MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
March 31, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:12 p.m., on Monday, March 31, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Olivia Lodato, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Giles E. Vanderhoof, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military
Blanca Vasquez, Lobbyist, Clark County
Kristen L. Erickson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Peter Padilla, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada, and Consulate of Mexico, Las Vegas
Leslie A. Mix, President/CEO, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada
Carrie Houlihan Salazar, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada
Tony F. Sanchez, President, Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce
Berenice Rendon, Consul, Consulate of Mexico, Las Vegas
Allen Lichtenstein, American Civil Liberties Union
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Bankers Association
Mendy K. Elliot, Lobbyist, Wells Fargo Bank
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, The Nevada Republican Assembly
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation
Bert Ramos, Hispanic Republican Caucus
David F. Kallas, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada COPS
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Stacy M. Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics
Robert Wideman, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety
Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Chairman O’Connell opened the meeting with Senate Bill 290.
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 290: Requires armories and other places used for storage of weapons to be equipped with alarm system under certain circumstances. (BDR 36-914)
Senator Margaret (Maggie) A. Carlton, Clark County Senatorial District No. 2, introduced S.B 290, Exhibit C. Senator O’Connell asked Senator Carlton if she had received a copy of the fiscal note. She replied she had received the note a few minutes before the meeting opened. She stated parts of the fiscal note might not apply after further discussion was held on the bill. She proposed the bill to address a problem that had occurred in southern Nevada at a parole and probation office. The office had been broken into over a weekend and arms were stolen. She stated she was not criticizing parole and probation, but she said arms had been stolen and public safety needed to be protected when it came to the responsibility of storing firearms. Senator Carlton said an amendment had been proposed which would delete the first section of the bill that included the National Guard Armories. She stated the deletion was prompted after discussion with officers of the National Guard.
Giles E. Vanderhoof, Major General, The Adjutant General of Nevada, Office of the Military, said he contacted Senator Carlton after he had read the bill. The problem with the bill for the National Guard was the word armory. The Army National Guard used the word armory to apply to an entire building or facility, whether arms were located at the site or not, and it also included the grounds. The Air Guard did not ever use the term armory; it was a meaningless term to them. He stated every arms vault had an identification system that alerted the guard if anybody had broken into the vault. In addition, he said, to get into the room the identification system allowed only seconds to enter a code before an alarm sounded. General Vanderhoof further stated all vaults were made from reinforced concrete with imbedded rebar and were steel-encased. There were further security measures inside the vault to prohibit anyone from stealing weapons. He said he supported the bill as long as the National Guard was excluded.
Senator Carlton stated she intended the bill apply only to a closet, storage locker, or arms vault without a full-time attendant. She said there were a number of areas where guns were stored, such as evidence lockers and within facilities that had 24-hour attendants, where she said the bill need not apply. Senator Carlton stated there would be no reason to have those locations remotely monitored if there was someone in the building at all times.
Chairman O’Connell asked Senator Carlton if there was a time deadline for installation of the remote systems. Senator Carlton answered she was not sure what type of time limit to put in the bill. She said the entities to whom she had spoken were looking at a 12-month time limit. She stated one person said the office would be moving locations within the next year, and he wanted to know if he could wait until he was established in the new location. She said she did not want to put a time limitation in the bill and possibly cause a hardship. Chairman O’Connell inquired if there would be a consequence if the installation was not done within a certain time period. Senator Carlton replied there was no penalty planned.
Blanca Vasquez, Lobbyist, Clark County, offered an amendment to the bill, Exhibit D. The language at the beginning of each section would state it did not apply to any agency that stored weapons in a secured area under constant supervision.
Kristin L. Erickson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, stated Washoe County’s only concern with the legislation was on page 2, section 4, lines 16 to 24. She said their concern was one of cost and security. She said there would be a cost for permanent wiring and for 24-hour alarm systems. She further stated some rural counties might not have access to 24-hour monitoring systems. Chairman O’Connell asked if she had seen the fiscal note on the bill. Ms. Erickson stated she had not seen the note.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, and Washoe County Sheriffs Office, said part of their concern was the 24‑hour facilities. He said he believed those concerns would be resolved with the amendment proposed by Clark County. Washoe County facilities were alarmed and alerted a variety of monitoring stations. Mr. Nadeau noted some rural counties might not have an off-site monitoring location system. He said the amendment would apply to such areas and be most appropriate. He concluded the organizations he represented supported the bill.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S. B. 290 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 312.
SENATE BILL 312: Requires state and local governmental entities to accept consular identification card for purpose of identifying person under certain circumstances. (BDR 19-823)
Senator Carlton opened the discussion on S.B. 312. The bill involved the Mexican consulate identification (ID) card. Senator Carlton distributed a document with a proposed amendment, examples of the ID card, and its documentation process, Exhibit E. She said the attached amendment had removed the word “must” and substituted the word “may.” Senator Carlton stated the idea for the bill came from Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. She said a number of businesses in Nevada had recognized the Mexican consulate ID card. Senator Carlton stated she would like the card to be recognized as a form of identification. The card could be used as photo identification for Mexican nationals, she said.
Senator Carlton pointed out page 2 of the handout, Exhibit E, broke down the components in the card and the different security provisions built into the card. Senator Carlton displayed a card and a decoder for the panel to see how the card worked.
Senator Tiffany asked Senator Carlton if there were other countries besides Mexico that used the card. Senator Carton had not investigated any other cards as the bill was drawn up to only allow a card from a Mexican consulate located in the State of Nevada. The fourth page of the handout, Exhibit E, listed the requirements needed to obtain a card from the consulate. Senator Carlton stated presentation of an original birth certificate, another official Mexican identification, proof of a United States address, and other personal information were required to receive the ID card. She said a picture was also taken at the time the card was made. The card would be issued in Las Vegas at the Mexican consulate. The consulate also made trips to Reno in order to issue the cards. Senator Carlton said the last two pages of the packet listed organizations that already accept the consular card in Nevada.
Chairman O’Connell inquired if the card was to be used in lieu of a social security number or a driver’s license. Senator Carlton said the people applying for cards were Mexican nationals seeking an identification card from Mexico. She said the ID card was not about documented or undocumented workers, social security cards, or driver’s licenses.
Senator Tiffany inquired as to the difference between a Department of Motor Vehicles ID card and the consular card. Senator Carlton said the DMV ID card was a State-issued identification card whereas the consular card was issued by another country. Senator Tiffany asked why Mexican nationals would not get a Nevada DMV ID card. Senator Carlton stated there was no benefit to the Mexican Consular ID card and it could not be exchanged for a DMV ID card. Senator Carlton said she did not know the requirements for a State ID card. She said the Mexican Consular ID card could not be presented or exchanged for the DMV ID card because it was not issued by the United States. Senator Tiffany requested staff look into the requirements for a DMV ID card.
Senator Townsend stated one reason someone might choose not to get a Nevada driver’s license was because they held an international driver’s license, which would be good in Nevada, but they might still need another source of identification. Senator Carlton said there were a number of people in Nevada who carried dual citizenships.
Senator Raggio asked Senator Carlton about the amendment stating “may accept” rather than “must accept” the card, and he wondered what the value of the legislation would be if the card did not have to be accepted. The value, according to Senator Carlton, was the card could be accepted by many agencies if they chose to accept the ID.
Senator Carlton said some of the E-mails and phone calls she had received were negative, and she wanted to reiterate the card supported a policy of security as it helped to quickly and confidently identify Mexican nationals within our borders. There were no U.S. benefits intended with this bill.
Peter Padilla, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada and Consulate of Mexico, Las Vegas, said he had been appointed an advisory consulate by the Mexican consulate to assist Mexican nationals in the United States. He said the President of Mexico initiated the cards to help Mexican nationals living in the exterior, specifically the U.S., in dealing with issues. Mr. Padilla stated there were 100 advisory consulates in the United States.
Chairman O’Connell inquired if Mr. Padilla knew if there were any time limits for the card. Mr. Padilla answered he thought the card had a 3-year term, but he was not sure of the time limitations.
Senator Tiffany asked Mr. Padilla if he knew the difference between a DMV ID card and the card being issued by the Mexican consulate. He said the DMV card was issued by the State and had certain requirements not required by the consulate. He said people go to the consulate office needing some form of ID because they could not get a driver’s license or a DMV ID card.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, said he had looked at a section in the DMV ID card requirements that stated you had to present a birth certificate issued by a state, or the District of Columbia, or other proof of the applicant’s date of birth. He said it did allow for proof of age by something other than a birth certificate. The other requirements included a full name, social security number and date of birth, state of legal residence, and a current Nevada address.
Leslie A. Mix, President/CEO, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada, spoke in favor of the bill, saying it would be beneficial to many people to have additional identification so people could be tracked for reasons of security, law enforcement, and business. In northern Nevada, she noted the Hispanic population was over 18 percent of the population.
Kerry Houlihan Salazar, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Northern Nevada, said over 300 people had applied for the card whenever the consulate representatives were in northern Nevada.
Tony F. Sanchez, President, Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the card was a form of identification for people who would not normally have a driver’s license or a DMV-issued ID card, which cannot be obtained without a social security number. He said businesses supporting S.B. 312 had allowed people to have bank accounts previously unavailable to them due to lack of acceptable identification. Mr. Sanchez said the use of phony identifications and aliases was rampant in various sections of his community. He said the card would give a legitimate form of ID to many of these people. He also stated it would not entitle them to benefits of the United States, such as a driver’s license, earned income tax credits, or authorization to work legally in the United States.
Berenice Rendon, Consul, Consulate of Mexico, spoke in favor of the bill via teleconferencing from Las Vegas. She stated the Mexican Consular ID card was valid for a period of 5 years.
Senator Raggio disclosed Tony Sanchez was a member of Jones Vargas, the law firm with which he was affiliated. He said Mr. Sanchez was speaking today as an officer in the Las Vegas Latin Chamber of Commerce.
Allen Lichtenstein, American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), also spoke in favor of S.B 312. He said it was important to remember the card did not change anyone’s rights or status. The card was to provide a feasible means of identification for people who often did not have an alternative ID. He urged passage of the bill.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South, also spoke in support of S.B. 312. He said there might be opposition to the bill and people who would say the card legitimized illegal immigrants. He said the card did not do that, the bill allowed a citizen of a foreign county to use identification from a recognized consulate for administrative purposes. He said the police department in Las Vegas recognized the card last year for administrative purposes.
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Bankers Association, introduced Mendy Elliot.
Mendy K. Elliot, Lobbyist, Wells Fargo Bank, stated in October 2001, the bank began accepting the matricula consular cards as a primary identification for new accounts and over-the-counter transactions. The card met the bank’s primary identification acceptance policy. The card was numbered, had a photograph, signature, expiration date, and a brief description of the holder. As of this date, she said, Wells Fargo Bank had not incurred any losses or fraud due to the acceptance of the card.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, also spoke in support of S.B. 312. She said the Retail Association of Nevada would assist in disseminating the information concerning the card to all retailers, if the bill should pass. Ms. Lau said many businesses were already using the card for identification and appreciated the fact it the met the criteria Ms. Elliot had mentioned.
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly, spoke against the passage of S.B. 312. He said the bill would identify people who were in the country illegally. He stated legal immigrants had green cards and people visiting from other countries had passports. Mr. Wagner said if illegal aliens could be deported, the State would not have to worry about a budget increase this year. He stated he would support the bill if a green card was required in order to receive a consulate card.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she agreed with Mr. Wagner. The only people who would benefit from the cards, besides those who want to use them for their businesses, were illegal aliens she said. She read extensively from three 2003 newsletters she distributed, all from Congressman Tom Tancredo, Colorado Congressional Sixth District Representative. The newsletters were dated January 29, January 8, and January 23, 2003, Exhibit F. Quoting from the Center for Immigration Studies in the newsletters, she said the report stated the Mexican government had no secure computer system in place to track Mexican nationals. She suggested the 300 people who met with the Mexican consular in Northern Nevada were all illegal aliens because they had no other form of identification. She said the purpose of the card was to legitimize illegal aliens.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation, also quoted Congressman Tom Tancredo. She read letters from his 2003 newsletters dated January 23, addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and January 8, and then cited www.elpasotimes.com news, Exhibit G. She summed up her presentation by urging the committee to protect the citizens of Nevada and vote no on S.B. 312.
Senator Raggio asked what the Center for Immigration Studies was. Ms. Hansen stated she would look up the information for him. He also asked if someone had stated a like measure was presented to Congress and had not been approved. Ms. Hansen said it was in the material she distributed from Congressman Tancredo. Senator Raggio asked what state Mr. Tancredo represented. She replied he was from Colorado and the chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. Ms. Hansen noted the amendment to S.B. 312 to use the term “may” instead of “must” was so the consulate and local businesses could lobby local government agencies. She also objected to local law enforcement accepting foreign identification without the approval of the State Legislature.
Senator Raggio asked Senator Carlton if people would have a valid passport. She stated they might not have such documentation. She said she used the terms documented and undocumented workers rather than legal and illegal aliens. She also stated the Mexican consulate did not lobby her to support the bill. Senator Carlton said she heard about the card from Stan Olsen and others from the police department and she had contacted the Mexican consulate. Senator Carlton indicated she was very careful to not put the Mexican consulate in an awkward or illegal position and acknowledged the consul had specific rules to follow when dealing with the Nevada Senator. Finally, Senator Carlton stated she originally heard about the program as a way for people to deposit their weekly paychecks in a bank.
Mr. Sanchez responded to Senator Raggio’s question. He said in Mexico a passport was much more expensive and difficult to receive than a consular card. Ms. Rendon stated the card was $28 as opposed to over $100 for a passport. The consular ID was also issued to Mexican citizens in Nevada who held dual citizenship in Mexico and the United States, or held green cards and permanent residence in the U.S. She said they also issued the consular card for undocumented immigrants.
Bert Ramos, Hispanic Republican Caucus, asked the committee to register his objection to the previous testimony. He said he believed the testimony was out of order and completely inappropriate. He said the consular card did not threaten the citizens of the United States.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 312 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 342.
SENATE BILL 342: makes various changes concerning complaints filed against peace officers and other public officers and employees. (BDR 23-1144)
Senator Hardy introduced S.B. 342. He stated he was asked to introduce this bill by Lobbyist Michael Gillins. Senator Hardy said last session the Legislature passed a bill which stated it would be a misdemeanor to fraudulently file a complaint or allegation of misconduct against a police officer. A series of court cases during the interim ruled the bill might not be constitutional. S.B. 342 was intended to revise the bill to make it constitutional. Senator Hardy stated his interest in the bill was to protect police against allegations and complaints that were not true.
David F. Kallas, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said in 1999 the Legislature enacted Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 199.325. The bill made it illegal for an individual to file a false complaint or allegation of misconduct against a police officer. The United States District Court repealed the law and made it moot. Opponents of the bill spoke of the chilling effect the bill would have on an individual’s opportunities and rights to come in and make complaints against officers who conducted acts of misconduct. Mr. Kallas said he agreed citizens should have the opportunity to come to police departments and make complaints against officers for acts of misconduct.
He said prior to the 1999 legislation, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department released statistics showing between March 2000 and May 2001, the department received over 3000 complaints against officers and employees. The same statistics released by the Internal Affairs Bureau showed 11 percent of the complaints led to a sustained complaint in which an officer or employee received punitive action; Mr. Kallas said 79 percent of the complaints were found to be without merit. He noted statistics released for 2002 showed the Internal Affairs Bureau had received approximately 1573 complaints, of which about 900 were dismissed, 600 were investigated, and sustained allegations of misconduct occurred in approximately 300 of the complaints. He stated the police were requesting the Legislature formalize protection for officers they were entitled to receive and remarked he was asking for the same protection an average citizen would have on a day-to-day basis. Senate Bill 342 was different from the earlier legislation in that it requested verification and did not ask for criminal penalties to be assessed. Mr. Kallas said the bill asked the complaint be made in writing verified pursuant to the perjury statute and pointed out the bill did not carry the same penalty as the perjury statute.
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada COPS, explained the bill was a procedural one, outlining the process necessary to make a complaint of misconduct, and covering all public employees. Mr. Gillins stated by requiring a person to put their name on the complaint they were issuing, it gave the officer an opportunity to face their accusers. He said it would also help the department in eliminating the greatest share of the frivolous complaints they were required to investigate. Mr. Gillins remarked a minimum of 2 to 6 hours was required for an initial investigation in order to be certain the complaint was legitimate.
Senator Raggio stated he encouraged complaints, but they should not be false or fraudulent. He wanted to know why the bill was repealing NRS 199.325. Mr. Gillins stated the U.S. District Court had already struck it down ruling there was no verification in the writing of complaints. Senator Raggio asked if they passed a law that required written verification, would the court then uphold the statute, which had penalties such as NRS 199.325. Mr. Gillins replied S.B. 342 had no language that imposed any type of criminal penalty. The language addressed civil actions and the individual officer could take those actions if a false complaint was filed. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Wasserman if it would be necessary to repeal that section of the bill. Mr. Wasserman stated the court struck down the statute because it only applied to peace officers and said there was no rationale to just apply it to peace officers. If such a statute were allowed, it needed to apply more broadly to public officers or public employees. He said the bill would inadvertently impose a penalty because it required the complaint be verified pursuant to NRS 15.010 which required an affirmation. A false statement in an affirmation, under the statute, was a category D felony. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Wasserman why a verification would be required if a penalty was not involved.
Mr. Kallas responded it was the intention to have the verification in writing, but never to have anyone charged with a class D felony. He said his group was trying to draft language similar to NRS 119.325 with a misdemeanor as the most punitive action taken against an individual. He said some confusion existed as to what the specific verification in writing, pursuant to the perjury statute, would have on the bill. He reiterated, as a proponent of the bill, he did not have any intention of trying to dissuade anyone from filing a complaint.
Senator Care said, according to NRS 15.010, there would be a possibility of a penalty for perjury if a district attorney’s office chose to prosecute. He asked Mr. Kallas what would stop someone from speaking directly to the press or airing a complaint other than filing an official complaint against an officer. Mr. Kallas responded the bill was not an attempt to impede a First Amendment right; a press conference to discuss misconduct by an officer is allowed by the First Amendment. He said the bill was designed for filing an official complaint at the police department against an officer or public employee, then the filing needed to be done by verification in writing. He said if a police department chose to investigate an act of misconduct against an officer based on a public statement, this bill would not affect that investigation.
Mr. Gillins said people do make statements to the news media, and if the department believed there was merit to the accusation, the department would instigate an investigation. He said the bill was designed for people who come to the police department and make a complaint against an officer. These people would be required to sign an affidavit.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Wasserman if there was a way for the bill to be worded without stipulating NRS 15.010, which carried a penalty clause. Mr. Wasserman said the problem might be resolved by stating actual malice was needed to punish someone for defamation of a public official. Chairman O’Connell asked if the current complaint form stated “by penalty of perjury.” Mr. Kallas replied he did not believe the language was on the form. She asked Mr. Wasserman how the bill would be affected if “by penalty of perjury” were added to the current complaint forms. He replied the key would be to eliminate the verification required under NRS 15.010, as the statute had a penalty clause. Mr. Wasserman stated if an affirmation was not required, then the perjury statute would not be applicable
Mr. Gillins emphasized the intent was not to get a criminal complaint against someone, but to have civil recourse.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14, said he was a coauthor of the old bill since overturned by the court. He asked the committee to pass S.B. 342.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, cited and reviewed the case overturned by the courts, Robert Eakins v. State of Nevada. Mr. Dreher said the court found problems with the previous law, identifying it as “content-based law,” Exhibit H. He summarized by stating the important part of the new bill would be a penalty to deter the malicious filing of a false report.
Senator Care asked Mr. Dreher if police officers were always informed of a complaint. Mr. Dreher said they were not informed; people in the internal affairs unit were informed first and decided whether or not to investigate the complaint and notify the officer.
Stacy M. Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics, said S.B. 342 focused on a complaint in misconduct whereas there were two other complaint processes in chapter 281 of NRS, one under ethics and government law and the other under the whistleblower law. She was concerned people might misconstrue the new law as applicable to the ethics and government law. She requested the committee clarify the bill did not apply to complaints under NRS 281.411 through NRS 281.581.
Robert Wideman, Nevada Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, said the bill, as written, was a matter of competing interest between employee rights and the rights of citizens. He also said the United States Department of Justice required Los Angeles to accept all complaints, whether verbal, written, E‑mail, anonymous, telephone, or any other conceivable process. He said when restrictions are placed on the manner in which persons can express their complaints, it tended to create an excuse by which complaints would not be considered. He said malicious complaints against officers were statistically small. The majority of complaints were not sustained, but they were also not malicious. He said the Nevada Highway Patrol would support a revision of the existing law to include language that would allow the bill to pass constitutionality.
Mr. Lichtenstein stated the language in the amendment was not language proposed by the ACLU. He said the bill could cover any type of complaint and stated the bill was a mess.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 342 and opened the hearing on S.B. 417.
SENATE BILL 417: Creates Election Fund to receive money pursuant to Help America Vote Act of 2002. (BDR 24-1265)
Senator Raggio asked Secretary of State Dean Heller why the fund had to be handled in this manner. He said it would also include matching funds from the State and asked Mr. Heller about the controls in his office for separate funds. He wanted to know how the funds were monitored and audited.
Dean Heller, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, responded his office would set up necessary accounting procedures for a separate account by regulations. The accounting mechanism would be audited and the U.S. Department of Justice would be watching the money very carefully. He also noted although Title I dollars did not require matching State funds, Title II dollars required a match from the State. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Heller to check with the Fiscal Analysis Division and answer any of their questions.
Chairman O’Connell asked Mr. Heller if he was on a time limit. He replied he had a letter outlining the time lines; General Services Administrations (GSA) showed the schedule no earlier than April 1 and no later than April 7, states would be able to access the on-line application. The GSA letter also stated no later than April 29, all states must have completed and submitted their applications; Mr. Heller commented he had 30 days to get the application done.
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said she had spoken to the controller’s office and would abide by controller procedures the Legislature had approved for overseeing federal funds. She explained she would be meeting with fiscal again next week to assure everyone agreed on the procedures. She said because the fund needed to be set up for Title 1 money, processed over the Internet, and closed April 29, they would only be eligible to receive money if the fund was established prior to that date.
Chairman O’Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 417.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 417.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell said S. B. 443 had been postponed. She adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: