MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 2, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:52 a.m., on Friday, May 2, 2003, in Room 2144 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 Ann O'Connell, Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany, Vice Chairman (Excused)
Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Joseph Bozsik, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of County Clerks
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Independent American Party of Nevada
Ian Campbell, Nevada Library Association
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs
Sara F. Jones, Administrator, Division of State Library and Archives, Department of Cultural Affairs
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Larry D. Struve, Chairman, Nevada Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy
Blanca Vazquez, Lobbyist, Clark County
Senator O’Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 86.
ASSEMBLY BILL 86 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning purchasing contracts of certain local governments. (BDR 27-338)
Mary E. Henderson, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, said A.B. 86 would give smaller counties of less than 100,000 people the same flexibility as larger cities and counties. She explained A.B. 86 would repeal Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 332.035. The original language required counties of less than 100,000 people to publicly advertise formal bids of $10,000 or over. Assembly Bill 86 would remove the advertising requirement. The original language had been confusing. Ms. Henderson said through the noticing requirements of public agendas and the bid lists there was already adequate notice. However, the bill slightly changed the requirement for an informal bid by raising the threshold from $5000 to $10,000. Ms. Henderson acknowledged the informal bids still had to be submitted to two or more persons capable of performing the contract, if available.
Kent F. Lauer, Nevada Press Association, indicated he opposed A.B. 86 because it eliminated the publication of a notice for contracts under $25,000 in counties with a population less than 100,000. The primary purpose of the notices was to alert businesses that may have wanted to do business with the government in the future and to alert taxpayers of awarded contracts to specific companies for specified amounts of money. Mr. Lauer said purchases under $25,000 in small counties were still significant and notices of the purchases should continue. Mr. Lauer admitted the newspapers received money for the notices, but the notices also provided an important accountability tool. The notices were a relatively inexpensive protection against charges of favoritism and could stimulate competition among local businesses. Mr. Lauer offered an example of a notice run in a Pahrump newspaper that A.B. 86 would eliminate, Exhibit C.
Senator Townsend asked why the newspapers could not report the contracts. He noted it was a question of revenue and said he did not mind the newspaper industry testifying to a loss of revenue, but did not want to hear that the local governments were trying to hide information. In response Mr. Lauer said the contracts could be reported, but the smaller contracts were often not reported.
Senator Care asked if the deletion of the 100,000 or more population provision would affect all contracts.
Ms. Henderson said the bill would remove the section dealing with counties with priorities under 100,000 people and rolled them into existing statutory language in effect for large counties. She explained the notices and formal bidding process still had to be made for contracts exceeding $25,000. Contracts between $10,000 and $25,000 are informal bids. She concluded the bill would only eliminate the notice requirement for awarded contracts in a newspaper.
Senator Care noted as he read the bill, he understood the advertising requirement would be deleted for counties with populations under 100,000 people. Ms. Henderson indicated removing the population provision would make every county consistent.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel, said by eliminating the population provision in section 1, the provision would now apply to all counties. He explained if a contract were over $25,000, it would have to be advertised.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 86 and opened the hearing on A.B. 114.
ASSEMBLY BILL 114 (1st Reprint): Provides qualifications for county offices of sheriff and constable. (BDR 20-1020)
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of County Clerks, explained A.B. 114 was a result of an 18-year-old gentleman who filed to run for Henderson constable in the 2002 elections. The case went to court. Mr. Glover said in an attempt to provide direction for election officials in the future it was decided to draft A.B. 114 to require a candidate for sheriff or constable should be 21 years of age. The age of 21 was chosen because it was felt a sheriff or constable should be able to go into a bar to make an arrest, if needed.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North, said he testified in the Assembly that he was comfortable with the standards. He said he spoke with Ronald Dreher who pointed out the person running for sheriff should have law enforcement experience. Mr. Nadeau explained if someone retired and lost his or her Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission (P.O.S.T.) certification, that person’s experience still should qualify them to run for sheriff for which an amendment to A.B. 114 might be needed.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, said he supported A.B. 114. He mentioned he was concerned there was no provision for retirees like himself who was a category I police officer for 31 years before retiring in 1996. He explained as A.B. 114 was written, it would be difficult for him to run for sheriff because he lost his P.O.S.T. certification after retirement.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, asked the committee to support A.B. 114 with amendment. Candidates for sheriff needed to be qualified, however, the current provisions of chapter 289 of NRS and chapter 289 of Nevada Administrative Code restricted P.O.S.T.‑certification eligibility to only those currently employed by a law enforcement agency. Mr. Dreher said P.O.S.T. certification extended for 5 years beyond retirement and any training received during the 5 years did not count nor did it prevent P.O.S.T. certification from expiring. Another idea Mr. Dreher suggested was to allow retired peace officers to recertify within 6 months of being elected. He explained P.O.S.T. recertification could be accomplished by either taking an 80-hour course through P.O.S.T. or by challenging the exam by taking and passing it. Mr. Dreher submitted a letter to the committee, Exhibit D.
Senator Care said the Legislature hears legislation every session designed to protect the voters from themselves, but he said a part of him believed the voters ought to have the right to elect an unqualified candidate if they wanted. Senator Care said he did not know why the people would elect an unqualified candidate, but they had the right to do so. If the Legislature mandated sheriff candidates meet specific qualifications, many people could be cut out who might make a good sheriff. Senator Care asked if there were any large cities or counties in the country where the top law enforcement officer did not have a law enforcement background.
Mr. Dreher said the current Storey County sheriff had no prior law enforcement experience, though A.B. 114 would still cover him. He added local governments often hired people outside of the state to fill positions, appointed positions like police chief. Mr. Dreher used justices of the peace as an example. He said justices of the peace used to be able to be a layperson, but were now required to be a judge because the position needed to be filled with someone possessing basic qualifications.
Senator Care pointed out voters had a duty to educate themselves and go to the polls if they wished; that was the risk of living in a society like ours. Mr. Dreher agreed with Senator Care.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Independent American Party of Nevada, indicated A.B. 114 was a response to the Independent American Party (IAP) candidate for Henderson constable. She said another candidate for constable challenged the IAP candidacy of Nicholas Hansen. The challenge had nothing to do with age, it was because Nicholas Hansen was not a qualified peace officer. After the district court agreed with the challenge, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously reinstated Mr. Hansen’s name on the ballot. Ms. Hansen remarked she was not aware of any problems occurring with candidate age and suggested the law might be changing unnecessarily. She said an IAP sheriff candidate in Washoe County had California law experience, but might not have qualified under the provisions of A.B. 114. Ms. Hansen stated in some cases, like in Storey County, it might not be necessary to have a candidate with police credentials to be a good sheriff. She added 18-year-olds were eligible to run for many other local offices. She noted the IAP had four candidates in the last election under the age of 25 and three under 21. Ms. Hansen indicated the young IAP candidates learned how to participate in the process and it was a good goal to encourage young people to participate. She concluded the process should be left in the hands of the voters.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 114 and opened the hearing on A.B. 214.
ASSEMBLY BILL 214 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to publications by state agencies and certain local governments. (BDR 33-1078)
Ian Campbell, Nevada Library Association, noted his support for A.B. 214. The legislation would establish an electronic database of state and local government publications deposited to the State Publications Distribution Center for permanent retention and access. Assembly Bill 214 would require the Division of State Library and Archives to adopt regulations with input from local governments concerning the type and format of electronic publications. This is for state and local agencies to submit an electronic rather than paper form. Nevada’s electronic government information would be preserved and made accessible for future researchers just as printed publications were preserved for future generations. Mr. Campbell provided the committee with additional information, Exhibit E.
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, Department of Cultural Affairs, indicated many years ago the State decided it was good public policy to provide access for all government records. He said the State and each local government were required to send published documents to the Division of State Library and Archives, who in turn distributed them to State publication centers. Assembly Bill 214 would establish standards and requirements for electronic documents. He said a fiscal note was attached for approximately $58,000 per year. The fiscal note provided for one position and an entire program set up to encourage state and local governments to develop standards and publish documents on the Internet for public access.
Senator O’Connell asked if Mr. Campbell had met with the Nevada Association of Counties and Municipalities or the cities.
Mr. Campbell said A.B. 214 was amended in the Assembly with everybody’s concurrence. Additionally, the counties would not have to fund the bill. The fiscal note was for the State General Fund because a majority of the work was to the State.
Sara F. Jones, Administrator, Division of State Library and Archives, Department of Cultural Affairs, offered written testimony, Exhibit E. She said the State Library and Archives had been preserving history for 142 years. Ms. Jones indicated in recent years many people had been publishing on the Internet and oftentimes the State library and archives would not know about the publications. She concluded A.B. 214 would create the mechanism to find the publications and ensure their access for the future.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 214 and opened the hearing on A.B. 235.
ASSEMBLY BILL 235 (1st Reprint): Provides Voters’ Bill of Rights. (BDR 24‑270)
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, said the purpose of A.B. 235 was to assist voters in understanding their rights and the legislation was based on complaints received by her office. For example, voters did not understand that they could return a spoiled ballot. Ms. Parker indicated A.B. 235 would require the voter’s rights be posted in each polling place on Election Day. She further noted the voter’s rights would be posted on the Secretary of State’s Web site. Ms. Parker said many people require special assistance and first-time voters might feel confused on Election Day. She said the clerks and poll workers do a good job in assisting voters, but if the voter’s rights were posted and handed out, it might further assist the process and make the experience more positive. Ms. Parker said A.B. 235 complied with some of the voting information requirements under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Senator O’Connell said she saw a fiscal note attached to the bill.
Ms. Parker indicated the bill initially had a fiscal note to print the voter’s rights in the sample ballots, but was removed in the Assembly. The county clerks were concerned about the cost associated with printing the voter’s rights in sample ballots, Ms. Parker explained, so it was decided to only post the voter’s rights in the polling places on Election Day and on the Secretary of State’s Web site. She added if it were decided the voter’s rights were needed in sample ballots, the issue could be addressed in a future legislative session.
Senator O’Connell asked how the HAVA bill was progressing in the Assembly. Ms. Parker responded the bill had not yet been heard in the Assembly.
Senator Care asked what kind of voter complaints had been received.
Ms. Parker indicated some complaints received related to voters not being aware they could return a spoiled ballot for a new ballot. She also noted there were complaints by voters about being threatened or coerced about how to vote. The voter’s rights would let them know they did not have to be subject to that type of behavior. Ms. Parker noted another issue was the direct-recording machines in Clark County. She explained sometimes elderly voters might have moved from a county where punch cards were used and the change to the direct-record electronic device was confusing.
Senator O’Connell suggested the best place to post the voter’s rights was at the sign-in table. She explained polling places sometimes were in the center of a mall and it could be difficult to visibly post the voter’s rights on a wall.
Larry D. Struve, Chairman, Nevada Advisory Committee on Participatory Democracy, indicated a voter’s bill of rights would articulate common sense rules, because unfortunately there was an increasing number of the population not aware of their voting rights. He explained once the bill of voter’s rights was enacted, if problems developed down the road, the rights could be used as a foundation on which other corrective legislation or procedures could be initiated. He concluded low voter participation in the United States was a serious public policy issue and urged A.B. 235 be favorably acted upon.
Ms. Hansen noted she supported A.B. 235.
Senator O’Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 235 and opened the hearing on A.B. 408.
ASSEMBLY BILL 408 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-910)
Senator Titus remarked she had a similar bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 359, introduced earlier. She noted the problem with A.B. 408 was it would go into effect upon passage and approval. Senator Titus suggested amending S.B. 359 by adding Assemblymen Hettrick and Griffin’s names on it, but indicated she did not know if they would be agreeable to the idea.
SENATE BILL 359: Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR-22-310)
Senator O’Connell said that was a good idea.
Blanca Vazquez, Lobbyist, Clark County, indicated if the committee was going to mix up the two bills, then she did not need to testify. Ms. Vazquez explained she would have only asked that the bill be amended to include the setback requirements, which were amended into Senator Titus’ bill.
Senator O’Connell adjourned the meeting at 12:42 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Joseph Bozsik,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: