MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
June 1, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 9:45 a.m., on Sunday, June 1, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Analyst
Donald O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst
James D. Earl, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1370: Authorizes expenditures by agencies of state government. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 504.)
Senator Raggio:
We are scheduled to hear the authorization bill, bill draft request (BDR) S-1370. Language has been put in the bill to accommodate the proposed transfer of the printing office to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. We need to understand why such a move is appropriate.
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Director’s Office, Administrative Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The relevant provision is Section 19 of BDR S-1370. Before discussing the proposed statutory language, I would like to describe what led us to propose the change.
During a meeting with the budget director in September 2002, one of the topics discussed was the future of the State Printing Division.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, would you join Mr. Malkiewich at the witness table?
Mr. Malkiewich:
One option under consideration was the abolition of the printing office. That was a matter of concern for the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). As you can see from the huge stacks of bills on your desks, the LCB makes heavy use of, and places heavy reliance upon, the printing office during the Legislative Session. When session is over, the LCB relies on the printing office to print the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). We print the statutes in a particular format. It would not be easy to find another bidder to undertake that job. Certainly, we would not want to have to put Legislative printing tasks out to bid a few months before the commencement of a session.
The Nevada Supreme Court is faced with a similar situation. The printing office prints the Nevada Reports. Finding another printer, particularly on short notice, would likely cause problems.
This committee is aware that the State Printing Division has been challenged to return a profit over the last several years. The last interim period was particularly difficult for the office. Responding to budget cuts last session, many agencies reduced their printing requirements before making other reductions. This is how many agencies sought to make their 3 percent reductions. This made it difficult for the printing office to continue.
We are proposing that the LCB take over the printing office. We would ensure that as long as the printing office continued to function, the NRS, the Nevada Reports for the Supreme Court, and the bills for the Legislature would be printed. If the printing office were determined to be nonviable in the future, we would at least exercise more control over the timing and manner of its closure.
We believe that having the LCB take control of the printing office will help in a number of ways. The draft bill before you simply provides that the printing office would be transferred to the LCB. We would take over all the property. We would eliminate the requirement that public agencies use the services of the State Printing Division, and, conversely, not require the printing office to print material for public agencies, except those materials required by the LCB, Legislature, and the Nevada Supreme Court.
We would transfer printing office employees to the LCB. Subsection 8 would give me, as LCB director, the authority to retain such employees as appropriate, establish their duties and compensation, and make them employees of the LCB. The last provision states that, to the extent practicable, the LCB would retain existing printing office employees.
We would examine the operations of the printing office and its equipment in order to determine what functions should be continued and what functions should be eliminated. There is turnover in the printing office so some vacancies exist at present. The staffing level is pretty low. There are some large projects coming up. Obviously, the reprint of the NRS is one important effort. That printing would generate some revenue.
We believe that greatest benefit flowing from LCB control of the printing office would be the flexibility provided by adding the 250 employees of the LCB.
Senator Raggio:
How many employees are there in the printing office?
Mr. Malkiewich:
The employee count has fluctuated. The current number is probably less than 20. We could keep the printing office staffing low, but supplement it with LCB staff when the workload requires it. We could staff up for sessions and scale back during the interim.
Senator Raggio:
Would all the administrative level salaries continue to be required if the printing office were incorporated into the LCB?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Subsection 8 provides that we will establish salaries and duties. We will take a look to determine what duties are appropriate. If we determine that people are doing similar jobs, we would probably transfer them to the LCB at the same level. I am not sure what we would do with the administrative and supervisory personnel. We might do some commingling with staff in the Administrative and Legal Divisions.
Senator Raggio:
This sounds like a good idea. However, we should do it only if it is cost efficient. That may mean you will have to make some hard decisions with regard to some positions.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Yes, that will be our first task, to take a look at which jobs should remain. We will also look at expenses, equipment, and salaries. If we need to make cuts, we will do so. The staff may become more seasonal, like that of the LCB, where we increase staff during session. We will do what we can to make it profitable, at least to the extent that the printing operation covers its costs. We want to provide the Legislature and the Supreme Court with a reliable source of printing services. If, by next session, or by 2007 or 2009, we determine advances in electronic publishing are such that we need to move in that direction, we would at least have the control over the process to control any phaseout. We would not run the risk of having the printing office report in the middle of an interim period that it had to close because revenue was insufficient to pay staff salaries. Such a scenario would deprive the State of a printing office for the pending Legislative Session.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Comeaux, what is the position of the Executive Branch on this proposal?
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration:
We support this initiative. It makes sense. The legislative and judicial branches are the two branches that require their own printing shop. The executive branch simply does not have such a requirement anymore. Now is probably a good time to make the transfer. Your questions about the administrative staff are timely. There are vacancies. We have had some retirements. Other changes have occurred over the past several months, and because of the precarious financial situation of the office, we have not filled the positions. This would be a good time for an examination of what is really needed.
Senator Raggio:
If the office cannot be operated without a loss now, why might it be run without a loss if the LCB were to take charge of the operation?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I cannot guarantee that the office will operate profitably. However, I believe we may be able to do so because we can staff the operation at a lower level.
Senator Raggio:
The proposed provision says that you will retain all the staff if practicable.
Mr. Malkiewich:
The staffing level is now below normal. In past sessions, staffing has been much higher. We can tell the difference in some of the turnaround times on deadline days this session. It was very difficult for the office to keep up with Legislative demands. The lower staffing stems from the budget situation and from the office’s inability to generate more business. We are starting our examination with a staff of below 20 rather than between 30 and 40. We are probably close to the level of 10 or 15 staff that might be supportable. If we have to cut back more, we will.
Senator Raggio:
As you indicated, some of the staff could be seasonal.
Mr. Malkiewich:
That is correct. Seasonal staff may be one way we could make the office viable.
Senator Raggio:
Will the proposed language accommodate a decision to make some staff seasonal?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe that subsection 8 gives me, as director, extremely broad powers.
Senator Raggio:
Are there personnel rules that would prevent your exercise of discretion?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Making printing office workers employees of the LCB would make them subject to the rules and policies of the LCB.
Senator Coffin:
Printing is an art as much as a trade. The current employees take a great deal of pride in their work. The group is becoming smaller through attrition. I believe we could manage them. If we are concerned about whether the office operates at a profit or a loss, I think we should keep in mind that the LCB operates at a loss 20 out of 24 months. For 4 months, because we need the people, the LCB pays for itself. We have a similar situation with the printing office. The fact that the printing office loses money is due, in part, to the fact that it needs some permanent staff to service the Legislature for 4 months out of every 24 months. I think we should look at this as the acquisition of necessary talent. Fewer people may be needed. There is one sensitive area: what do we do with people in the oldest local of a very old union. What are you going to do about that?
Mr. Malkiewich:
We understand that some of the employees transferred to the LCB will belong to the union. We have talked to union representatives. They are very supportive of our plan. I believe the employees will support the move as well. Several sessions ago, they came to us with the same proposal. They believe the Legislature is the best client of the printing office. The Legislature both appreciates and understands that office’s work. We will deal with these new employees just as we deal with our current employees.
Senator Coffin:
Do I understand that the LCB would not be trying to move them out of their local?
Mr. Malkiewich:
No. They would be subject to the same rules as other employees. If we determine that the workforce needs to be scaled back, then it will be scaled back. As a general rule, the printing office employees will be retained. They run the printing presses and these are the positions needed to have a functioning printing office.
Senator Raggio:
Is there additional information we need to review concerning the Authorization Act language, BDR S-1370? I think the committee fully appreciates that the Authorization Act provides the authority to use funding not sourced from the General Fund.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
The committee reviewed the back language yesterday. The remainder of the draft bill (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) contains an itemized listing of all budget accounts where authorized expenditures have been approved by both money committees. That list appears on pages 2 through 20.
Senator Raggio:
Are there questions on that from the committee members? Is Section 2 the tobacco settlement?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Yes, it is.
Senator Raggio:
I see Section 3 deals with the State Gaming Control Board.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
Those are authorized expenditures for the State Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission from the General Fund. Additionally, the draft contains standard language.
Senator Raggio:
I see Section 8 refers to student fees.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
It does, and subsection 2 is language added this session to allow the university to utilize these fees for additional instruction.
Senator Raggio:
Is Section 9 the wildlife account?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
It provides the advance for the wildlife account, pending receipt of federal funds.
Senator Raggio:
Section 10 deals with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Is that the threshold research/pathway account?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is correct. The section allows use of funding in both years of the biennium.
Senator Raggio:
Section 11 appears to deal with the public defender contributions of the counties.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
That is correct. Section 12 provides for the allocation of motor vehicle fuel revenue between the Division of Wildlife and the Division of State Parks. Section 13 limits the use of the funds in the Division of Wildlife reserve account. Section 14 provides for TRPA threshold research in both years.
Senator Raggio:
Section 18 deals with the allocation from the Commission on Tourism to the State Arts Council for the Las Vegas Performing Arts Center Foundation.
If there are no questions from the committee members, I will accept a motion for committee introduction of BDR S-1370.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1370.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
*****
Senator Raggio:
The bill will be introduced as a committee bill. I will now accept a motion to do pass this measure upon introduction.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS THE AUTHORIZATION ACT.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senator Raggio:
The bill will be recommended for do pass after introduction.
SENATE BILL 184 (2nd Reprint): Revises certain provisions governing occupational diseases contracted by certain local police officers. (BDR 53‑851)
Senator Raggio:
We voted yesterday to amend and do pass Senate Bill (S.B.) 184. I have distributed copies of Amendment No. 980. Unless there is an objection, that amendment will be utilized in connection with the committee’s action.
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I need to point out to the committee that this amendment is a little different than the text that was reviewed yesterday. The Legal Division has reviewed the text, and it has been tweaked a little to ensure there are no costs to the State.
Senator Raggio:
Seeing that the committee has no concerns, we will use Amendment No. 980.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1373: Authorizes sale of National Guard Armory located in Carson City under certain circumstances. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 506.)
We also have before us BDR S-1373 (Exhibit D), the bill to implement the action of this committee in authorizing the sale of the National Guard Armory if funding for construction of the emergency services building is not otherwise available. If the money from the Wall Street settlement is not available, and if federal funding is insufficient, then the authority to sell the armory is available upon approval of the IFC. Is there any objection to the introduction of BDR S-1373?
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1373.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
SENATE BILL 505: Makes conditional appropriations to National Judicial College and Louis W. McHardy National College of Juvenile and Family Justice. (BDR S-1372)
Senator Raggio:
The next bill involves a conditional authorization triggered in the second year payable to the National Judicial College and the National College of Juvenile and Family Justice (Exhibit E). The committee had questions addressed on page 2 of the bill. The appropriation amounts, consistent with previous appropriations, are $225,000 to the National Judicial College and $125,000 to the National College of Juvenile and Family Justice. These appropriations are triggered by language on page 2. I believe the BDR was introduced by a vote of 5 to 2. I will take a further motion to introduce the bill.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE SENATE BILL 505.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TIFFANY AND SENATOR CEGAVSKE VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 258 (2nd Reprint): Makes appropriations to University of Nevada, Reno, for expenses of Pediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology Center at School of Medicine and to Health Division of Department of Human Resources for certain HIV/AIDS services. (BDR S-1204)
Senator Raggio:
Let us turn to S.B. 258. We passed this bill, a supplemental involving the School of Medicine. Assembly Amendment No. 970 would add $250,000 as an appropriation to an organization called Fighting AIDS in Our Community Today (FACT), located in west Las Vegas. This is somewhat contrary to an understanding we would not add appropriations. I am alerting the committee because we will be asked to concur or not. We had assigned a high priority to the residency program at the medical school. Senator Rawson, how much was that?
Senator Rawson:
It was about $250,000. I think the original bill involved an appropriation of over $1 million. I checked into the matter, and about $250,000 would be appropriate.
Senator Raggio:
I think the purpose addressed by the Assembly amendment is valid. In order to pay appropriate attention to this amendment, I think the committee ought not to concur and to recommend that if this amount is going to be appropriated, the money for the residency program be appropriated also. I am just calling this to your attention.
Senator Coffin:
Why would money go to this particular AIDS organization out of all the other AIDS organizations? Why did the Assembly select this one?
Senator Raggio:
I would refer your question to the chairman of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. This committee will be in recess at 10:10 am until the call of the chair.
Senator Raggio:
It is now 4 p.m. and the committee will come back to order.
The committee introduced S.B. 505. I will accept a motion for do pass on that bill.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 505.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TIFFANY AND SENATOR CEGAVSKE VOTED NO.)
*****
SENATE BILL 506: Authorizes sale of National Guard Armory located in Carson City under certain circumstances. (BDR S-1373)
Senator Raggio:
We authorized S.B. 506 for introduction. I will entertain a motion to do pass.
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 506.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 240 (1st Reprint): Extends prospective expiration of provisions that expand purposes for which board of trustees of county school district may issue general obligations. (BDR 34-453)
Senator Raggio:
We have Assembly Bill (A.B.) 240 on our desks. This was a measure on behalf of the Clark County School District to extend the expiration date on certain school bonds.
ASSEMBLY BILL 396 (2nd Reprint):Requires Clark County School District to continue pilot program for replacement of certain schools. (BDR S-1007)
Joyce Haldeman, Lobbyist, Clark County School District:
I am here to ask you to consider A.B. 240. Two bills were passed during the last session that related to school reconstruction. One required the Clark County School District to use bond funds to reconstruct five schools. The other bill, among other things, provided authority to use bond funds for reconstruction and to purchase environmentally friendly school buses. Both of these provisions sunset on July 1, 2003.
In this session, A.B. 396, now before the Governor, increases the number of schools to be reconstructed from 5 to 10. The purpose of A.B. 240 is to extend the sunset provision to July 1, 2007. This would allow the school district to continue using bond money for school reconstruction. It would also allow purchase of school busses from the same fund.
When we next go to the voters for reauthorization of the building fund program, which expires in June 2008, we will include these items in the package we take to the public. Consequently, we envision no further requests of the Legislature for authority to use these funds for these purposes.
Senator Tiffany:
I received a call from the regional superintendent responsible for my area. He talked about several schools that were involved in a cutoff. They needed to be rehabilitated. I think Rancho was number one, and there was a school in Henderson that was number two.
Ms. Haldeman:
That school is Berkholder Middle School.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that school on the list that will be affected if this bill is passed?
Ms. Haldeman:
That school is probably the next school in line, but the trustees have not yet made a decision. There is a study that identifies the order in which schools should be addressed. It is the next school. I assume it will be next.
Senator Tiffany:
I have had more than one parental inquiry about Thurmond White Middle School. Apparently, the school received new furniture 3 years ago, only to have it replaced more recently because the district had to spend bond money. I was told that bonds were being retired, and that the money had to be spent. What is the accountability for decisions like this.
Ms. Haldeman:
I appreciate your bringing this up. That issue has had a lot of attention, and there is a lot of misunderstanding about it among parents and other community members. We do have a furniture replacement program, but we certainly do not replace furniture because we need to spend bond money. There is no retirement date. Our program calls for replacing furniture in the oldest schools first. Some newer schools had furniture replaced, but that involved a warranty issue. There were defects in some of the school furniture, and that furniture was replaced at no cost to the school district. However, some constituents got the warranty replacement confused with the furniture replacement program.
Senator Tiffany:
Do you know the incident about which I am speaking?
Ms. Haldeman:
I do not recall that incident, because similar things have happened at more than one school.
Senator Tiffany:
What is “necessary equipment” used in educating pupils?
Ms. Haldeman:
When we reconstruct a school, we install the necessary equipment to make the school operable. A school reconstruction includes desks and computers.
Senator Tiffany:
That is under furniture. What is “necessary equipment”?
Ms. Haldeman:
That would be a copy machine or other things like that.
Senator Tiffany:
Is it smart to purchase office equipment with bond funding? That is what I meant when I asked where the accountability was. There are certain things that should be bonded and certain things that should not be bonded.
Ms. Haldeman:
We differentiate equipment based on expected life. We use short‑term, 2‑year bond funds for equipment with a 2‑year life rather than bonds with the 30‑year life that would be used for schools.
Senator Tiffany:
I did not understand your answer.
Ms. Haldeman:
When we bond for a school, we pay off those bonds over 30 years. When we purchase equipment and other short‑lived items, we use a shorter‑term bond so that we do not pay interest on the financing bond for 30 years. We differentiate between the furnishings and the construction of the building.
Senator Tiffany:
Does “necessary equipment” include computers? We gave additional money for computers and textbooks.
Ms. Haldeman:
It could be. We are talking about what is necessary to open a school. It could include office equipment or any other equipment necessary to school operation.
Senator Tiffany:
We do not have a clue what that is, do we? Is the equipment and furnishings list made public in any way?
Ms. Haldeman:
We have a standard list that I would be happy to provide.
Senator Tiffany:
Is the list present at school board meetings?
Ms. Haldeman:
This is really done through our facilities division. It is a standard thing we do with schools when we construct them.
Senator Tiffany:
But does the public know? This is what I am getting at.
Senator Raggio:
I am going to have to cut off questions. I will take a motion on this bill.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 240.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TIFFANY VOTED NO.)
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 441 (2nd Reprint): Enacts provisions relating to ensuring security of State of Nevada and its residents with respect to acts of terrorism and related emergencies. (BDR 19-1139)
Senator Raggio:
Let us turn to A.B. 441. This bill was heard by this committee on May 27, 2003. The bill was also heard in the judiciary committee. I understand there are amendments being proposed. Mr. Williams, would you take us through the issues?
SENATE BILL 175 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes with respect to security of State of Nevada. (BDR 18‑536)
Donald O. Williams, Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I am appearing on behalf of Assembly Speaker Perkins. He asked me to look at the Governor’s amendment that was presented at the hearing. He is interested in working with the Governor’s office to come up with a proposed amendment incorporating its concerns while still meeting the interests of the Speaker. This is what you have in the document before you (Exhibit F). I met a number of times with Michael Hillerby of the Governor’s office. This document represents a compromise between the Governor and the Speaker.
The proposed amendment deals with the structure of the Commission on Homeland Security in Section 12. The Governor would exercise maximum flexibility over appointments. The proposed amendment would remove existing language and replace it with language creating the commission and requiring the Governor to appoint a number of members. There are certain restrictions. One member must be from a law enforcement agency, and one member must be from other than a law enforcement background. The exception language came from S.B. 175.
This amendment would allow the Governor to serve as the chairman. He could then appoint a member as the vice chairman. This conforms to the Governor’s request that he exercise maximum control over the committee and its membership. The amendment removes Legislators as members of the commission and removes restrictions on the Governor and members of the Executive Branch from serving as voting members. The Governor requested these changes and the Speaker agreed to them.
The amendment also deletes Section 13 of the existing bill. It removes existing provisions relating to Legislators and the terms of office of the committee members. That language is unnecessary in light of the text added in Section 12.
Section 15 is amended by deleting subsection 3 and by removing provisions relating to compensation.
Senator Raggio:
Is that because there are no Legislative members on the commission?
Mr. Williams:
That is correct.
A new section is added to the bill. It would require the Governor to report annually on the activities of the committee to the Legislature. A comparable provision existed in S.B. 175. The Speaker feels this provision is important. Since Legislators would no longer be commission members, the reporting requirement ensures the Legislature will be kept informed of commission activities.
The amendment would also add another new section to the bill, Section 27.5. This language is taken from S.B. 175 (2nd Reprint).The Governor requested this language be included since S.B. 175 was not processed. This section provides that records and portions of records assembled by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) containing information that would create a substantial likelihood of threatening the safety of the general public are confidential and not subject to inspection by the general public. These records include information about the infrastructure and security of information systems including access codes, passwords, and programs. Also included are assessments and plans relating to the vulnerability of an information system and results of security tests of information systems that may reveal specific vulnerabilities. The measure requires the director of DoIT to maintain a list of each record that he has determined to be confidential. That list must be prepared in a manner indicating the existence of a particular record without revealing its contents. The bill requires the DoIT director to review the list of confidential documents at least once a biennium to determine whether a record or records should remain on the list. A record would be removed from the list if it were deemed no longer confidential or obsolete. This provision was in the bill processed by the Senate, which later died in the Assembly.
Senator Raggio:
Do these proposed amendments meet the requirements of the Speaker who is the sponsor of this amendment?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, they do.
Senator Raggio:
Are there additional amendments?
Senator Rawson:
There was an amendment provided by the American Heart Association. It was concerned about the elimination of automatic defibrillators.
Senator Raggio:
Was that deleted because of the cost?
Mr. Williams:
The latest version of the bill deletes the appropriation pursuant to the Speaker’s request. There are other provisions that remain in the bill relating to automatic defibrillators.
Senator Rawson:
Have you seen this amendment?
Mr. Williams:
No, I have not.
Senator Raggio:
I think we should ask you to take the amendment referred to by Senator Rawson and see if it is agreeable to the sponsor of this bill. There is a $34,000 appropriation, and I do not know what the other costs are. Before we process an amendment, would you get back to us for our next meeting?
Senator Tiffany:
The DoIT subcommittee wanted to build a security division within the Chief Information Officer office. We provided the security officer that DoIT requested and provided an additional security position as well. DoIT had requested about $250,000 to fund a study that would examine the security procedures of each agency. The proposal in this amendment looks very much like that request. Is that the case? Will DoIT return to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to ask for additional people based on the amendment? Will this amendment circumvent the action of the subcommittee regarding DoIT’s security proposal?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
I cannot answer that question. I did not attend the subcommittee sessions. I would have to defer to Mr. Guernsey.
Senator Tiffany:
There was quite a price tag associated with the original DoIT proposal. That proposal was scaled back by subcommittee action.
Senator Cegavske:
I did not hear anything about Section 39, page 25, lines 4 and 5. “This amendment removes the provision relating to the appointment of Legislators and other voting members of the commission.” You covered this only briefly. Would you elaborate on why these provisions are being taken out?
Mr. Williams:
The language to which you refer is unnecessary in light of the language added in Section 12. The amended Section 12 changes the membership of the commission. Legislators would no longer serve on the commission.
Senator Cegavske:
What is the rationale for no longer having Legislators serve on the commission?
Mr. Williams:
The Governor asked for maximum flexibility and that Legislators not be included. The Speaker agreed.
Senator Cegavske:
Is that something to which we should agree, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Raggio:
I think the Governor’s representative testified he anticipated the commission would be under the Executive Branch. That was the reason for the requested change. Apparently the Speaker has agreed.
Senator Cegavske:
I remain curious as to why we would not want to be part of the commission. The Legislature is trying to be involved in as much of the State’s activities as possible. I disagree with this portion of the proposal.
Senator Tiffany:
I did not get my question answered.
Mr. Williams:
I cannot answer the question. I was not at subcommittee meetings where DoIT was discussed.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Guernsey, do you have a response?
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
Senator Tiffany reported the actions of the subcommittee very accurately. We are not really certain what is contained in the provisions of the amendment and the bill. We would have to work very closely with Mr. Williams to determine whether there are items that the subcommittee did not support that would be added by the proposal now being considered.
Mr. Williams:
There are two other items I would like to mention. The amendment changes Sections 30 and 31. There is a change in the date upon which State and local government agencies have to comply with the purchasing provisions under a State plan for interoperability and compatibility of communications and information systems. The date changes from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005.
Senator Raggio:
Are both Sections 30 and 31 affected?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, that is correct. The State plan, to be generated by the commission, is required by subsection 5 of Section 17.
The other item deserving mention is the deletion of Section 32 on page 16. Currently, that language mandates the establishment of emergency management organizations by local governments in accordance with the State emergency management plan. The current statutory language makes that optional.
Senator Raggio:
Would this amendment retain the current statutory language?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, it would retain the current language.
Senator Raggio:
I understand there is an additional amendment prepared by Senator Coffin.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to explain the text.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Hillerby, I notice you are in the committee room. Did you hear the questions asked regarding the change modifying the commission from one involving Legislators to an Executive Branch commission? Do you want to respond further? I did not see you previously. Let us deal with that issue before moving to Senator Coffin’s proposal.
Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor:
The original bill titled the commission as an Executive Branch commission. However, because Legislators would be members, none of the Executive Branch members could vote. This involves separation of powers issues. The commission will either be a Legislative commission, established and staffed by the Legislature, or it will be an Executive Branch commission, with staffing and management provided by the Executive Branch.
As you know, some Executive Branch commissions have Legislative appointees who are not Legislators. This represents a middle ground in the separation of powers issue.
The separation of powers concern drives the proposed change. It is also responsible for the reporting requirement placed on the commission.
Senator Raggio:
Senator Coffin, would you discuss your proposed amendment?
Senator Coffin:
You have before you an amendment that affects Section 21 (Exhibit G). Committee members will recall I addressed my concerns when the Speaker testified. I remain concerned about the troublesome nature of Section 2. I have used many of the information sources that could be made confidential by order of the Governor.
I wrote to the Speaker asking permission to amend the bill. I asked if we could strengthen the provision relating to the intent to use information sources for nefarious purposes such as conspiracy or sabotage. His response came through the staff. The 2-page amendment before you contains language I believe is quite good on the issue of intent. The Speaker has told me that if the law enforcement community supports this amendment, then he would support it as well. If that community cannot support the amendment, then he would not support it.
The problem with paragraph f of subsection 2 is that the “documents, records, or other items of information that reveal frequencies for radio transmissions used by response agencies” are public records. We have received letters from all over the country, as well as several from overseas, indicating that an attempt by a Governor to limit information relating to radio frequencies used by public agencies would affect hundreds of frequency manuals published throughout the country. Shortwave listeners, amateur radio operators, hobbyists, and many other people, including off-duty law enforcement personnel and firemen, listen to these frequencies. The magazine Monitoring Times has now popularized this issue throughout the country, and we have received correspondence as a result.
The second page of this proposed amendment does not delete paragraph f, but rather contains language to make it crystal clear that use of frequency information becomes a crime only if that use would cause some type of harm to the public. Some people may feel this is repetitive or unnecessary. However, I believe that Legislative intent is best expressed by adding provisions to a statute in order to reassure the public. That is what we are proposing to do. The statutory penalties remain unchanged. We have simply added an additional subsection, subsection 4, that contains clarifying language. An ideal solution might remove paragraph f; however, in meeting concerns of the law enforcement community and the Speaker, I have attempted to craft text that meets the concerns I have described.
Senator Raggio:
I would like to ask Mr. Williams to check to determine whether your language is acceptable so that we can avoid an argument about it.
Senator Coffin:
I think that is appropriate in light of the study that you requested for the amendment addressed by Senator Rawson. We do have law enforcement officials here. They could be given some time on the record to express their concerns.
Senator Raggio:
Between now and our next meeting, I would like to see whether we can come to concurrence on these amendments.
Senator Cegavske:
I was able to ask staff about the issue of Legislators on Executive Branch commissions. I was told that we do participate in this manner in other subject matter arenas. I would like this to be considered.
Mr. Williams:
I will undertake to do that as well.
Senator Raggio:
Mr. Hillerby, can that be accommodated? Will that be a problem?
Mr. Hillerby:
If I gave the impression that none of those commissions existed, that was not my intention. Typically, commissions are not of that form. There also is a difference between advisory committees and those committees with a statutory responsibility. We would support the bill with the amendment.
Senator Raggio:
Time has run out on this bill. I would suggest you folks get together and see if there is an acceptable solution also acceptable to this committee by tomorrow morning.
Let us turn to A.B. 148. I think there was an amendment requested by the university system.
ASSEMBLY BILL 148: Requires Legislative Auditor to conduct audit of University and Community College System of Nevada and Board of Regents of University of Nevada. (BDR S‑808)
Mr. Ghiggeri:
When university personnel testified on this legislation, they suggested an amendment, which was also provided to the Assembly when it considered the bill. The amendment pertains to Section 1, subsection 2, line 12, on page 2 of the bill. University personnel would like the phrase “policies and procedures for” inserted prior to “the generation of investment income and its distribution.” They would also like to have Section 2 deleted in its entirety. That section requires the university to pay for the cost of the audit.
Senator Raggio:
In view of the fiscal situation, it would not be desirable to delete Section 2. Is there any objection to amending Section 1 to include the words “policies and procedures for the generation of investment income …”? I see none, and will accept a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 148. We would be leaving Section 2 intact.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AS PROPOSED BY SENATOR RAGGIO AND DO PASS AS AMENDED ASSEMBLY BILL 148.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
ASSEMBLY BILL 284 (2nd Reprint): Prohibits unfair lending practices for home loans and revises provisions governing sale of real property by trustee. (BDR 52‑20)
Senator Raggio:
Please look at A.B. 284. We heard this bill on May 26, 2003. It deals with predatory lending. We received a notification from the attorney general dated May 26 removing the fiscal note. With that impediment gone, I will accept a motion to do pass.
SENATOR RHOADS MOVED TO DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 284.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Raggio:
This committee stands adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
James D. Earl,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: