years. I’ve grown a personal fondness for many of you whom I’ve known over those years, and you new folks are carrying on a grand tradition. I hope to be back. It’s important that this get passed. It would make it easier on all of us. We’re here in total support to make it work and remember issues above personalities.
Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:
[Introduced himself.] We’re also here in support of Senate Bill 53. We also support the suggested amendment by Assemblyman Carpenter. This is a long time coming. It’s been eight years. Should this raise pass, it will be two in about a 20-year period. As times are changing, particularly with the sheriffs, these guys are out there a lot every day, all day, weekends, nights. The world is changing. It’s changing every day and it’s changed drastically in the last couple of years. Law enforcement is right at the point of dealing with those changes. From the sheriffs and chiefs, we support this bill, S.B. 53.
Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
[Introduced himself.] I was reflecting back when Mr. Williams and Commissioner Humke were talking about having sat on this Committee before and reflecting back to 1995 when we sat before this Committee and asked for the last raise that the elected officials received. We support this. We believe this is appropriate and that everyone should be included, but we also must say we appreciate the support that this Committee has given us and we would like your support in this issue.
Assemblyman Grady:
There is one thing that Mr. Graham brought up that I would like to comment on. My former cohort and companion in these halls, Mr. Hadfield, and I traveled many times addressing Section 4, which states that the provisions of subsection 1 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 354.599 do not apply to this. That is the unfunded mandate section, and it does state on the front of the bill (S.B. 53) “contains unfunded mandate.” For the record, I think it needs to be placed on here that we are doing this at the request of the local counties and that they are asking for this. It is not an unfunded mandate by this Legislature.
Gary Wolff, Teamsters Local No. 14:
On behalf of the Teamsters, we do support this bill, S.B. 53.
Chairman Manendo:
I am going to close the hearing on Senate Bill 53 and bring it back to the Committee. Let’s turn to Senate Bill 331.
Senate Bill 331 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to employment practices governing state personnel. (BDR 23-983)
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst:
[Introduced herself.] Senate Bill 331, in its first reprint, sponsored by Senator Amodei, was heard in this Committee on May 8. Senate Bill 331 authorizes the Employee-Management Committee to issue a subpoena to compel testimony and attendance of witnesses, if the committee finds that the witness had direct personal knowledge of the issues in an employee grievance. The subpoena may also require the production of books, papers, and other relevant items. If the person fails or refuses to attend or testify after being subpoenaed, the committee may petition the district court to order the person to appear before the committee. The bill sets forth other matters relating to the subpoena process.
In addition, Senate Bill 331 specifies that a state employee who is the subject of an internal administrative investigation that could lead to termination or suspension must be provided written notice of the allegations against him. Upon receipt of the notice, the employee must be afforded the right to an attorney at any hearing or questioning, and must be given at least two business days to obtain representation.
Clarifying amendments were proposed by Teamsters Local No. 14 to correct some problems identified with the Senate amendments, and to address concerns of the Nevada Department of Personnel. A mock-up (Exhibit D) of the proposed amendments that resulted from those discussions is attached. There was no opposition to the bill. Fiscal impact to local government, no; to state government, yes. The fiscal note is attached (page 5 of Exhibit D).
I should clarify that in terms of opposition, the Department of Personnel did have some concerns about how Section 4 was drafted. I’m not sure those concerns have been fully resolved, but if you turn to page 1 of the mock-up (Exhibit D), the Legal Division made some minor changes in Section 2 for drafting purposes. The substantive changes are on page 3 of the mock-up (Exhibit D) in Section 4, trying to address some concerns making it more clear exactly how this process would work, but not any major changes to the overall section.
[Susan Scholley continued.] Chairman Manendo, in response to your question as to whether there is a fiscal note, I would point out that the fiscal note is rather lengthy. The fiscal note was done on the original bill. A large portion of the bill was amended out in the Senate and, therefore, the only part of the fiscal note that still applies is page 1.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thanks to Ms. Scholley and to our staff counsel for helping me get a clear understanding of this bill. At your pleasure, I would be willing to move to amend and do pass. I think it’s a good bill (S.B. 331).
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Grady, Mr. Williams, if you’re listening. The Chair will entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHRISTENSEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 331.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Grady was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Christensen will be assigned Senate Bill 331.
Chairman Manendo:
Turning to Senate Bill 229.
Senate Bill 229 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding public bodies. (BDR 19-16)
Susan Scholley:
Senate Bill 229, in its first reprint, sponsored by Senators O’Connell and Titus, was heard in this Committee on May 5. Senate Bill 229 is a fairly lengthy and complex bill, so I’ll try to make this as painless as possible. Senate Bill 229 provides that, and this phrase is important, “a public body that is a governing board” may not take action on any agenda item until public comment on that item has been permitted, with an exception for contested cases. A “public body that is a governing board” is defined as “a public body with the power to legislate or an executive/administrative body that has regulatory authority or the power to make a final decision for the purposes of judicial review.” Advisory bodies are specifically excluded from the definition.
[Susan Scholley continued.] The bill, S.B. 229, adds posting notice on a public Web site to the definition of “minimum public notice,” and also allows for sending notice by electronic mail if receipt can be verified. The bill adds a requirement that requests for renewal of notices shall be in writing, and the bill requires that minutes of “a public body that is a governing board” be posted on a Web site upon adoption and approval of the minutes and remain on the Web site for at least one year and at the office for at least five years.
The measure provides that “a public body that is a governing board” shall maintain an audio recording of a meeting and make that recording available within 10 working days after adjournment of the meeting. The bill also provides that an audio recording of a closed meeting becomes a public record when the public body determines that the matters discussed in the closed meeting no longer require confidentiality. However, if a person’s competence, character, or health was the subject of the closed meeting, that person’s consent is required prior to the release of the audio tape, although that person has a right to the audio tape whether or not it is released.
The measure goes on in the later sections of the bill and stipulates or changes the existing statutes requiring audio recordings for a number of entities that are listed in the summary, and I will not read that. It is notable that the Nevada Tax Commission, the State Board of Equalization, and the Nevada Department of Taxation are not required to maintain audio recordings of meetings, provided that their meetings are transcribed in their entirety by a certified court reporter.
Further, Senate Bill 229 provides that, if practicable, an executive department agency that is a board, commission, or similar, must have at least one member of that body present during regulation workshops. Amendments were proposed by a number of entities—Clark County, Nevada State Education Association, Washoe County, City of Reno, Board of Parole Commissioners, and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Subsequent to the hearing, amendments relating to general improvement districts were requested by the Sun Valley General Improvement District and have been determined to be germane to Senate Bill 229. We’ll turn to the list of amendments shortly.
There was no direct opposition to S.B. 229, although there were a number of requested amendments. Fiscal impact at both the state and local government levels, yes. The fiscal notes are attached in our notebook, pages 14-26 of Exhibit E. With that I would ask you to turn to page 3 of Exhibit E. We have a list of ten proposed amendments to go through. I have provided page and line references so you can follow along with where the proposed amendments are.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
That seems to me a little duplicative. When you look at Section 1, “It shall adopt a rule of procedure.” I think that should basically cover it if you’re going to require comment cards. I think the further we go with this, the more chance there is for a challenge.
Susan Scholley:
Line 8 requires that the rule of procedure would set forth the length of time that will be allotted, and there was a concern that some of the jurisdictions also have these additional requirements and that this specificity may be interpreted to specifically exclude any other type of limitation on this public comment period.
I should also note that they would not be required to adopt a procedure with comment cards. They could simply stop at the length of time. It would just be if they were going to add additional requirements, then it would have to be in a rule of procedure.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Being familiar with public comment and comment cards, I like the concept of the comment cards. I’m wondering if the language could be such as “shall adopt a rule of procedure such as setting forth the length of time, comment cards, or other appropriate procedures,” so that it is permissive and allows that jurisdiction some flexibility in so setting those procedures.
Susan Scholley:
It was intended that it would be permissive. The length of time is currently in S.B. 229, and would have to be set in a rule of procedure. To the extent that the governing body adds any additional bells and whistles to the comment process, if they wanted to add those bells and whistles, then they would have to be in a rule of procedure, but it would not require them to put any additional requirements on comment.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think I understand where former Commissioner Goicoechea is coming from, and if the governing body shall adopt a rule of procedure setting forth the length of time, there needs to be some permission after that for other procedures that is not limited to comment cards. I can’t envision what other things there would be, but I would like some permissive language in there that would allow some flexibility.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Maybe what we need to do is adopt a rule of procedure, take the length of time out of it, and establish the procedures. Let’s not just address the amount of time that will be in there. Let’s address the procedure by which you would take public comment.
Susan Scholley:
Assemblyman Hardy:
I concur with the planning commissions, and I may not understand fully what entities are those that include a public body that does federal or state funds. I’m envisioning some of the nonprofit organizations that are granted funds and distribute those funds after they’re granted. We’re then getting away from the intent, I think, of Section 4 on page 3, the intent being to limit the number of rooms you need for the audio tapes that are going to be required for all of these “quasi-charitable, nonprofit, get money, and therefore they use the money,” groups, and have this video and audio tape room that is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, if this is included in that. Maybe I just don’t know where they’re going with that particular amendment. Is there a group or organization that they’re concerned about?
Susan Scholley:
It’s my understanding that there is a consortium, and perhaps another entity in Washoe County, that is a public body. It is a group of agencies and public entities that come together to disburse federal or state funds and that the intent of this provision would be to capture that group into the audio tape recording requirement. I couldn’t speak to it any more specifically than that. I would clarify that we don’t know who else that would pull in because you did raise the point that, although it would have to be a public body subject to the open meeting law in the first place, it may have the unintended consequence of pulling in some fairly small and insignificant entities, so there has been some concern expressed about the impact of that amendment.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’m thinking of the Drug Free Boulder City Commission that I sat on that was part of a public body that used donations as well as city funds, but that were allocated in such a way that we had some leeway with what we did with that. I think you’re going to find other entities included that are going to be surprised that they now have to have these audiotapes and store them somewhere.
Chairman Manendo:
Let’s skip to number 4 since we’re having some difficulty with number 3.
Susan Scholley:
The proposal is to exclude from the definition of a “public body that is a governing board,” a body that does not have one or more full-time administrative staff, as opposed to clerical staff, or which provide per diem or other compensation to their members, but excluding reimbursement for expenses. To recap, the idea would be that if you would otherwise qualify as “a public body that is a governing board,” but you don’t have at least one full-time, paid staff and you don’t provide per diem or compensation to your members, then you would be excluded from the definition of “a public body that is a governing board.” I’m also reminded of a suggestion that the employment of a backhoe driver would not be considered administrative staff.
Assemblyman Hardy:
It doesn’t feel good to me when we’re trying to address the intent further up in that section, but it does reflect back on number 3 and my concern about number 3 where these little public entities are going to have requirements that I would just as soon not put burdens on. It’s almost like we’re trying to do little things, when we need to put in the intent more than the nitpicky little things.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think I can agree with that as long as you didn’t have one or more full-time administrative staff. I think most of the small boards could probably bounce around that and make it where they didn’t qualify. I’m a little concerned about the per diem or compensation. Is that going to be interpreted to mean that, if they go on a trip, they aren’t able to recover their expenses? Most of the small boards would. It’s technically not per diem that they’re getting paid, but then does someone interpret that as the right to cover your expenses?
Susan Scholley:
We had that same concern. The intent would be that, which is why it’s noted that it would exclude, we would try to make it clear that it would exclude a situation where they’re simply being reimbursed as opposed to receiving statutory per diem or some sort of salary or compensation, although I can’t speak to the policy issue that was raised by Mr. Hardy.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I would like to see that later portion amended out. I don’t have a problem if they have one or more full-time administrative staff. I think you’ll see that a number of these boards would have at least a part-time secretary, or something like that, helping them with the minutes. I think most of them will be excluded as far as having one full-time administrative staff and a director or something. Most of them don’t have it. My concern is, even if you had part‑time clerical, that person would, if they were an employee of the county or city or public body, or even of a conservation district, have the ability to get per diem. It’s just that this is the policy that’s set out in the personnel manual in these little counties or any county. They’re entitled to per diem.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I concur with Assemblyman Goicoechea. If we wanted to put the one or more full-time administrative staff in, strike out the per diem completely, and in the fairness of going back up, because I think it refers back up to number 3, put in the planning commissions and leave out the other thing, I think we would be going along with the intent of S.B. 229. That’s what I’d do.
Chairman Manendo:
Note taken. Move on to number five.
Susan Scholley:
In looking at how to effect that amendment, it appeared that the fix was to take out as to “a public body that is a governing board,” the requirement for posting notice on a Web site in the minimum public notice section, which is subsection 6 on page 5, and to again recombine subsections 3 and 6, combine Sections 4 and 7, which both address failure of the Web site, and make it simpler by making the posting of a Web site not part of the minimum public notice still required for “a public body that is a governing board,” but not within the definition of “minimum public notice.” I would also note that, in doing that recombination which was masterfully implemented by our Committee Counsel and is in your notebook, subsection 5 appeared to be superfluous and unnecessary. Therefore, it’s been dropped, although obviously the Committee is free to deem otherwise.
If you look at your first attachment past the list of amendments entitled “#5 Attachment to List of Proposed Amendments to Senate Bill 229,” it shows you what NRS 241.020 of the Nevada Open Meeting Law would look like if you combine Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7, and drop 5. It retains all the original requirements of the first reprint. It does clarify what happens if there’s technical difficulties with the Web site that neither an agency that’s doing it of its own volition or one that’s required to do so will not be penalized, and it does take out subsection 5 since that merely says that you can provide more notice, but that is already encompassed in the concept that minimum public notice clearly implies you can do additional notice anyway, and the Nevada Open Meeting Law Manual makes that point.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think that’s a wise idea.
Susan Scholley:
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think that would be wise. When we put in the word “health” in that statute on line 23, that would comply with the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) requirements.
Susan Scholley:
10. The Sun Valley General Improvement District has requested an amendment to general improvement districts. You may recall that you saw this amendment in an earlier form in Assembly Bill 241 that was heard by this Committee earlier in the session, and if you turn 3 pages, you come to a recycled mock-up of Assembly Bill 241, in Exhibit E. On the provisions that affect general improvement districts, it would be proposed they be included in Senate Bill 229.
Turning to page 2, lines 11 through 15, the amendment would change the publication requirements applicable to general improvement districts. Turning to page 3, the amendment would allow the salaries of general improvement district boards of trustees to have the ceiling changed from $6,000 to $9,000. I would remind you that in the original version of Assembly Bill 241, the cap was $12,000, so this represents a reduction.
Further on page 4, the amendment would allow the board to prescribe by regulation the date on which charges become delinquent and delete the current statutory provision. On page 5, Section 4, subsection 2, lines 19 through 29, and maybe on to 34, was to provide some protection for the general improvement districts that may be merged, consolidated, or dissolved, and would require a consent of the affected general improvement district as set forth in the section. I will also remind you that this section, by applying only to a general improvement district that exercises the powers pursuant to those three NRS sections in line 21, effectively limits the impact of this section to two general improvement districts in the state, the Sun Valley General Improvement District, and the Incline Village General Improvement District, both of which are located in Washoe County. Those three sections are water, sewer, and garbage.
[Susan Scholley continued.] One last item before you vote on the amendments. We wanted to bring to your attention that there has been a conflict notice filed on Senate Bill 229, due to the enrollment of Assembly Bill 409, which was also heard by this Committee. Assembly Bill 409 was proposed by Assemblyman Sherer and it allows for the sending of notices of meetings by electronic mail. However, there is a difference between Assembly Bill 409 and Senate Bill 229. Senate Bill 229 would add the additional requirement that a person could only receive electronic notification of a meeting if receipt of the electronic mail can be verified. There’s not a conflict in the sense that you cannot enact S.B. 229 as currently drafted, it would be that you should do so with the understanding that you would not be adding yet an additional requirement to persons requesting notice of meetings by electronic mail. They could only receive that notice if the receipt could be verified.
The second conflict is that Senate Bill 229 adds a requirement that, for a person who requests a renewal of their initial request to receive notice of a meeting, it has to be in writing. The scenario would be that I call up an agency and say that I want to be on their mailing list to receive notice of its meetings. I’m told this is fine and it expires in six months. At the end of that six months, under the provision of S.B. 229 that is not in A.B. 409, I would have to request the renewal of in writing. I couldn’t simply call on the phone and ask that they keep sending the notices. Again, you can enact Senate Bill 229 because it’s not a conflict in the sense that they clash head-on, but it would be that this requirement is not in Assembly Bill 409.
Chairman Manendo:
Looks like Sections 3 and 4 are where we have a little bit of a difficulty.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I can live with Section 4, I believe, rather than take some more time on that. I think it’s almost clear because it says “excluding reimbursement for expenses,” and I think that covers most of it. I can live with that. I would like to see after planning commissions deleted from Section 3.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Are you ready for a motion?
Chairman Manendo:
Comfort level, Committee?
Assemblyman Hardy:
Mr. Chair, if you’re ready for a motion, I’d like to march down the motion and look at heads wag or wave or nod while I do it.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 229, ACCEPTING THE LIST OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: NUMBER 1 FROM RENO; NUMBER 2 FROM WASHOE COUNTY, USING ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA’S COMMENT ABOUT REMOVING THE PHRASE REFERENCING TIME; AND NUMBER 3, ACCEPTING PLANNING COMMISSIONS AS THOSE PUBLIC BODIES, REMOVING THE LAST THREE LINES OF THAT AMENDMENT MOCK-UP; ACCEPTING NUMBER 4, WITH THE INTENT THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED; ACCEPT EILEEN O’GRADY’S RENDITION OF 5 WHICH CLARIFIES ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT STATUTES AND PUTS THEM INTO CONTEXT; ACCEPTING NUMBER 6 BY WASHOE COUNTY; NUMBER 7 BY RENO; NUMBER 8 BY NEVADA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; NUMBER 9, BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; NUMBER 10, SUN VALLEY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND RECOGNIZING THE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ACTUALLY MAKE S.B. 229 MORE STRINGENT AND THUS AGREE WITH THAT CONCEPT.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Manendo:
Turning to Senate Bill 487.
Senate Bill 487: Authorizes certain smaller counties to enter into certain agreements relating to acquisition, development and distribution of water resources. (BDR 20-1312)
Mark Fiorentino, Representing Lincoln County and the Vidler Water Company:
[Introduced himself.] Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the members of the Committee for the opportunity to try to continue to work on this bill, S.B. 487, since you had your hearing on Monday. We’ve made a lot of progress and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing us to do that. Second, thank you for taking me now. Senator Hardy is on his way. As you can see by the title of this document (Exhibit F), his name is on these amendments. We’ve worked with him as part of the parties that we’ve worked with to bring this before you. I’m going to walk through the amendments very briefly. You saw most of them on Monday when we made our initial presentation to you. They’re changed slightly. I’d like to walk you through you the changes, and then we would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[Mark Fiorentino continued.] In the first proposed amendment, we added a second sentence that reads, “The State Engineer may deny any application submitted pursuant to an agreement entered into pursuant to this act if he deems the application to be speculative.” That was the request that Senator Hardy made in the Committee with respect to that particular amendment. The State Engineer has expressed to us some concern about that language because he believes he already has that authority, but it’s my understanding that he’s okay with the bill moving forward with this language. He’s going to ask his staff to work on it and he may ask you to consider a slight amendment to that on the Floor, but as I understand it, he was okay with S.B. 487 moving forward with that language.
The second proposed amendment is the same as what we submitted to you on Monday.
The third proposed amendment is the same.
The fourth proposed amendment is the same except we added some words in the second paragraph so that it now reads as follows: “The report required by this section shall be a public record and shall be considered by the board of county commissioners at a public hearing.” We added the words “shall be a public record” to make it clear that it would be available to anybody in the public.
Amendment number five is changed. It used to say that if we were going to sell, lease, or transfer the water resource to a public entity, it could not be sold for more than fair market value. This is more restrictive. It says we cannot transfer it outside the county at all, no matter whom we sell it to, unless it’s at its fair market value and no more.
The remaining amendments were at the request of the Virgin Valley Water District. Amendment number six makes it clear that any data or information that we use to support an application with the State Engineer is a matter of public record and has to be kept in the office of the county clerk and open for inspection to anybody who wants to see it.
[Mark Fiorentino continued.] Amendment number seven clarifies that any private entity that enters into one of these agreements is not going to derive benefits or obtain non-profit status that might be available to public entities.
Number eight is meant to ensure that if for some reason something goes wrong, the state of Nevada will not have to pick up any obligation that the private entity had under one of these agreements.
Number nine clarifies what I thought this original section said, but when we reread it again, and with the help of the representatives of the Virgin Valley Water District, I agreed that it could be interpreted to forever bind the commission, which was not the intent. Making that change maintains existing law with respect to the authority of county commissioners to enter into agreements. All it says is that their authority does include agreements entered into authorized by this act.
We are hopeful that this strikes some balance and some compromise with the original intent and purpose, which was to help rural counties develop water resources for their economic development plans, and at the same time address concerns related to public documents and having these items open to the public, and to make sure that we ensure that the water resource which is obviously the most valuable resource the state has, continues to have the protections that it deserves under existing law.
Senator Warren Hardy, Senate District No. 12, Clark County:
[Introduced himself.] As you know, this has been a very difficult issue for me, and I want the Committee to hear it from me that Mr. Fiorentino has been nothing but professional, and has done nothing but try to address my concerns going back months on this. I know things got very heated in the Committee the other day. Some of those issues were based on a lack of communication between Mr. Fiorentino and me, but Mr. Fiorentino has been a professional and acted with integrity in dealing with me on this legislation.
Mr. Fiorentino and I even discussed what I would say before this Committee, and we came up with the following: I would still prefer that there be no bill, but if the Committee wishes to process S.B. 487, this series of amendments addresses, in a significant way, many of the concerns that I have.
There is some language that needs to be worked out with the State Engineer. He brought something to my attention this morning that might have an unintended consequence that we don’t want to have. Given the time limits, we can’t address that today. Just so the Committee is aware, we may have either a Floor Amendment or a Conference Committee Amendment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to work it out for a Floor Amendment. Again, I would still prefer there is no bill, but if the Committee wishes to proceed, this addresses many of my concerns.
Chairman Manendo:
As you know, we spend a lot of time and we work very hard on trying to come up with compromises. I’ve also worked with interested parties to come up with something to ease the concerns that some of the members have and still may continue to have, but I commend you, the interested parties, in working together. Obviously when people see that there are some concerns, actually trying to work some things out to try to create the best public policy is, I think, in the best interests of the people.
Randy Robison, on behalf of the Virgin Valley Water District:
[Introduced himself.] I would echo the comments of Senator Hardy regarding Mr. Fiorentino both personally and professionally, as well as reiterate the statement that, while we would prefer not to have a bill, we felt that if the Committee wants to process the bill, S.B. 487, these amendments appropriately maintain the checks and balances that are required.
Assemblyman Grady:
You had asked for some information to be supplied by Lincoln County, and I thank you for that because it was my concern, too. We did get those. Additionally, I don’t know if the whole Committee did, but I received separate information from two of the Lincoln County Commissioners that they are in support of that. That was a concern of the Committee, so I thank you.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Senator Hardy, will you concur when this comes up on the other side and vote for it?
Senator Hardy:
As Mr. Fiorentino is a man of his word, I am a man of my word. The only caveat would be if we are not able to work out the State Engineer’s concern and have to go to a conference committee on that issue and that issue only. Other than that, if we’re able to work it out in a Floor Amendment and don’t have to do that to satisfy the concerns of the State Engineer, I will concur and encourage my colleagues to concur. I hope that’s understood that we still have this one issue that’s out there. We didn’t want to hold the bill, S.B. 487, up today, but we still have to resolve it. I don’t think that we’re going to have a problem resolving it in a Floor Amendment, but in the event that we do, we’ll have to deal with that in a conference committee. That’s the only circumstance under which I will move to not concur.
Assemblyman Collins:
My question is for clarification on the State Engineer’s issue. It’s currently in law about not approving speculation, therefore possibly making this amendment unnecessary, and I just want to make sure that Senator Hardy agrees that is clearly the issue.
Senator Hardy:
The issue for me is, as I testified to, clearly that the State Engineer understands perfectly that in these cases, if he views these as speculative, he has the ability to reject them as speculative. The State Engineer’s concern, and I concur in that concern, is that the language as it’s currently drafted may have the unintended consequence of giving individuals, particularly in the private sector, an extra ability to protest or challenge or appeal the decision of the State Engineer because he didn’t act appropriately under the law. The issue we’re trying to address is the language the way it’s drafted might have the consequence of sending all of these things into appeal and we did not want to do that. For the record, we want to be very clear that the State Engineer, in these kinds of, for lack of a better word, hybrid arrangements, does have the ability and should be encouraged to declare them speculative and reject them.
Assemblyman Collins:
That could be clearly stated in legislative intent by Floor Statements on both sides, couldn’t it?
Senator Hardy:
I would prefer to come up with language, but that may well be what we ultimately decide.
Chairman Manendo:
Are there any other questions of Mr. Fiorentino? I don’t want you to miss your son’s day. I wanted to make sure if we had any questions for Mr. Fiorentino, he was here to answer them. Now we’ll go back to wherever we want to go. That’s fine with me.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I am still going to vote in the negative. I’ve had good relations with both parties and I appreciate your working together. When it comes to water, which is our most precious resource, I am very conservative about changing the laws. Water resources are the express property of the people of the state of Nevada. I don’t think placing those resources into the hands of private entities for the purpose of profit is in the best interests of the people. For that reason I will vote in the negative and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I appreciate the proponents and Senator Hardy working together so constructively, and I commend them. Thank you for making it easy for once. I will diverge from the vote of the distinguished gentleman to my right and I will be supporting S.B. 487.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I agree with my colleague, Mr. McCleary. I continue to think that this is awful public policy for the reasons that Mr. McCleary set forth. I cannot shake the specter of Enron. Market value in California during the so-called energy crisis was whatever Enron and a number of other entities wanted it to be. They just traded it back and forth until they got a price they liked, and then that was market price. That might have been illegal and maybe we know that now, but the fact is, the damage is done. The people of California will never get that back.
The truth is that a resource as important as water should be under the control of elected officials. The voters of this state and of Lincoln County have some recourse if they feel that this resource is being mismanaged. Truth of the matter is Vidler Water, a private entity, is beholden to its stockholders. It will never make a choice between the people of Lincoln County and its stockholders. The people of Lincoln County simply have no effect on a private entity. That’s how corporations work, and that’s fine, but there are resources that should not be in the hand of private corporations, and water is at the top of the list. I will vote against this, and I strongly urge my colleagues on this Committee to vote against S.B. 487.
Chairman Manendo:
Could you comment on number two of the proposed amendment (Exhibit F)?
Senator Hardy:
On the first page, number two, add a new Section 4 to read as follows: “A water resource procured pursuant to an agreement entered into pursuant to this act shall not be sold, leased, or otherwise transferred for use outside the state of Nevada.”
That was language that was requested by Senator Titus. That is not language that I requested. I think there’s already sufficient case law with regard to that issue. I don’t necessarily think it hurts to have it in here, but it wasn’t one of the issues that I dealt with. Based on conversations with the State Engineer, he felt there were already protections with regard to how water can be transferred over state lines.
Chairman Manendo:
There may be some questions about how it would be applied in our Nevada State Constitution. I don’t know if we would run into a problem with this language in there or not.
Senator Hardy:
From my perspective, I wouldn’t have any problem with whatever we need to do to craft it legally. Mr. Pappageorge is here, but I think I can represent for Mr. Fiorentino that, whatever we need to do to make this constitutional would be okay with us, but I won’t speak for him.
John Pappageorge, representing Lincoln County and the Vidler Water Company:
[Introduced himself.] Mr. Fiorentino, Senator Hardy, and I have discussed all this and he absolutely agrees that this can be worked out in the amendment on the Floor or in conference committee.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I think the people on this Committee have to understand that most water developed in the state of Nevada is done by the private sector. I realize we all have municipalities that are dependent on supplying water to those communities but, again, the true value of water comes from the private sector. I’m sorry.
Senator Hardy:
I don’t disagree with that, and I don’t want to do anything to discourage that. The issue for me is making this a commodity for sale, and nothing to do with whether the private sector should develop. If we eliminate the ability of the private sector to help develop water resources, that would be a huge mistake, and that’s not the intent here.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I had the same concerns that you voiced, Chairman Manendo, about number 2. Recognizing there are what I would call “artificial lines in the sand” between southern Nevada and southern Utah that may share a drainage system, it would be problematic with this language from an interstate commerce constitutional kind of approach. It would not make me feel bad to have some language that would pass muster in case law or constitutional law that would allow us to still have the feeling that we’re keeping our water, but recognizing that this drainage system may go across, or that pump may be next to, and so I have a little bit of concern about number 2, and I’m not sure it’s totally germane to the whole concept of the bill itself.
Senator Hardy:
Along the lines of what Assemblyman Hardy is talking about, I completely agree with that. If you read the language, it says “water resource procured pursuant to an agreement entered into pursuant to this act,” and this act deals specifically with these public/private partnership agreements, so I don’t believe it would have any impact on the state. I don’t believe it would have an impact on purely municipal water districts in any regard. This would only be a limitation or prohibition that I think is the reason it’s constitutional because it only addresses those agreements entered into pursuant to this section. I am not an attorney, but you certainly have brilliant legal counsel on this Committee, so I will defer.
Chairman Manendo:
Our legal staff always looks at things that we pass, and if they need to take something out because it’s unconstitutional, they will do that and they will let us know. They always look into these things.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I’d like to read one short paragraph into the record. This is from Hugh Jackson who is part of Public Citizen, the national watchdog group. He writes, and I quote:
Vidler’s biggest transaction in 2002, accounting for $5.2 million and 43 percent of Vidler’s total revenues, was the sale of groundwater and land to a golf course development near Scottsdale, Arizona, Jackson says. In 2001, he says, Vidler sold water rights to an energy company in Arizona and then bragged to its shareholders that it made a $5 million cash surplus.
Chairman Manendo:
The Chair has had sleepless nights on this piece of legislation. The Chair will entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 487.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Grady:
I am going to vote in favor of this, but I do reserve my right, as the Senator said, if the State Engineer were to come up with a problem on this, I would change my vote on the Floor.
Assemblyman Hardy:
Assemblyman Grady said it so eloquently, and I will so state.
Assemblyman Williams:
I’m supporting the motion. The State Engineer is usually in here more than we are when there’s a problem. He hasn’t surfaced the whole time we’ve heard this bill, S.B. 487, and it’s not his typical behavior not to surface when there’s a problem. He’s always around.
The fact that each one of the county commissioners signed a letter documenting their support for this and how the county needs it, I think it’s a lot clearer than the pay bill from the county commissioners. They clearly want this. It serves their particular need. They expressed to me how desperately they need it. The parties that had contention have now come together with a unified front. We don’t want to go against any county that faces any type of deprivation and that shows a unified front that they need our help. The fact that the parties have come together is even more appealing to the vote. I say we move forward and pass this legislation (S.B. 487) on to the Floor.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I join Mr. Williams’ comments, but I also join Mr. Grady’s qualification.
Chairman Manendo:
Personally I’ve had a lot of concerns with this piece of legislation, S.B. 487. It eased my comfort level quite a bit when interested parties brought forth their amendments, but I still have some reservations about the bill itself and the policy statement here. There may be other amendments that come to the Floor, and I think for the record, and maybe members don’t need to have this disclosure, but several people have indicated to me, and they have now, that they reserve their right to switch their vote. I would ask that, however you vote on this, you let me know if you’re planning on switching, even if there are no other amendments. It’s a kind of common courtesy that we have in this legislative body. Also, if there are amendments, we might need to discuss that as well. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?
[Recording Secretary Nancy Haywood called the roll.]
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO, ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY, AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE VOTED NO.
Chairman Manendo:
We have to go to the Floor. We’re in recess. [11:12 a.m.] [Chairman Manendo reconvened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.] Senate Bill 236 has been withdrawn by the sponsor, Senator Titus. This is a very important neighborhood issue. She is working on getting an interim study in regards to halfway houses and we’re hoping it will be one of the interim studies that comes out of this Legislative Session. I wanted to make that announcement because we know how important our neighborhoods are to everyone and, hopefully, there will be some good public policy that comes out of that interim study. Turning to Senate Bill 312.
Senate Bill 312 (1st Reprint): Authorizes state and local governmental entities to accept consular identification card for purpose of identifying person under certain circumstances. (BDR 19-823)
Susan Scholley:
[Exhibit G was distributed.] Senate Bill 312 in its first reprint, sponsored by Senator Carlton with a joint sponsor of Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, was heard in this Committee on April 30. Senate Bill 312 specifies that state agencies and local governments may accept a consular identification card for any activity in which the government entity accepts an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A consular identification card may be used by a notary to identify a person, or by a business as a condition of taking a check.
The bill states that the provisions apply for the purposes of identification only, and do not convey an independent right to receive benefits of any type. A consular identification card is defined as “an identification card issued by a consulate of a foreign government, which consulate is located within the state of Nevada.”
S.B. 312 was supported by the Latino Chamber of Commerce, the Nevada Bankers Association, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Washoe County Sheriff’s Department, the Cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Opposition to the bill was received from the Eagle Forum, the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, the Nevada Republican Assembly, Nevada Families Education Foundation, and the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement. There were no amendments proposed to the bill, and there is no state or local government fiscal impact.
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, being distributed is a letter from Attorney General Brian Sandoval in support of Senator Bill 312, Exhibit H. Madam Secretary will include this into the official record.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I support this bill, S.B. 312. It’s permissive. I’m compelled by the testimony of law enforcement that says banks are using this as identification and that this encourages people to get bank accounts, which is important because it’s dangerous for folks not to have bank accounts and to have a lot of money lying around. It encourages people to file police reports, and I think that those are important in terms of keeping our neighborhoods safe. It won’t be possible with the language of this bill to get a driver’s license. I know that’s a concern of some people. It was passed unanimously in the Senate and I urge my colleagues’ support.
Assemblywoman Weber:
On one of the bills we had earlier, one of my colleagues made a quote saying this is awful public policy. I don’t know if I would go to that extent on this bill, S.B. 312, but I don’t believe it is value added for the citizens of the state of Nevada. I know we’ve gotten a lot of e-mails, besides all the hype. If this bill is not passed, this will not prohibit law enforcement nor banking from accepting the Matricula Consular Identification (ID) Card. I do not see what the value is in adding this on.
Currently, just so that we’re all aware, the General Services Administration does not recommend use of this card for ID because there is no national database. Every state has a different one. There’s a lot of fraud with the use of these. They’re easy to duplicate. For those reasons, even though I support the idea that law enforcement can use it, they don’t need this bill, S.B. 312, and I do not support it. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I rise in support of this bill, S.B. 312. I don’t think we’re here to debate our federal government’s immigration policies that are inconsistent, but there are people that are here who are working and serving in our community and need some help. I think this is only fair. I do support this, Mr. Chairman, and when you’re ready, I would love to make the motion.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I would just point out that driver’s licenses aren’t part of a national database. They’re state-by-state databases. Also, the part about it being permissive to me is that this lets entities in our state know that if they choose to use this, that’s an option. They may not know, and this lets them know that’s an option.
Assemblyman Christensen:
This issue, when this bill, S.B. 312, came up, is one that I certainly understand, as well as the value of the bill. I guess I’m directing this to the Committee, but I had some concerns on the bill, and the best way I could describe my concerns is, I was thinking what if I were to sneak into Nellis Air Force Base? What would the military police do if they caught me? I’d be in there and I’m not supposed to be there. They’d first ask for ID and, if I didn’t have military ID authorization, they would take action.
How is that different than undocumented illegals being here in the United States? I actually asked several people of credibility that question, and the response was that it’s a little bit different and here’s the reason why. It had to do with local jurisdiction. My thought was, what does the police department do when they pick up some of these undocumented people? They said they really don’t do anything because that’s not their jurisdiction, that it is an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issue. As I pursued it further, I came to understand that it’s what law enforcement was asking for.
Certain people have issues with bank accounts and how they can have bank accounts here. I can also ask the question, why can they buy gas here? Why can they buy hot dogs at Wienerschnitzel? They just can, and those businesses are probably fine with that. As far as identification, I think that if there are people here who are not ID’d and are not documented, they need to be documented for the reasons that law enforcement has pointed out.
This is a long way of saying that my issues were addressed and, after that research and those Q and A sessions, I have come to the point where I do support S.B. 312. If I have ongoing issues with immigration and am wondering why we have illegals here, that’s something I guess we pursue in the form of a resolution to Congress urging INS to tighten the borders or to buy more vans or whatever they need to do, but I do think that we should support this to identify them and move on.
Assemblyman Atkinson:
I was with my colleague from District No. 13 until the van issue came up, but I would agree with him. I pretty much echo everything he and Assemblywoman Pierce said. I have had a lot of discussions about this issue over the last few days, and even listening to my other colleagues and Ms. Weber sitting right next to me and saying, why can’t they pay taxes.
[Assemblyman Atkinson continued.] I don’t think that this is about that. I really do think that we have gotten this entire thing confused, believing that because we give them a card, it totally makes them legal. I don’t think that’s what this is about, and I really do think some individuals need to take a look into this and really see what it’s about. If you’re nervous that it’s making someone legal, you really need to look at it again because that’s not what this is doing.
I’m in full support of it. My other colleague sitting behind me who is chairman of another committee of mine is going to get me; I know that. Again, I would have to say the Senate took action and voted 21-0 on it, and I urge our party to do so as well.
Assemblywoman Weber:
I wanted to point out that the database that I was referring to earlier was not the Department of Motor Vehicles; it had to do with the Mexican government not even knowing what Mexican Nationals are in our country. My point was there is no national database of folks who have come across our borders.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
In response to the comment about not paying taxes, that’s not exactly true. They do pay taxes. For the most part, particularly Medicare and social security, they can’t access. They’re paying that money and it’s lost to them. I think that has to be a consideration.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
My concern with S.B. 312 is technically what we are doing is authorizing a state agency to accept a background check from a foreign country. That’s my biggest issue with it. I understand the problem. I know the issue with undocumented workers. I know it very well coming from rural Nevada. I guess my biggest issue is the fact that a background check is being done by a foreign entity and we are authorizing a state agency to accept it.
Assemblyman Grady:
My one question is, and I don’t know who to ask it to, are we talking only about the Mexican government, or do we have other consulates in this country? I think at one time there was an Italian consulate in Reno. I don’t know if it’s still there or not.
Following Mr. Goicoechea’s line of thinking, philosophically I have a tough time saying let’s give a card to someone who is illegal. I will tell you that in my area of Yerington, we probably have as many farm workers as any rural area in the state, and I know what my farmers go through to bring these folks in here to help work. They get cards, they provide the transportation to bring them in, they have to have homes for them, and just to say anyone who walks in with $29 can get an ID card, I have a real problem with that.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
If I go to a state agency and they ask for ID and I give them my driver’s license, the Department of Motor Vehicles doesn’t do a background check before they give a driver’s license out. Having a driver’s license does not say that anyone has done a background check on, so I think the whole thing about background checks sort of muddies the water. I don’t think that is on point.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’m not sure what this allows somebody to do that is not being allowed now. They use it for the bank. They use it for ID. It is working. If a person has one, they are almost by definition, illegal, because they don’t have a driver’s license or another standard form of ID. If you came in legally, you have a card of whatever color we give federally that shows you’re here legally, and we do not issue the card. This is not issued by the United States government, it’s not issued by the state of Nevada, it’s issued by the consulate of which we probably have one.
I’m leery of purposefully identifying people as being illegal. I have a problem with identifying somebody because they have one, as illegal, and the ramifications for intimidation and taking advantage of someone with fear as almost a blackmail type situation. I have fears that people who are here illegally and now they’re identified as illegal could be prey for those who are in a position of power over them. I have a problem with it.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I appreciate my colleague, Assembly Hardy’s, sentiments, but I think there are lots of people here legally who have neither a driver’s licenses nor state IDs. What brings that to mind is, most of you know that in my other life, I worked for the Culinary Union and I know that there are lots and lots of women who work on the strip of Las Vegas who go in car pools or who get picked up by their husbands at the end of the day. I think there are a lot of, in particular, these women, who don’t drive and probably have never gone to get an ID, and I think they might just like to have this ID. I appreciate your concerns, but I am not sure there’s a dangerous part of this. It is permissive. It just gives entities the option of using it.
Assemblyman McCleary:
There have been some very good points made. Our neighbors to the north from Canada come in and out of the United States all the time, and we accept their driver’s licenses which are not produced in the United States. I don’t see the difference. I really don’t.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
The sponsor of Senate Bill 312 is willing to add an amendment that specifically says that this card may not be used to get a driver’s license (Exhibit I). Would that make people more comfortable?
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think that would go a long way towards allaying some fears. In relation to our neighbors to the north who come down with their driver’s licenses, I suspect our neighbors to the south also have ID that they use when they’re in their country that can be used for ID here. This basically shows that they’ve got a card that can be used for ID that proves that they’re illegal, whereas they can use their driver’s license or whatever ID from Mexico they want, or El Salvador, or Honduras, or wherever. This card is because they don’t have an ID that is legal, so they would be subject to or could be subject to people who are in enforcement positions holding them in an intimidating, hostage-type situation, and I’m uncomfortable with that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I don’t remember testimony that the only people that would have this card would be illegals. Can we get some clarification on that?
Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District No. 2, Clark County:
This does not apply only to people who have been portrayed here as illegal. It applies to anyone who is a Mexican National within the borders of our state, the way your driver’s license verifies who you are, no matter where you are within the borders of this state. It has nothing to do with legal or illegal. It can be applied to either person. It’s merely a backup form of identification that says, yes, this is me, I am a Mexican National. It has nothing to do with documented or undocumented. If there are any other concerns I can answer for you, Mr. Chairman, but I do not want to get into a testimony position. I know your time is short. I’m here just to allay any concerns.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I’ve heard two questions that I think are important here. One is, “why do we need this?” and the other is “what’s the problem?” I guess I’d like to ask someone to explain to me a particular circumstance, not a generality, but give me a particular circumstance where a person would use this and would need it and would not have something else they could present and what benefit they would get from using it.
[Assemblyman Knecht continued.] On the other side, I join Assemblyman Hardy in wondering a little bit what the problem is, and especially so if the prohibition against use, primary, secondary, or tertiary, for a driver’s license is, in fact, added to this. I’d like to ask Senator Carlton to give me a specific circumstance in which someone would need this and what benefit they’d get.
Senator Carlton:
Mr. Chairman, I truly did not come here to testify, so I will take your guidance as far as answering any questions. It’s the wish of the Chair as to what I do right now.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Any other discussion. Mr. Williams?
Assemblyman Williams:
I want to reserve most of my comments on this issue if S.B. 312 gets to the Floor, but this is a tough issue. The problems that have been relayed to me by the individuals that are concerned with this bill, I understand fully. I share those problems, but the basic problem that I have with this issue is one simple word, “illegal.” What part of “illegal” don’t we understand?
People say these are jobs that nobody else will want and our economy would die if they weren’t able to be here. “Illegal” sounds like something I remember called “slavery.” Those were jobs nobody wanted either. But citizenship is a very important entity in our American government. We’re talking about raising taxes, cutting the budget, saving money. We start passing bills like this and I’ll tell you how you can save and help the budget: get rid of all the high school civics books that teach high school ninth graders that citizenship is important and how to go about becoming a citizen of the United States.
The United States has a history of greatness that’s based on citizenship, and with all the problems that these individuals face, we should be spending our time helping them attain citizenship. All of the efforts that we can do should be to attain citizenship. If you look at the oath that we took on February 3 when we raised our hands, it was to protect and govern laws for the citizens of Nevada; 120 days is a short time. A lot of bills that we hear, and some bills that we can’t hear, that deal with the citizens of Nevada would be put aside if we were spending time on illegals.
Folks are saying to me that they’re already here and they’re going to be here anyway. So is heroin. So are assault rifles. They’re illegal and we regulate those. It is the word “illegal” that presents the problem for me with S.B. 312. It’s not about who shouldn’t be here and who can.
[Assemblyman Williams continued.] The proponents of the bill, each one who has signed in favor of this bill, I’ve worked with before and I respect dearly. I will commit to doing anything to enhance individuals who are coming into this country to become legal citizens. That’s the basis of America, citizenship. When I was in high school, my mother worked at the polls but couldn’t vote. To see people go through the process of toil and tribulation to become recognized as citizens in this county, that’s what America is built on. I’m not opposed to anyone becoming a citizen. Obviously I’d be a criminal if I was opposed to anyone becoming a citizen, but all the things that were named as problems during the hearing can’t be fixed in this particular bill.
This bill will be more of a service as a resolution to look at all the problems that are faced by Latinos who face problems coming into this country, just as most other “minorities” face when they come into this county. But to legitimize illegitimacy doesn’t help the cause of citizenship. It only goes toward the comments of Mr. Hardy that you are enhancing the problems that these people now face and will now be amplified because people would now know that they’re illegal.
I talked to the police departments about this and they said they’d like to be able to allow them to visit their friends in jail. There’s a lady in jail in North Las Vegas and she has seven kids who want to visit her. Her husband, who has been incarcerated and who is an ex-offender and who is a citizen, can’t visit his wife nor can their children visit their mother because he’s an ex‑felon, but he’s a citizen. But the police department wants to use this card so illegal residents can visit their friends.
Maybe Mr. Christensen’s scenario should be relayed in a different way. Not on Nellis Air Force Base, but if he was in another county illegally and folks found out he was there illegally, they wouldn’t issue him a card to do business there. You’d be deported or you would be jailed because you’re not a citizen of that country. If you want to live in a country, you should strive for citizenship.
Go back to your ninth grade civics book and go back to the chapter on citizenship and naturalization. Some folks have said that we can’t handle the federal laws, but the immigration law that was passed in 1996 gave local law enforcement the ability to enforce laws so that if there are not enough vans or not enough immigration agents, they can enforce those.
The key words to this are “illegal” and “legal.” As the highest-ranking government body in this state, what we are doing is about to approve legitimizing citizens who are here unlawfully. That’s just like anything else that’s unlawful that comes into this country. If we legitimize it by giving it a card, we’re buying into the unlawfulness and the illegitimacy of that situation, and that’s what it boils down to.
[Assemblyman Williams continued.] If we want to take a bill like this and turn it into a directive to fix all the barriers that Latinos and those who are coming in from Mexico and El Salvador face, then we’re doing a service. What we’re doing here is causing more people to be put in sealed containers and more people lying out like they were in Texas around that 18-wheeler, those people out there who were being transported illegally. If people come into the country to become citizens, they wouldn’t be in the back of a truck with no air.
Most of the points that I have, if this bill, S.B. 312, goes to the Floor, I will bring them out then. Keep in mind, when you go back to your office and read your commission, we’re here to deal with improving the lives of citizens of Nevada. If we’re going to take on people who are in the country who are not here legally who, for whatever reason, have not had the time or been given the instruction or the assistance, what we should be doing is help them become citizens, not to have noncitizens function as citizens.
Chairman Manendo:
The Chair will entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN PIERCE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 312.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Susan Scholley:
For clarification on the amendments, there are other parallel sections in the NRS chapter on licenses. One can get a driver’s license, a motorcycle license, and an identification card from DMV. They’re all identical provisions. Would the amendment include parallel amendments to those other two sections? That would be parallel amendments to the section that allows you to go down to DMV and get a motorcycle license or an identification card.
Assemblyman Williams:
The driver’s license issue is not an issue for me. However, on this amendment, what has happened when it comes to the driver’s license issue with this is that when individuals come from those states that do allow the use of this card to get a license, those individuals come to Nevada and turn that license in. They don’t use this card, they turn the license in to Nevada from those states where they have used the card to get it and they’re able to get a license. This amendment doesn’t address that. If that’s the intent, the amendment should get into language that says that a driver’s license obtained in other states by use of this card can’t be used to get a license. The person should have to start over to get that, because this amendment doesn’t say anything.
Chairman Manendo:
That’s in Assembly Bill 441, the Homeland Security Bill.
Assemblyman Williams:
Where is that bill? That bill may not pass. We should have that in this amendment as well.
Chairman Manendo:
It’s in the Senate.
Assemblyman Williams:
Our amendment should say that in case that bill is not successful, but the issue, again, is bigger than a driver’s license. The issue is legality.
Senator Carlton:
Just for clarification, under the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), Section 483.050, the Department of Motor Vehicles is currently charged with the duty of keeping track of the driver’s licenses that may be exchanged for a license in this state, and under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), there’s a listing of all the different things. I believe some of you, and I hope all of you, have received a copy of the NRS and NAC citations, and I’ll be happy to read from it, if you’d like. It basically says that the Carson City headquarters office of the DMV shall provide a list, and the DMV will know which driver’s licenses are available in other states with the Mexican consulate ID card, so they already have access to that information now. All they have to do is cross-reference with the other 49 states.
Chairman Manendo:
We’re going to accept this motion as is and by the time it gets back from redraft or from the amendment being drafted, there could be an additional amendment that we could do at that time.
THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN GOICOECHEA, ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY, ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEBER, AND ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS VOTED NO.
S.B. 345. Senator Nolan?
Senate Bill 345: Provides direction to Public Employees’ Retirement System regarding payment of certain benefits. (BDR 23-88)
Senator Dennis Nolan, Senate District No. 9, Clark County:
On S.B. 345, this was a bill that some disabled police officers had asked to bring. It was redefining how we define “duty disability” for the purpose of paying taxes. You’ll recall that there was testimony that there are two ways in which the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) system can establish tax withholding. One of them is to have the individual withhold taxes from disability payments and the other one would be to not withhold. Currently PERS withholds taxes and at the end of the year the individual files with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since the IRS doesn’t recognize disability taxes as a taxable item, at the end of the year they refund those taxes to the individual.
I think the right thing to do, and I don’t know whether PERS agreed with this, was to change the way the PERS system defines “duty disability,” and that’s what S.B. 345, does. The downside to that is that we’re not exactly sure because the definition for disability is throughout the PERS regulations and throughout statutes, and we’re not sure of all the unintended consequences that might bring.
Therefore, I would offer a verbal amendment. I apologize I don’t have something in writing. We’ve been discussing this last night and today. We’d like to pass S.B. 345, but we’d like to give the system a 24-month period in which to develop a plan and implement the bill. The reason why we feel PERS needs that much time is because we want to make sure that, as they go through redefining this in statute, number one, those people who are on disability right now are not affected, and number two, we would bring PERS up to the period of time of the next Legislative Session so if there was something that was unanticipated that might create a major problem, we can look at this again in the 2005 Legislative Session.
[Assemblyman Williams moved to amend and do pass S.B. 345 and Assemblyman Knecht seconded the motion, but Chairman Manendo did not accept the motion or the second.]
Chairman Manendo:
Briefly, can you clarify for our legal staff exactly what you’re intending to do?
Senator Nolan:
We would pass S.B. 345, but we’re giving the PERS system 24 months in which to establish the provisions of the bill in regulation, which would bring us up to about March or April 2005, and that would give PERS the opportunity to bring back to the Legislature any unforeseen consequences that might result from implementing this bill.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
My recollection of the testimony was that PERS is opposed to this and it’s not as simple as changing a regulation.
Senator Nolan:
Mrs. Koivisto is right. They were opposed to it primarily because it was not a simple process. It’s a very complicated process, and I think that it was a matter of determining what was right. Even PERS could not tell you that doing it this way was not right. They said that if it is right, they will do it that way. There was some documentation that was provided to the Committee regarding other states, and I think the testimony was that there were 25 other states that do not withhold taxes, and there were letters that it was sustained in Supreme Court hearings.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think this is an actuarial issue. When I buy disability insurance, I have a choice to pay taxes on the premium and/or accept tax-free money later or before, so it really is an actuarial question. I don’t know that anybody is going to be able to give us that answer. It may take six months or two years to figure it out. If I understand the amendment right, you’re saying to give PERS two years to figure out if this is going to be effective, which gives this body 20 months to come back and say PERS reports that it wasn’t effective, so we can scuttle the proposed program before it actually takes effect.
Senator Nolan:
Pretty close. We’re saying to require PERS to enact this and develop plans and procedures to move ahead, do the research, work with the Attorney General’s Office so they can determine everything that they need to do, and then, if there is something that absolutely prohibits them from being able to implement it, we’re at the next legislative session and they can bring it back then.
It came down to the fact that PERS said they could do this, but it’s going to be very difficult, and they’re not sure of all that’s involved in changing how “disability” is defined in statute. It would mean that they would have to redefine, not so much in statute, but in PERS regulations, how they define “disability,” and we want to make sure they have enough time to do that in a way that we’re not going to affect any other people who are receiving benefits on disability now. Ultimately what would happen is that these people stop paying taxes on disability payments that they shouldn’t be paying taxes on now. They do receive a refund check back at the end of the year, but that’s disposable income that people on disability don’t have when they really need it.
Assemblyman Hardy:
If you look at a private insurance company that does disability, they give an option to the person that’s buying that product of whether they want plan A or plan B, which gives them tax-free money up front or tax free money in the back. Would you be creating a product that is flexible in that it could be accepted either way and thus, the person and/or the state would need to understand its liability on each of those balancing mechanisms to figure out which way they were going to go? Is it the person who decides or the state who decides which way we’re going to do this tax-effective plan?
Senator Nolan:
If the bill, S.B. 345, is enacted, there would be just one way to do it, and they would not withhold taxes. Currently the IRS doesn’t recognize disability payments as income anyway, so what happens is the state withholds it and then the individual is given that refund back at the end of the tax year. They have to file their taxes, but the money comes back to them. It would just be one way. They would not have taxes withheld from their disability payments and that would be the only way if the bill passes and the program is enacted.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I think we’re talking about two different kinds of disability then because, in the private world, if you’re injured and you’ve paid tax-free premiums, then your disability, should that happen, is taxable. I may just be talking about a different product because, depending on how you define disability, the IRS does have statutes where they can tax your disability payment if, going into it, you opted for the “I don’t want to pay taxes on my premium” option. That’s why I say it’s an actuarial question because depending on how you do it depends on what you get out, taxable or tax-free.
Senator Nolan:
I understand your argument. I think that’s kind of where we’re at. If the bill, S.B. 345, passes, then they would redefine “duty disability” and the individuals would not have their taxes withheld.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Further recalling testimony, PERS also said that, in order to do this they need to work with the IRS, and it’s a six-month process to get that paperwork through, so if we tell them they have to do it right now, then they’re going to be in violation of whatever they operate under with the IRS.
Senator Nolan:
What PERS said was that it takes about six months to get an opinion letter back from the IRS. What they indicated was, if we go ahead and pass the bill, S.B. 345, they would ask for an opinion letter from the IRS asking whether the way that they are currently doing it is correct. The inference was that if the bill passed and IRS came back and said the way you’re doing it right now is correct, they were going to say that they wouldn’t implement the new procedures. The real issue is if the way they’re doing it is correct, it’s one way to do it, but what we’re asking for is the other more simple and kinder way to do it where people don’t have to have their taxes withheld and wait to get that money back at the end of the year. That was their answer to it. They’re not going to work on this. They’re not going to do anything other than send a letter to IRS to reaffirm what we already know and that is the way they’re doing it under statute right now is correct. We’re saying there’s another way to do it, and it’s a better and kinder way for people who are disabled and on disability.
Chairman Manendo:
Is there a possibility of just passing S.B. 345, and then just putting in a letter directing PERS to study it and then report back?
Senator Nolan:
I think that if we pass the bill, what we need to tell them, and this was based upon my discussion with PERS and their posture . . . If they’re not going to be able to do this, they won’t because it’s going to be a labor-intensive effort on their part. They’ll say that the way they’re doing it is fine and these people who have an issue with this, all they have to do is check in the box that they don’t want their taxes withheld and we’re okay. The problem is, in checking the box that you don’t want your taxes withheld, at the end of the year you still have to fill out a tax form and write a check for those taxes, just so IRS can turn around and pay you back.
To answer your question directly, Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is to pass the bill, S.B. 345, and provide PERS a 24-month window in which to develop regulations, do the research, and prepare to enact the bill. They don’t necessarily need to come back to the Legislature, but we know that if the Legislature is convening at that point in time, if they run into problems where they’re not able to get past an unforeseen hurdle, we’ll be in session and they can come and say they’ve developed the plan, this is what they need to do, these are the additional requirements that they need in legislation to make this thing happen. That would be my recommendation.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’m trying to get to the “kinder, gentler, get the money in the hands of the person” as well, and I’m struggling a little bit. I had a conversation with PERS yesterday. A person is hired new and they have a contract and a set of benefits that they are going to get. One of the reasons we’re hearing from PERS this legislative session is because the 18.75 percent needs to bump up to 20.25 percent in order to be able to fund their obligation to the members that they already have going towards retirement.
If we hire somebody under S.B. 345, and they understand that they have this program in the process of being implemented and don’t understand that this program could be removed, then the state, as I see it, would still be liable to continue the program. That’s why I’m a little leery of approving a program that may be delayed in implementation.
The promise is there of implementation, so somebody who gets injured in 18 months on the job and this program is officially fully implemented in two years, then their understanding would be that they’re covered. What would our understanding be, and it obviously isn’t in the bill because you only have 13 words or something in the bill, because it’s so simple. Do we need to put something in there that says the implementation is also the effective date of new hires and they do not have this benefit until it is fully implemented?
Senator Nolan:
I can only draw on my experience in doing risk management insurance with large employers. An employer is obligated by law to only provide the details of those benefits that the employee is currently eligible for, and not what they’re planning to do. Employers, public and private, are constantly changing benefit programs and plans. At the time that a plan is changed and employees become eligible for new benefits, the employer is obligated at that point in time to notify the employees.
So until this was actually enacted and if we put it out 24 months, PERS can always come back to the Legislature and say that there are some other things that they have to do. They need an extension on time to get them accomplished or whatever, but until the drop-dead date actually comes where they have to implement it, employees or potential employees wouldn’t have to be made aware of a pending benefit.
Chairman Manendo:
Madam Secretary, did we accept the motion and second? I’m trying to remember back. [Recording Secretary Nancy Haywood indicated that the motion and second had not been accepted.] Mr. Hardy?
Assemblyman Hardy:
I would like to explore the reality of this and make it actuarially sound and allow what’s happening to happen in such a way that it would benefit. I like the concept, and if the intent is to have the implementation after PERS shows that it can be fiscally sound policy for the state, I would be in favor of that, as long as the implementation is not effective for somebody that is hired in the interim before the full implementation in 24 months, and that is contingent upon the approval of PERS. There’s probably a Legislative Commission in the meantime that could have a report in 18 months and have maybe a better idea of what direction we’re going.
Senator Nolan:
If it would alleviate the Assemblyman’s concerns, the Legislative Commission meets probably every other month during the interim, and if you would feel comfortable with a report in 12 months to the Legislative Commission on this, I would be fine with that as well.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’d like that.
Chairman Manendo:
That would be fine. I’m looking for clarification. Ms. O’Grady, can you help us?
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel:
I think this would involve a change to the effective date to make it clear that it’s effective on July 1, 2003, for the planning aspects and then July 1, 2005, for actual implementation, and than a transitory section requiring this report to the Legislative Commission by PERS in a year.
Chairman Manendo:
The Chair will entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 345.
ASSEMBLYMAN GRADY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Assemblyman Collins, Assemblyman Goicoechea, and Assemblyman Knecht were absent for the vote.)
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Senate Bill 342.
Senate Bill 342 (1st Reprint): Prohibits false or fraudulent complaints against public officer or employee. (BDR 23-1144)
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I understand that there’s an amendment (Exhibit J) being offered on this.
Assemblyman Christensen:
Is this amendment (Exhibit J) being provided by the proponents of the bill, S.B. 342?
Chairman Manendo:
This is an amendment (Exhibit J) being proposed by Mick Gillins of NCOPS (Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs).
Assemblyman Christensen:
I’m trying to see what’s different about this. Is there someone who is going to speak to this amendment (Exhibit J), or is it self-discovery? Could you address this, Mr. Gillins, specifically as to how the amendment came about? Were there questions, issues, concerns, that this addresses that would perhaps give members of the Committee an increased level of comfort for S.B. 342?
Mick Gillins, representing the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs:
Specifically there are two things that are addressed in the amendment (Exhibit J). The first thing is with regard to the definition of who is covered under it. I had been approached after we had our last hearing with regards to concerns by elected officials who, during that hearing, said that it could be perceived that elected officials were covered under that and they had some concern over that.
The first part of the amendment (Exhibit J) where we’re talking about with the exception of elected officials was to remove them to give them a level of comfort and not have them involved in the process, but it still left all of the public employees, whether they be appointed or not, under the umbrella content-wise. Now, whether that has an effect on anything else, I don’t have any idea. I’m not an attorney so I can’t give you a legal decision in regards to that. But that was what was attempted, to alleviate those concerns from individuals about elected officials being included in there.
[Mick Gillins continued.] The second part of it is defining what a complaint is. We wanted to narrowly define that a complaint was being made to the employer of the individual being complained against for an issue of misconduct. That was the language that we added so that we knew that it wasn’t a letter to the editor or somebody exercising their first amendment rights to complain about somebody, but officially going and complaining against them to enact an internal investigation against that person.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I’ve heard a lot of concern about first amendment issues. I don’t have legal opinions from the Attorney General in front of me to go off of, but on the merits of the bill, S.B. 342, that’s really what I want to address. I feel like this litigious society that we live in oftentimes puts people in a position where they’re looking for a scapegoat or somebody to put their problems onto, and oftentimes in my experience and in the work that I do with law enforcement.
I have a brother who is in law enforcement, not in this state, so it doesn’t involve my vote here, but part of the reason why I do support this bill, S.B. 342, is because I feel like often those who are in law enforcement are put in a very difficult position. In the example that you gave, and I’ve heard other similar scenarios too, where someone bangs his head on something and then turns around and says, “He did this,” when nobody else is looking. Here’s this law enforcement guy trying to protect guys like me, my wife, my kids, and here’s a lunatic who’s perhaps on drugs or otherwise, gashes his head and tries to say that it’s a law enforcement guy. Just that allegation or just that accusation can have this guy looking for work.
I understand that it is such a challenge for them to be able to pull out from that because, as much as our society says you’re innocent until proven guilty, oftentimes in your profession, after a number of things that have happened that have been caught on tape that were absolutely wrong, the public sentiment seems to lean more to, “That’s what police do.” I know for a fact that’s not the case, and I support the bill, S.B. 342, because I believe that it helps all of you in particular and others in similar scenarios to help balance the scale. In my job here as a legislator, that’s what I try to do in these bills is to bring balance to the equation where I feel like there is a propensity for imbalance.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I agree there is imbalance. I don’t think there’s anything we’re going to be able to do about it. I don’t think this is constitutional. I think it’s going to discourage people to report legitimate complaints, and I don’t feel comfortable enough to vote for this. I wanted you to be aware of my reasons. It is hard to go against the cops. It’s a lot of pressure on me, but I’ve got to do what I think is right and I hope you’ll respect that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
I don’t think elected officials should be removed from this because I think elected officials should be held to a higher standard. We go to people and tell them we want their vote, and I think we make a commitment when we do that. I would like to offer some additional language to Section 1, subsection 1, lines 1-6, of S.B. 342, where it refers to “conduct in the course and scope of the employment of the public officer or public employee” to “for the purpose of causing harm or damage to the public officer or public employee.”
Assemblyman Hardy:
Would it behoove us to look at Section 3 on the complaint issue and put that kind of language in the complaint issue? I’m not familiar enough with how the complaints are made, and if the witness wants to say if that complaint is more than an internal investigation, or the concept of harm, or I don’t know the language there.
Mick Gillins:
We had also looked at language. We didn’t know what the appetite would be with regards to in Section 3 where we’re talking about misconduct of either criminal or of a criminal nature, more clearly defining it. What we’re really talking about are the egregious accusations that are not true, not the day‑to‑day, he was rude to me, or any of those types of things. Certainly the things that we have talked about with regard to people’s accusations almost all have been of a criminal nature, and that certainly goes to what our intent is with regard to this issue, and it would certainly give us a lot more clarification. I think that would be absolutely wonderful, and I think that addresses a little bit of what Assemblywoman Koivisto was trying to get at with regards to her amendment also. We certainly are not opposed to anything like that and would enjoy that kind of an amendment.
Chairman Manendo:
Mr. Hardy, could you clarify again?
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’m trying to figure out, egregious would be a good word, but I’m looking at what Assemblywoman Koivisto is talking about. Subsection 3 of Section 1 addresses the complaint definition that would limit it to initiate an internal investigation. If there was the language that Assemblywoman Koivisto was talking about the harm, and I don’t know the statutory kinds of words to put in there that would be more than just “an internal investigation.” There may be another kind of investigation. That sounds like language limited to a police department, instead of another public body, and I’m wondering if that limitation and language would limit some of the other bodies that the employee works at.
[Assemblyman Hardy continued.] Likewise, I’m looking at the concept of what our witness has said about criminal nature, those kinds of criminal-nature offenses. It may be better to have some of that language in because, if the person is afraid to say someone was rude, abrupt, ugly, whatever, and I can see how that can stifle somebody from coming forward and saying, “He did this to me,” or “She did that to me,” but it wasn’t so horrible that I risk doing that, whereas if he really did split my head open, I want to be able to say that, because of the interpretation and perception. My perception may be that it was this way, but I’m afraid to come forward and do that because I don’t have a bruise, or I don’t have a split head, getting to your comments, Assemblyman McCleary.
I like the bill, S.B. 342, I like the concept, and I would support something that says a person who knowingly files a false or fraudulent written complaint or allegation. I think that those people who knowingly file a false or fraudulent written complaint should be held accountable for that.
Chairman Manendo:
There is civil recourse for that right now.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I’m just wondering if you are willing to entertain a motion on S.B. 342?
Chairman Manendo:
I’m trying to get a feel if we are going to be able to count to seven.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I have struggled with this, but I’m with Mr. McCleary on this. I have an enormous amount of sympathy and appreciation for the job that policemen do, but I am compelled that this will go to court and that the ACLU will win, and that I have an obligation not to waste the taxpayers’ money. I don’t think this can pass constitutional muster, so I’ll be voting no.
Chairman Manendo:
Any other discussion, Committee? I don’t think we’re going to be able to pass any motion on S.B. 342. Anything else to come before the Committee? We are adjourned [at 2:26 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: