MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
April 11, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 12:49 p.m., on Friday, April 11, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 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 Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator Terry Care
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stacy M. Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics
I will open the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 147.
SENATE BILL 147: Makes various changes relating to Commission on Ethics. (BDR 23-500)
Stacy M. Jennings, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics:
Based on the concerns the committee expressed during the February 24, 2003 hearing, we proposed three amendments to the bill (Exhibit C).
First, the committee had some issues with completely removing the statutory time frames for processing investigations complaints. In the proposed amendment, we would provide that all ethics complaints submitted to the commission would go to a panel within 60 days of the complaint being filed. Currently in statute it is 15 days, but it is averaging 54.3 days. We could easily meet the 60-day time period we proposed in the amendment. Any complaint that actually makes it through the panel process would be heard by the full commission within 90 days of the filing date. It should not be a problem to be able to get the commission together within 30 days of a panel meeting, because we usually meet on a monthly basis.
Secondly, we are requesting if a public officer or employee failed to cooperate in the complaint, there would be a waiver of the statutory time frames included in the bill. This is because it is a time-consuming process to get subpoenas for records through the court, and to get the court to enforce the subpoenas.
Finally, the committee had some issues with the language “any other person,” which has been declared constitutionally vague. We were proposing it say someone with whom the person had a commitment in a private capacity, as defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 281.501, where it talks about disclosures, abstentions, and voting. Those are people who are members of your household, related to you within the third degree of consanguinity by blood or marriage; people with whom you have a substantial and continuing business relationship or a similar person. It would be more specific.
Senator Townsend:
How about former marriage? I want to know how broad this is.
Ms. Jennings:
Nevada Revised
Statute 251.501 is
referenced on page 8 of S.B. 147. It says anyone who
is a member of your household; who is related to you by blood,
adoption, or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity, affinity
being marriage; anyone who employs you or is a member of your household; anyone
with whom you have a substantial and continuing business
relationship; or any other commitment or relationship that is substantially
similar to a commitment or relationship described, which I guess you could
interpret to be an ex-spouse if you wanted to.
Senator Raggio:
Is the relationship substantially similar? Do you want to go into that?
Senator Townsend:
It says marriage; therefore, if the marriage is dissolved by legal authority, I presume you are done, is that right? You are back to a normal relationship and it would only come under the rest of the statute, which would be a pecuniary interest or financial arrangement.
Ms. Jennings:
I would presume so, yes.
Senator Townsend:
Did you get the last part, the financial arrangement?
Ms. Jennings:
If you are paying alimony, I guess you would have a financial arrangement, yes. The statute already says you could have a pecuniary interest with an ex-spouse, but no one has ever asked us that question before. I guess someone filing a complaint could argue the case.
Senator Townsend:
I just wanted to make sure we are clear on what we are doing.
Ms. Jennings:
I do not know how you would get around it if it were argued. I guess it would be an issue of interpretation by the commission.
I have explained what we did in our amendment (Exhibit C). The specific language we are proposing is listed. After we submitted the language to Chairman O’Connell, I looked again at sections 10 and 11, on pages 15 and 16 of S.B. 147. In section 10, the only change would change the due date for the annual financial disclosures from March 31 to April 15.
Chairman O'Connell:
Why on tax day?
Ms. Jennings:
We thought it might have been a better date for people than March 31. We played up the March 31 date heavily this year and I think people are remembering that date. We would propose taking the April 15 date out of the bill and leaving the date as March 31.
We also propose removing section 11 of the bill. On page 16, line 4 of S.B. 147, we had some confusion with people filling out the financial disclosure statement. We thought we might want to change the word “district” to “county.” I believe the confusion is not so much people were trying to put an actual precinct number in there, but I looked at the statute again and I think the Legislature wanted to know the length of time you have lived in the district you are registered in, not necessarily what district you actually live in. The confusing part for people is the way our form is worded, not the statute. We would propose taking section 11 completely out of the bill, and we will fix it on our form so it is clearer to people who are filing. The problem is ours and not with the legislation. Those are the changes we have at this time.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 147 WITH THE WRITTEN AMENDMENTS PROVIDED UNDER THE LETTER OF MARCH 4, AND IN ADDITION REMOVE SECTION 11 AND RETAIN THE MARCH 31 DATE.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O'Connell:
We have three bills before us and all three are either being withdrawn or indefinitely postponed by the original makers.
SENATE BILL 165: Authorizes State Arts Council to solicit and accept gifts, grants and donations to provide grants for creation of murals on highway sound walls. (BDR 18-821)
SENATE BILL 225: Authorizes general improvement district to file petition in bankruptcy pursuant to the Federal Bankruptcy Act and clarifies status of general improvement district as municipality. (BDR 25-1091)
SENATE BILL 279: Imposes requirements relating to certain actions proposing to limit number of dwelling units that may be constructed within city or county during specified period. (BDR 22-913)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 165 AND S.B. 279.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Hardy:
I have done some research on S.B. 225 and I want to thank Mr. Wasserman for his help.The situation this bill was designed to help has been resolved.We do not need the bill; however, I would say I do think this is still a significant issue that needs to be considered.I will look at this in the interim and I will probably come back with legislation next time when there is no situation out there, so we can simply discuss the policy question.
Chairman O’Connell:
When you do that you might want to decide if in your bill a general improvement district (GID) is a municipality or not, because that is one of the confusions.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 225.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, what is your feeling about S.B. 80?This is the bill that deals with the county recorder position.We passed the bill out of committee and we now have an amendment on the bill.This is a very questionable bill as to whether it will pass on the floor.Is the committee comfortable with me going ahead and taking it to the floor?Or would you rather have it stay in committee?
SENATE BILL 80: Authorizes board of county commissioners to adopt ordinance providing that office of county recorder of county will be filled ex officio by another elected officer of county. (BDR 20-418)
Senator Care:
I am committed to vote against the bill in whatever form.I have explained earlier why I will vote this way.
Senator Raggio:
I voted against the bill, as you know.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does anyone else have strong feelings one way or the other?
Senator Titus:
I supported combining these two offices, which I thought was being philosophically consistent with my position to combine the treasurer and controller positions.It would bring more efficiency in government.I have not changed my mind.
Chairman O’Connell:
If no one has a problem with it, we will take it to the floor.I just wanted to alert the committee to information Dan Musgrove shared with me.
Senator Titus:
Will you share the information with us?
Chairman O’Connell:
It is just that the bill will be a very contentious issue on the floor and we are not really sure which direction it will go.As long as the committee is aware and does not have a problem, we will go ahead with the bill.
I will adjourn the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Alice Nevin,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: