MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 8, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 11:29 a.m., on Thursday, May 8, 2003, in Room 2149 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 Sandra Tiffany, Vice Chairman
Senator William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Jason D. Geddes, Assembly District No. 24
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Nevada Home Builders Association
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Justine A. Chambers, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission
Carl Linvill, Administrator, Nevada State Office of Energy, Office of the Governor
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 86.
ASSEMBLY BILL 86 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning purchasing contracts of certain local governments. (BDR 27-338)
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy analyst:
Assembly Bill 86 was presented by Mary Henderson last Friday. It sets thresholds on notice requirements in advertising and contract award procedures for local governments and counties with less than 100,000 in population. It also creates a uniform standard of advertising for contracts over $25,000. There were no formal amendments submitted, but as Ms. Henderson said, we had testimony on both sides on this issue.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 86.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now open the work session on A.B. 233.
ASSEMBLY BILL 233: Makes various changes concerning primary city elections and general city elections. (BDR 24-336)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill authorizes a governing body of a general law city to adopt ordinances requiring primary city elections and general city elections to be held on the same dates as statewide primary and general elections. There were no amendments submitted and no testimony in opposition.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 233.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 245.
ASSEMBLY BILL 245 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding conversion of manufactured home park into individual manufactured home lots. (BDR 22-1080)
Mr. Stewart:
This is Assemblyman Collins’ bill regarding manufactured home parks that limits conditions placed on the conversion of a mobile home park to individual home lots and sets some conditions for conversions of those manufactured home parks for sale. There were no amendments or opposition testimony.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 245.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 125.
ASSEMBLY BILL 125 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to laws governing elections. (BDR 24-294)
Mr. Stewart:
This makes various changes to laws regarding elections. It changes the day from the third Monday in May to the second Friday after the first Monday in May. The date for filing as a candidate for partisan office provides for some electronic storage of voting records and also makes some minor changes concerning absentee voting, acceptable ballot types for absentee voting, and post-election certification. There was one amendment provided regarding a list of minor party political candidates who must file prior to those candidates declaring for office. I know Janine Hansen offered this amendment. I should point out the language here. We might want to consider having it read something like the list may be amended until the second Friday in May, just so there is a cutoff. They wanted to be able to have an opportunity to amend their list for a minor party prior to their candidate filing, but I think we might want to have a cutoff at some point. It was suggested the second Friday in May because that coincides with existing language.
Senator Hardy:
I am trying to recall what the particular requirement the third parties had, that did not apply to anyone else, which necessitated this amendment.
Mr. Stewart:
Minor political parties run their candidates on the general elections, so they have a separate list they have to file with the Secretary of State’s office and then those candidates who appear on the list go in and declare their candidacy. It is a little bit separate than our major parties.
Senator Hardy:
And they want to be able to file it or amend it anytime after it has been submitted to the Secretary of State’s office? Does it defeat the purpose of having the list? Not a big deal to me, but I do not know if it is necessary.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel:
I think the proposed amendment is going to limit the list so you could amend up until the second Friday after the first Monday in May. This is the same deadline for filing declarations of candidacy for the major political parties, so you would want to put a limitation on legislation because the clerks would not be able to amend the list all the way up until the elections.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 125.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 214.
ASSEMBLY BILL 214 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to publications by state agencies and certain local governments. (BDR 33-1078)
Mr. Stewart:
This was brought to us by the Division of State Library and Archives and has to do with bringing the publications by state agencies and certain local governments into higher technical practices at the library in terms of electronic formats and those kinds of things.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 214.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 285.
ASSEMBLY BILL 285 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding filing of declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy. (BDR 24-705)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill has to do with the filing of declaration of candidacies. Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto brought A.B. 285 to us; it requires a showing of identification (ID) and also allows a filing officer to ask for creditable evidence that a candidate is not a felon when he or she files. There was one amendment to this bill proposed by Janine Hansen providing an alternative to a candidate presenting a formal piece of identification to the filing officer prior to declaring candidacy. The amendment proposes adding language to section 1, subsection 4, to give the candidate an option to submit a sworn affidavit to the filing officer, stating or indicating his or her name, address, or other identifying information, in lieu of a government-issued ID.
Chairman O’Connell:
You will remember there were some religious objections about some of their candidates who had to have a social security number to show.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 285.
THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
*****
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 285.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care:
I have pontificated before about the voters doing some investigating on their own and I have talked about how we try to save the voters from themselves. I will go ahead and vote for the bill today, but I will reserve the right to be hypocritical on the floor when this bill goes there.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 295.
ASSEMBLY BILL 295 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing criteria for determining qualification of bidders on public works of local governments. (BDR 28-747)
Chairman O’Connell:
There was no opposition to this bill, correct?
Mr. Stewart:
I do not believe so. The first amendment was from the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County. What it does is provide language where a local governing body may also consider a bidder to be qualified, if the bidder has been deemed qualified by the Nevada Department of Transportation; the bill adds another entity in terms of local governments using some qualification criteria. The second amendment was from the southern Nevada carpenters and specifies a local government may deem a subcontractor meets the criteria in chapter 388 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) unless the governing body receives information that the subcontractor does not meet the appropriate criteria for one reason. If after investigation the governing body determines the subcontractor does not meet the criteria, that subcontractor may be disqualified for a period not to exceed 2 years.
Chairman O’Connell:
If my understanding is correct, they did not object to the bill, they did not oppose the bill, they just wanted to offer an amendment, is that correct Ms. Ashton?
Lori T. Ashton, Lobbyist, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters:
The bill in its entirety with the breakdown is of no concern; we think the objective criteria are good. We tried very hard on the Assembly side, against a lot of opposition, to get the ability for a public body if they choose. It is not mandated, but if they choose to disqualify a subcontractor and level the playing field for all general contractors to disqualify, that was where we thought the bill was important. This committee did pass S.B. 491 with the same option for the State, so we felt A.B. 295 would promote harmony between all agencies for subcontractor disqualification if needed.
SENATE BILL 491 (1ST REPRINT): Makes various changes regarding bidding on contracts for public works of this state. (BDR 28-487)
Chairman O’Connell:
This is not the unbalanced bid?
Ms. Ashton:
No.
Chairman O’Connell:
Initially we had heard the local governments wanted to be taken out of the bill and so they were just doing it for the State.
Ms. Ashton:
Correct. We had introduced A.B. 540, and that was our bill through the committee. We tried to merge and make harmony between the state and the local government requirements for prequalifications; we reached a point where the local governments did not want to address a lot of the issues we thought were important in dealing with public money and responsibility local government should have when awarding contracts. Therefore, S.B. 491 moved forward with the state’s recommendation to disqualify subcontractors and the counties, unfortunately, came over to this side without that ability afforded to a governing body. It does not mandate prequalification, it simply puts it in statute if you choose to have guidance criteria available.
ASSEMBLY BILL 540: Revises provisions governing bidders and subcontractors on contracts for public works. (BDR 28-361)
Mr. Wasserman:
The committee asked me to look at the various public works bills and point out where there could be substantive conflicts if they were all to pass in their present form. This is the first of four substantive conflicts between the various bills. There are eight bills currently before the Legislature that would amend NRS 338 for substantive conflicts and most of them are not difficult. None of the bills will be difficult to make a decision on how to amend the statute. This is the first one. In A.B. 295, page 6 sets forth the criteria to be used to determine whether a contractor is a qualified applicant and it sets forth 13 different criteria. Assembly Bill 425, which is also before the committee, amends the same section, but only adds one new criterion to the list of criteria. It would be to look at the performance history of the applicant on other recent contracts if any completed by the applicant are similar to the work the governing body requires. The industry met as you had requested and indicated their preference would be to use the criteria in A.B. 295. Later you could amend this section out of A.B. 425. If the committee would rather have the provision I just read to you, you could add this to the list in A.B. 295.
ASSEMBLY BILL 425 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions regarding public works. (BDR 28-405)
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter:
Steve Holloway had been working with the language to try to resolve the conflict, but I was worried it would crop up somewhere else. I know Ms. Ashton had participated in some of the discussions. I want to be sure we do not get confused here and get the same thing going in two different bills.
Chairman O’Connell:
Maybe what we need to do is to take the bills dealing with construction and set them aside to either Monday or Wednesday and have a matrix made of their criteria so it is clear in everybody’s mind what is in which bill, since we have had so many. Have you already done that Mr. Wasserman?
Mr. Wasserman:
I have basically done that. The technical conflicts between these bills will be resolved when we codify the various bills enacted by the Legislature. There are only four substantive conflicts and I can identify them if anyone is interested. But, I would also point out that until the bills are passed, there is no substantive conflict and S.B. 491 does not have this provision. If the Assembly committee is considering amending the bill, you could end up with substantive conflicts after this meeting, regardless of what the committee does. Until the bills are actually sent to the Governor for signature, we will not know definitely what substantive conflicts are going to occur.
Chairman O’Connell:
Because we have such a long list of bills to go through, I am going to ask we hold over the construction bills and do a matrix, so the committee is very sure in their own minds of what we are doing with each bill. Does the committee have a problem with that?
Senator Hardy:
I do not have a problem with that, but I think A.B. 295 is the industry compromise bill we worked on during the interim. If the intent is to find out where the industry and the stakeholders come down on these issues, I think it is answered in A.B. 295 because that is the bill we worked on through the interim.
Chairman O’Connell:
You are saying without amendments?
Senator Hardy:
Without amendments, I do not think anyone else would necessarily have a problem with the first amendment from the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County. This is a tough issue for me because I have actively worked with Lori Ashton and others on the prequalification of subcontracting issues of the local government. I think this is interpreted to mean I support the prequalification of subcontractors. No, I was involved because that was going to occur. I think the prequalification of subcontractors, as a matter of policy, is a bad idea; it creates a set of circumstances for abuse and it is the responsibility of the general contractor to prequalify the subcontractors. I would not be in favor of the amendment, but I do not have a problem with doing a matrix. I think A.B. 295 is the industry language on these issues. If the purpose is to get the committee decision, then let us hold them. If the objective is to find out where the industry stands on that matrix, I think we have the answer, unless anyone would disagree.
Chairman O’Connell:
I just want to make sure the committee is very clear on what we are doing.
Senator Titus:
Would you identify for us which bills you will be holding back?
Mr. Wasserman:
Assuming we are limiting this to just the substantive conflicts, the bills would be A.B. 401, A.B. 425, and A.B. 295. Some conflicts, for example between A.B. 425 and S.B. 491, are just a matter of days for a particular hearing, but would be a substantive conflict. One bill has two conflicts, but those are the three bills that have the four substantive conflicts. Again, if it were the committee’s wish, you could pass these bills without dealing with those substantive conflicts. You could deal with it at the time they are passed by the other House. We can send out a notice; it is up to the committee on how you want to proceed.
ASSEMBLY BILL 401 (1st Reprint): Allows public body or Department of Transportation to authorize private entity to develop, construct, improve, maintain or operate transportation facility. (BDR 28-798)
Chairman O’Connell:
We will hold the bills until Monday, then we can take a look at all of them; the industry, I am sure, will be here. Now we can open the work session on A.B. 114, this is the qualification of the sheriff.
ASSEMBLY BILL 114 (1st Reprint): Provides qualifications for county offices of sheriff and constable. (BDR 20-1020)
Mr. Stewart:
There were a couple of amendments on this one, most having to do with the ability of retired peace officers to run for office given the qualifications we have, so there were a couple of amendments you can see. Mr. Nadeau offered an amendment on page 1, line 7, to refer to the Police Officers’ Standards and Training Commission (P.O.S.T.) certification to be required on or after January 1, 2006, if he or she is or was certified by the P.O.S.T. We had something from Ronald Dreher, along the same lines, addressing how to handle honorably retired peace officers and their ability to run for sheriff under these qualifications. There are a total of three amendments.
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/South:
Because I was gone last week when the bill was heard, with your permission Madam Chairman, I will defer to James Nadeau.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association/North:
Whatever is the pleasure of the committee, we just thought it was appropriate that the P.O.S.T. qualifications are a requirement to run for sheriff. Someone previously certified as a peace officer should not be precluded from running for sheriff because they retired. That was the gist of my amendment.
Senator Hardy:
I do not remember any testimony identifying this as a problem. This requirement seems to be a solution in search of a problem that the current law is not working well. I do not know why we should place these kinds of restrictions. I can certainly understand because I voted for the bill on the administrator, but in terms of the sheriff, what is the problem we are trying to fix here?
Mr. Nadeau:
I think the feeling was, and the bill was initially brought forward by the voter registrar, to make the qualification that the constable and the sheriff be 21 years of age inasmuch as some of the areas in which they serve papers and some of the job duties require they be of age. As far as P.O.S.T. qualifications, the initial language brought forward was from the idea in Washoe and Clark Counties particularly. The jobs are becoming very immense, they deal with huge budgets and there may be reason to require some sort of qualification for those individuals. It was ultimately amended to include all sheriffs.
Senator Hardy:
I understand you are not a proponent of the amendment, but where would a requirement in real life that they be P.O.S.T. certified have helped?
Lt. Olsen:
There have been a couple of instances in this state. One sheriff who currently serves had no previous law enforcement experience prior to election and has, to date, not become certified within P.O.S.T., which prevents him from having any police powers or carrying firearms to perform his duties. There is also another incident where a chief of police took quite some time to get his P.O.S.T. certification before he had authority to carry out his duty as chief.
Senator Hardy:
And this requires P.O.S.T. certification before they are eligible to run for office?
Lt. Olsen:
Yes.
Senator Hardy:
I certainly do not have a problem with the requirement to become P.O.S.T. certified once they are elected.
Lt. Olsen:
I believe there is already a requirement; it just is not always done.
Senator Care:
I differ with the committee and I have made the comments when we initially heard the bill. I cannot imagine voting for anyone for sheriff who has not come up through the ranks of law enforcement, but there may be an exception out there. The one I can think of is William Webster, a federal judge who became director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I do not know if he had a background in law enforcement, understanding, of course, he had sat on the bench. There may be that circumstance where somebody comes along who is otherwise an ideal candidate, but my point is to leave it to the voters, so I will be opposing the bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
Committee, have you had enough information to give a motion?
Senator Titus:
I would like to go back to the business where once you are elected you are required to go to P.O.S.T. You were not real sure about that, would you elaborate?
Lt. Olsen:
If they are going to carry a firearm and have police powers, they must be P.O.S.T. certified, otherwise they do not have any police powers.
Senator Titus:
But what about this sheriff who does not have any police powers, what does he do?
Lt. Olsen:
I would imagine he handles the administrative side. He was also just reelected.
Senator Titus:
It is a requirement in order to have police powers to go to P.O.S.T., but is it a requirement to be sheriff and have police powers, one goes to P.O.S.T.? Maybe that is where we need to strengthen the language.
Mr. Nadeau:
You are not required to attend P.O.S.T. to be sheriff or to be elected sheriff currently. If you want to have police powers, then you are required to get P.O.S.T. certification. Without certification, obviously you can still carry concealed weapons or you can do things like that with appropriate credentials, but as far as being able to enforce laws and make arrests under the authority of a peace officer, then you cannot do those duties.
Senator Titus:
Then I am inclined to agree with Senator Hardy; rather than limit the people who can run, you add the requirement that in order to be sheriff you have to have police powers and attend P.O.S.T. Can you do that?
lt. Olsen:
I would guess this committee could do it if they chose to do so.
Senator Titus:
Is that already in the law?
Mr. Wasserman:
What I understand from the testimony is if the sheriff is to carry out peace officer powers, he would have to be P.O.S.T. certified. Putting the requirement into statute does not seem like you are going to be changing the situation because you would still be saying that to be sheriff, to carry out the powers of sheriff, you have to be P.O.S.T. certified. But it still would not keep someone who is not P.O.S.T. certified from running and in fact being elected sheriff. You would have a person in the office who would not be able to carry out the duties. If the intent is to make them P.O.S.T. certified, part of the qualifications for sheriff ought to be that the person become P.O.S.T. certified before serving in office.
Senator Titus:
Can it be a requirement that once a person becomes sheriff, he or she gets P.O.S.T. certified before serving in office?
Mr. Wasserman:
I think the general way to do that is make it a qualification. If they do not meet the qualification, it creates a vacancy in the office. You could put in statute that they have to become P.O.S.T. certified within a specified period of time. It would be one way of doing it, but after that period of time, if they do not meet the qualification, then there would be a vacancy in the office and we could clarify this issue in statute.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 114 BY TAKING THE LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS FOR CONSTABLE, NO PERSON SHALL BE ELIGIBLE UNLESS HE WILL HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF 21 AND IS A QUALIFIED ELECTOR, AND MAKE THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SHERIFF. NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED SHERIFF UNLESS HE WILL HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF 21 YEARS ON THE DATE HE WOULD TAKE OFFICE IF SO ELECTED OR APPOINTED AND HE IS A QUALIFIED ELECTOR.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Care:
If I understand the motion correctly, I think it addresses the concern I had earlier.
Senator Hardy:
It is setting an age requirement and the candidate must be a qualified elector.
Senator Care:
I can go along with that.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 235.
ASSEMBLY BILL 235 (1st Reprint): Provides Voters’ Bill of Rights. (BDR 24‑270)
Mr. Stewart:
This is the voters’ bill of rights we heard last Friday with posting at polling places and basically providing some voting rights every voter should be aware of; there were no formal amendments offered.
Chairman O’Connell:
If you remember they just wanted to put this information at the polling places for people who might have problems with their ballot and know they could get a new one if there is a problem.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 235.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 344.
ASSEMBLY BILL 344 (1st Reprint): Provides for special election to fill vacancy in office of Representative in Congress. (BDR 24-648)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill was brought forth on Monday. It provides for a method to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in Congress, particularly in terms of a catastrophe as they have defined in the bill. There were no formal amendments offered or testimony in opposition.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 344.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HARDY WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now hear A.B. 375.
ASSEMBLY BILL 375 (1st Reprint): Makes minor revisions to districts from which certain members of Legislature, State Board of Education and Board of Regents of University of Nevada are elected. (BDR 17-732)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill makes some minor revisions to our legislative districts, State Board of Education, and Board of Regents’ districts, to eliminate those mailing precincts where we find one, two, or just a few voters in the district and as a result are given a separate ballot style. There were no amendments offered.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Raggio, you had some questions with A.B. 375; are you comfortable with it now?
Senator Raggio:
I have no problem.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 375.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 390.
ASSEMBLY BILL 390 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to duties and liability of owner of property relating to sidewalks in public right-of-way abutting his property. (BDR 22-965)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill is about sidewalks and liability and the public rights-of-way if a sidewalk abuts property. There was no testimony in opposition to the measure, but an amendment has been proposed to clarify when an owner or occupier of a property is liable in a civil action for injury or damage that occurs as a result of use of the sidewalk.
Senator Care:
I think the concept explains it. In talking to Mr. Wasserman prior to the hearing, I understand the terminology “special use” comes from a Nevada Supreme Court decision and that might explain, when I went to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) originally about liability and sidewalks, why special use is even here.
Mr. Wasserman:
There was a case that involved a gas station. The traffic going over the sidewalk and the walk-in traffic to the mini-mart packed down the snow and the ice in that particular area on the sidewalk caused a dangerous situation. A pedestrian slipped and fell. The Nevada Supreme Court held the owner of the property liable for the injuries because of the special use they had put to the sidewalk, which was rather than having the normal-type pedestrian traffic, it had additional business traffic of cars and people going into the business.
Senator Care:
I was suggesting it should not be blanket immunity from all liability; rather, there should be liability attached for the dangerous condition created by the owner of the property or if we have this special use situation. If this were clear, then that would be my motion.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 390 WITH THE CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT.
Senator Hardy:
I am not seconding the motion, but I know Irene Porter had some questions about this.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman O’Connell:
Was this her amendment?
Senator Care:
No. I remember as a child, first thing in the morning in December we had to shovel sidewalks so we would not lose the house if someone fell down in the front yard. I had asked for some research from LCB on the issue and what came back, was the owner of the real property was not necessarily liable, but might be in those narrow circumstances.
Senator Tiffany:
Senator Care, if we are putting these circumstances into law and statute, to me it says if there is a lawsuit, the attorney can go to the statute and say his needs fit this situation. Other than that if you do not put A.B. 390 in statute, it has to be argued in court whether the liability makes sense or not. What I am asking is does putting these circumstances in codify it?
Senator Care:
What we are doing is codifying common law.
Senator Tiffany:
Otherwise, if you do not put it in statute, is the burden of proof more on the person suing the owner?
Senator Care:
It is probably the same level of proof in a civil matter, preponderance of the evidence. What normally happens is you get any number of cases out there on a particular issue and the time comes when the Legislature says there are so many cases we better put it in statute. I can tell you, compared to California, we do not have a lot of case law on just about anything. It was my suggestion we put it in statute because the issue will come up some day. It will happen, someone will fall somewhere and that will be the issue.
Senator Raggio:
I think I can understand the reason if an owner creates a dangerous condition, then there would be liability, but I do not see the need for this second event though you said it was referencing the court decision. It seems to me that number one would cover it. If the owner creates a dangerous condition, then we can understand, but the other one is too vague and unnecessary.
Senator Care:
I can follow that and if you want me to amend my amendment I will. I think Senator Raggio is right. Special use arguably is a hazard created by an owner.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 390 WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT LISTED.
Chairman O’Connell:
Currently Ms. Porter, we have an amendment to A.B. 390 which would read:
An owner or occupier is liable in a
civil action for injury or damage that occurs as a result of the use of a
sidewalk in a public
right‑of‑way that abuts his property if, the owner or occupier
himself creates a dangerous condition that causes the injury or damage.
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association:
I talked with Senator Care prior to the hearing about this. I certainly would concur that if we as citizens create a hazard, we have some responsibility. I might mention some of the local governments approached me, they had not thought about this before, but since they have ordinances to prepare as a part of this, perhaps they could have an October 1 effective date for the bill instead of the July 1.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does the maker of the motion have a problem with that addition?
Senator Care:
Not at all.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now hear A.B. 408.
ASSEMBLY BILL 408 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to freedom to display flag of United States. (BDR 22-910)
Chairman O’Connell:
This is the flag bill and have you been able to contact Assemblyman Griffin?
Senator Titus:
I think it is fine. Senator Hardy said he too has talked with Assemblyman Griffin and this is fine, we will have both their names on it and A.B. 408 moves forward. I met with the Assembly Government Affairs. I think it is okay.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 408.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 421.
ASSEMBLY BILL 421 (1st Reprint): Requires that candidates for certain nonpartisan offices who are unopposed be declared elected to office after primary election under certain circumstances. (BDR 24-847)
Mr. Stewart:
Assemblywoman Weber brought this bill. It requires the name of an unopposed nonpartisan candidate be initially placed in the primary election ballot instead of the general election ballot. If that candidate then receives one or more votes at the primary election, he or she may be declared elected to the office. There were no formal amendments submitted.
Chairman O’Connell:
I do not think there was any opposition to the bill either.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 421.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus:
What if the only opponent is none of the above?
Mr. Wasserman:
The result would not change regardless of the number of votes for "none of the above," it is just a choice put on the ballot.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 458.
ASSEMBLY BILL 458 (1st Reprint): Requires payment of overtime to mechanics and workmen employed on public works under certain circumstances. (BDR 28-1304)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill authorizes the labor commissioner to enforce a payment of overtime wages to mechanics and workmen employed on public works projects. We did have one amendment and it was to clarify that overtime also be appropriately paid to employees who have mutually agreed with their employer to work four 10-hour shifts. Mr. Madole provided the amendment.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 458.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 528. Let me explain to people who were not able to be here yesterday; the bill as you presently see it is not the Secretary of State’s bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 528 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing elections and campaign finance. (BDR 24-559)
Mr. Stewart:
There was one amendment brought up by Ms. Lusk. It clarifies the condition where the person who receives contributions and made no expenditures applies to a public officer as well as a candidate.
Chairman O’Connell:
There was no opposition to the bill and only the one amendment.
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary State, Office of the Secretary of State:
Assembly Bill 528 is our cleanup bill; it was S.B. No. 565 of the 71st Session and had statewide voter registration and then died. The portions we brought forward did not have any opposition. This is the one I had Ms. Hansen come up and support. Essentially it takes some of the federal case law passed on the Buckley v. Vallejo case, regarding whether the circulator of the petition needed to be a registered voter; and puts that into statute. Title 24 of NRS determines how the days are counted for certain actions under the election laws. We ran into this problem when the Governor issued the proclamation for the special session. There were some questions as to how you count days and whether it was the default in the general NRS. Ms. Erdoes and I worked it out so our office was in agreement with LCB’s advice; we then decided to bring forward a specific change to ensure how you count the days.
Assembly Bill 528 makes changes to bring the minor parties onto equal footing with the major parties in obtaining lists for their candidates; it clarifies those lists obtained for free by the parties cannot be resold to others because everyone else has to come to the county and pay for them. This bill makes changes specifying the date when we run into some problems with having to have names on the ballot and the January 1 date. It was the first Monday in January, but there are certain actions where we need to determine the number of registered voters by January 1, so we clarified the date to conform to statute. Section 20 limits the penalty for candidates who are not compensated for the office, or public officers who are not compensated, or candidates who have no contributions or expenses. We have people who run for general improvement districts who are not compensated and currently have $15,000 fines in our office for filing their reports late. We are trying to address a maximum fine of $100,000 in those circumstances. The bill also deals with the posting of candidates for a candidate who dies prior to the primary. We did not have provisions for that in the primary.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 528.
SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 539.
ASSEMBLY BILL 539 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning contracts into which members of certain governing bodies may enter with governing body. (BDR 27-169)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill had to do with making changes with which members of certain governing bodies may enter into with the governing body. You might recall Senator O’Connell gave an example of Elko County where some members of a governing body may be the sole-source provider for a particular service.
SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 539.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Titus, I understand A.B. 298 is a word-for-word duplication of your bill. Assembly Bill 298 is Assemblyman Parks’ bill; have you spoken with him about this bill?
ASSEMBLY BILL 298 (1st Reprint): Prohibits public officers and employees from requesting or otherwise causing state and local governments to, under certain circumstances, make expenditures to support or oppose ballot questions or candidates. (BDR 23-408)
Senator Titus:
I have, in fact. The subject came up in Government Affairs in the Assembly and Assemblyman Parks testified in favor of my bill and said they were not the same, there were some differences, so maybe he was mistaken.
Mr. Stewart:
I looked at both bills side by side and I did not see any differences, but we can look at them again.
Senator Titus:
That is what he said on the record before the Elections Committee, but I will double-check.
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 127.
ASSEMBLY BILL 127: Repeals certain provisions relating to Commission on Ethics. (BDR 23-47)
Mr. stewart:
This bill repeals provisions in Nevada’s campaign practices law that prohibit a person from making a false statement of fact concerning a candidate or question on the ballot and from willfully impeding the success of a campaign of a candidate. There were no amendments offered and at the time there was no testimony in opposition to the measure.
Chairman O’Connell:
Would Senators Tiffany or Care walk us through this since most were absent during the hearing of A.B. 127?
Senator Tiffany:
I asked the Ethics Commission if the alternative to the commission was defamation of character, filed in a civil court. I had a question about what the Ethics Commission could do then if what it came down to was defamation of character or not. I was questioning whether we had a need for this.
Senator Care:
If you look at the repealed sections, what we are doing here is simply deleting language consistent with a couple of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, but Senator Tiffany is correct. This does get into the realm of First Amendment and political speech and I think that was basically the basis for the cases and why the Ethics Commission is requesting what we are doing here. For example, if you look at the bill, the second page under section 2 deletes existing statute, and that language is contained again in the deleted sections at the end of the bill. We did have a discussion yesterday about what you can do if someone says something nasty during the course of the campaign. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada testified, among others. The feeling I shared with Senator Tiffany was Assembly Bill 127 is the political process. We are talking about free speech, First Amendment rights, that if there is a remedy, it is to be a cause of action for defamation where you might have actual malice or constitutional malice.
Chairman O’Connell:
With what you people know about the bill, what would be your recommendation?
Senator Raggio:
I was also not here for this hearing, what concerns me is how this developed. Several sessions ago, we were faced with a bill that made it a felony to make a false statement. There was a lot of consternation and everyone thought that was a little extreme. We had many examples of situations where a candidate was faced with an absolute lie about his or her conduct, past, or reputation. We thought to make it a felony was too extreme and that is why we came up with this provision. We recognized that when you are in a campaign and someone comes out and says something absolutely false about you, it is not a practical remedy to say that you can sue that person for defamation. You are in the heat of a campaign, and what rights do you have? We thought there had to be a practical way to deal with this, so this is where the procedure came from. A person could at least go to the Ethics Commission and, within a short period of time, have the commission look at the problem to determine if the claim was false or not. At least there was a remedy. I know a lot of people do not like that, but there has to be some practical remedy and suing someone for defamation is not practical. I am opposed to removing this. I know a lot of people do not like it, but I like it. Without this, there is no practical remedy of any kind.
Mr. Wasserman:
There are two parts to this bill. The first part repeals the provisions prohibiting a person from making, using, publishing, or disseminating a false, deceptive, or misleading statement to induce the Commission on Ethics to render an opinion. Also, it eliminates the authority of the commission to impose a civil penalty against a person who submits to the commission a false accusation, or information in bad faith or with a vexatious purpose. This should sound familiar because you had the provision in S.B. 147, that also repealed those provisions the United States District Court in Dehne v. Avanino struck down as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The other part of this bill would eliminate the provisions found in NRS 294A.345, impeding the success of a campaign of a candidate by causing publication of certain false statements of fact concerning the candidate, and also impeding the success, or inducing another to impede the success, of a campaign or candidate, or the ballot question. There have been arguments that those two sections were unconstitutional. When the sections were drafted, they were based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and we included, for example, the requirement of having actual malice in NRS 294A.345. Those two sections have not been struck down. There are two different parts of the bill for your consideration.
SENATE BILL 147 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to Commission on Ethics. (BDR 23-500)
Senator Raggio:
That is my point. I think we have dealt with the one in our bill. The others have not been declared unconstitutional, but based upon what I just told you, I think it is unnecessary to process this bill.
Senator Care:
Mr. Wasserman, in the testimony from yesterday, the press association testified about an instance in which a newspaper was hit with an ethics complaint, and I think the commission had jurisdiction over the complaint even though it extended to a newspaper and the commission found against the newspaper. Assuming that to be the case, does this situation fall under the first, or the second part of the bill?
Mr. Wasserman:
I am not specifically familiar with the particular circumstances, but I know the only provisions struck down by the courts as unconstitutional are the first part of the title, also included in S.B. 147. These two sections have not been struck down as unconstitutional.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 127.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO AMEND SENATOR CARE’S MOTION AND INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 127.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS TIFFANY, HARDY, TITUS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will now vote on the original motion by Senator Care as seconded by Senator Tiffany.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, TOWNSEND AND O’CONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell
We will open the hearing on A.B. 292.
ASSEMBLY BILL 292: Prohibits political subdivisions from challenging initiative petitions, referendums or recalls under certain circumstances. (BDR 24‑329)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill prohibits political subdivisions of the State from challenging an initiative petition, referendums, or a petition for the recall of a public officer before it is presented to the voters, except under certain circumstances. Testimony was received both in support and in opposition to the measure. An amendment has been submitted by the City of Reno to allow a local government to commence a legal action on a petition for constitutional reasons. The amendment would amend section 1 to read:
The government of a political subdivision of this state or an agency of a political subdivision shall not commence a legal action to challenge an initiative petition, a referendum petition or a petition for the recall of a public officer on grounds other than that: the number of signatures on the petition is insufficient; the petition is in an incorrect form; the petition was prepared in any other manner that was procedurally incorrect; or the petition is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal before the petition is presented to the voters as a ballot question.
Senator Tiffany:
When the people did a petition, they really resented the fact the government could use taxpayers’ money to sue the people who initiated the petition to stop it from going to the ballot. The argument was if it is not even a law yet, but it is a petition, what are the grounds for a lawsuit. The government used the point of whether it was an administrative procedure or not. An administrative procedure example was clear-cut, when people in North Las Vegas did a petition that said a meeting had to be held on Wednesday at a certain time, the public meeting had to be so long, and each testimony had to be X number of minutes. The gray zone concerned what was constitutional and what was administrative. It became a question of whether the government should be able to use the taxpayers’ money to sue the petition people. The gray zone occurred when the petition people felt it was clearly not administrative, yet the city took it to district court and got one opinion from district court and another from the Nevada Supreme Court.
Senator Raggio:
The courts consistently ruled the petition was not applicable to challenge the administrative decision.
Senator Tiffany:
The court said it was an administrative decision?
Senator Raggio:
Both the district and the Nevada Supreme Court held it was an administrative decision.
Senator Tiffany:
I do not have a clear-cut solution to recommend to the committee. I just thought I would discuss the arguments. Senator Care made the point if somebody thinks it is unconstitutional, no matter what our statute says, they can still take it to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Senator Care:
The City of Reno had proposed an amendment. The city would still be allowed to challenge the petition on constitutional grounds. It would seem to me you could talk about a constitutional question whether there is a statutory prohibition or not. We did have some discussion about the language and whether to involve taxpayers’ money. That is to say whether there is the distinction to be drawn between challenging on grounds of constitutionality whether taxpayers’ funds are involved and not.
Mr. Wasserman:
The bill is saying you cannot challenge the initiative petition prior to the people voting on it, except on the grounds for form and procedure. After the people voted, if it was approved, it would not prohibit the city or a local government from challenge based on the fact the petition is unconstitutional. If the amendment is adopted, you are allowing local government to challenge the initiative petition for being unlawful or unconstitutional. The exception would follow the rule because the bill is trying to prohibit having the city or a local government spend money to challenge a petition on the basis it is unconstitutional before the people vote on it.
Senator Titus:
This limits only a governmental body from suing because it is using taxpayer dollars against taxpayers, but an individual group could still go forward with a suit prior to a vote, correct?
Mr. Wasserman:
That is correct. A.B. 292 only limits the expenditure of public money and does not affect private parties challenging the initiative petition.
Chairman O’Connell:
The interesting part when the counties were talking was the testimony from John Swendseid who does most of the bonding for the counties. His concern was there is debt attached to some of the questions being challenged and this could have a very chilling effect on any bonding or for people considering buying the bonds. Is that correct? He also expressed a concern over redevelopment agencies, as far as the bond issues were concerned.
Mr. Wasserman:
I believe his testimony was if an initiative petition was unconstitutional, allowed to go to a vote before local governments could challenge, had a negative impact upon their ability to issue bonds or raise money during that period, and if the local government is prohibited from challenging the petition, it could cause the local government a debt problem.
Chairman O’Connell:
People would not be interested in supporting the bonds if they knew it was going to go to a challenge.
Senator Hardy:
I understand the reasoning for the bill, but when Mr. Swendseid, who is among the most respected in the State, brought up the issue, that is a real problem. I do not know if I can support the bill because of his testimony; it is very problematic for the local governments.
Senator Titus:
Could we have a review of the bill Carole Vilardo supported about putting out information on initiatives and bond questions? Also, if the people do not want something the government is doing and they have an initiative petition going, if it stops the sale of bonds until the vote can be decided, I am not so sure that is a bad thing, because that action is part of the intent of the initiative petition.
Senator Care:
Take the period after the signatures have been gathered, but before the voters vote on the ballot question. If a municipality can challenge that on constitutional grounds, this bill then talks about the procedural aspects, could they not do that anyway? Does this bill really do anything?
Mr. Wasserman:
The local governments can challenge the petition on the basis it is unconstitutional now. They can do that as soon as it is being circulated in an attempt to keep it from going onto the ballot. But under this bill, they would not be able to challenge the petition before it was to be put on the ballot. Even if it was blatantly unconstitutional they would not be able to challenge it, they would have to wait until after, unless it was for procedural grounds, but not on the basis it is unconstitutional. They would have to wait until after the people voted on it. If the people did not approve the petition there would be nothing to challenge. They would have to wait until the people approved it and only if the people approved the initiative petition, then the local government would be able to challenge it as being unconstitutional.
Senator Titus had asked another question about the other bill we had before the committee. That bill deals with fiscal notes for advisory questions and does not deal with this particular issue.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 292.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, TOWNSEND, AND HARDY VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 398.
ASSEMBLY BILL 398 (3rd Reprint): Establishes temporary alternative procedure pursuant to which certain performance contracts for cost-savings energy measures in buildings occupied by governmental entities are bid. (BDR 27-1115)
Mr. Stewart:
Assemblyman Geddes presented this bill. There were technical amendments by Carl Linvill of the Nevada State Energy Office and then Assemblyman Geddes presented a number of amendments.
Chairman O’Connell:
I understand we have a problem with a project going on in southern Nevada and how this will be impacted. Assemblyman Geddes, could you address the problem? Is it the fact of putting in, or taking out, local governments? I know initially you took out the local governments. As I understand it the problem is they would like to be re-included in the bill.
Assemblyman Jason D. Geddes, Assembly District No. 24:
Yes. The Las Vegas Valley Water District is working on a project and they were anticipating passage of A.B. 398 with the local provisions. They think if we pulled out the local agencies, it would snag their bill. I have spoken with several of the groups involved. The purchasing commission is still opposed to applying this measure to local agencies since we are looking at this on the interim basis. It is whichever way the committee wishes to go.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Musgrove, do you have any information to share with the committee on this bill?
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I am in an awkward position. The Las Vegas Valley Water District board of directors is our board of county commissioners and although it is a separate agency, we are in a unique position. Our purchasing people are a part of the purchasing association, and they felt they had enough ability in existing law to be able to do any type of energy retrofitting. Our position is local governments should be out, but now based on the fact the water district believes they need it, officially I am in a position of neutrality. We do not want to get into a fight between two agencies.
Chairman O’Connell:
Initially they felt they had reason to go ahead with what they are doing on the project?
Mr. Musgrove:
All I can do is speak for Ted Olivas. He felt we had the ability under current statute to go ahead. We would rather see how this legislation worked for the State over a 2-year interim period, before we entered into the procedure ourselves. We are in a wait-and-see position. Speaking on behalf of Clark County and our board of county commissioners, who have not been asked to take a position on this, I would have to tell you I am neutral.
Justine A. Chambers, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:
We have had several conversations about this exact topic. When we originally wrote the opposition to the bill, we e-mailed all of our members via e-mail to communicate what we were doing. We did not receive any opposition at that point. This morning we heard Clark County and Washoe County may be added into the bill. I contacted Jim Keenan, who is with John Balentine at the Washoe County Purchasing Department, and they wished to be left out of the bill. We would like to recommend if an agency wants to be placed in A.B. 398, then just add the agency at that time so we can review it during the interim.
Chairman O’Connell:
Your recommendation is if we pass A.B. 398, then only exceptions should be put in the bill, and we should go ahead and pass the bill as written. The bill is a pilot program for the State for a 2-year period.
Ms. Chambers:
Exactly.
Senator Townsend:
This is an area I have spent 20 years in and every time someone makes a good‑faith effort as Assemblyman Geddes or Mr. Linvill have, somebody always has an objection. We are never going to get these cost-saving measures off the ground if everybody continues to have an objection. I do not want local government to not have that option. Certain local officials are elected by the public and if they do not want to do certain projects or want their purchasing people to be involved, then they can tell them. But why would we preclude this? We study stuff to death around here and then we cannot figure out why nothing gets done.
Ms. Chambers:
Currently we have a way to do energy retrofits in NRS 338.1907; for example I work for the City of Carson City and we have done two retrofit projects based on the current legislation. This new legislation opens it up for a longer period of time with a lot more vulnerability for the smaller agencies. That is why we would like to see how the State gets it orchestrated and worked out before a small agency tackles this type of a project.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does it broaden the power?
Ms. Chambers:
I am not opposed to the broadening if we could broaden NRS 338.1907, which applies to us now and is in our public works statutes. I think it is a good idea, but this new legislation increases the term of the contract to 20 years. You could really put a small agency into a situation they are not familiar with and because no one has done it before, there is no guidance or anyone work with whom to work. We are concerned about the smaller agencies.
Chairman O’Connell:
When we are talking about this, and I realize the savings are after the fact, but what is the up-front cost going to do? What kind of an impact is that going to have?
Ms. Chambers:
The work is bonded. You develop a contract, get all the prices, and then you bond for the cost to move forward with the project. With this new legislation you could be paying for that bond for 20 years.
Chairman O’Connell:
Who is going to pay for those bonds?
Ms. Chambers:
The local government will pay for the bonds. That is my point of concern. We would like to wait and see how things work for the State.
Chairman O’Connell:
With the State though, which is the only entity this affects, it is the State that is going to pay for them. Has this been discussed with any of the finance committees?
Carl Linvill, Administrator, Nevada State Office of Energy, office of the governor:
The amendment I introduced specifically says the lease purchase statutes, NRS 353.500 through 353.630, would apply to all projects. Those statutes invoke a non-appropriations clause in the agreements, meaning they would neither go against the debt capacity of the State nor affect the bonding capacity of the State. These contracts would be paid entirely through the savings generated for the contracts. Currently, agencies have come forward to the finance committees and requested their expenses be covered, including electricity, water, and so forth. The amendment would use the savings generated from not paying those expenses to pay for the lease entered into under one of these contracts.
Chairman O’Connell:
I think it is important to have on the record, as well as Senator Raggio be aware of what these agencies are doing. We have other amendments to the bill.
Assemblyman Geddes:
When the bill turned into an interim study and we were looking at this program and changing this program for the energy retrofits, we reduced the term down from 20 years to 4 years on the last day we could pass bills out of the Assembly. In discussion with the opposition on the Assembly floor, 4 years was too short of a term to put in significant projects that would have long-term benefits. We said we would come before you and present safeguard amendments to strengthen the bill so we could extend the term. The amendments today address that, as well as concerns of the local government purchasing commission.
Chairman O’Connell:
The sticking point is 20 years? I see your amendment must not exceed 20 years, so it could be anything less than 20 years?
Assemblyman Geddes:
Correct. There are some 6-, 8-, and 12-year examples. We brought the 20 years in as the model legislation had it. In several discussions with purchasing and the treasurer’s office, 20 years is what worked in all of the constitutional language.
Senator Raggio:
I will abstain on this bill. Members of my law firm have lobbied on this bill and I do not know which way, but there is a conflict of interest.
Senator Townsend:
I want to make sure Mr. Linvill of the Energy Office and Assemblyman Geddes are in agreement relative to both of your amendments. I am very concerned southern Nevada has the authority because of the solar capabilities in some of the larger areas. You cannot do it without the lengthy term, but the issue is the local governments should have this option. These things are very important. Is that what I am hearing from you?
Mr. Linvill:
The amendments I proposed have nothing to do with sections 1 through 14 of the bill, they are to ensure we take one more look at this thing and make sure it works with the financing mechanism the State plans to use. That is in the spirit the amendments were offered.
Assemblyman Geddes:
If you are looking to put the local government back in those further amendments 3 through 7 for the bill, that language should be put into the local language section as well since sections 1 through 14 reflect the further language. When I brought the bill forward, I brought it forward for local governments. I truly believe the larger amount of the savings will come through them when we look at the school districts and all of the local agencies. I believe there is a great amount of potential and that is why we brought it forward. Concerns by the purchasing commission and the local agencies are valid, because they currently have procedures and it was turned into a bill with a 2-year sunset. I was comfortable with that, but if we are looking at A.B. 398 strictly on a long-term basis, I would like to see local governments included. Whatever the will of this committee is, I would support either way.
Senator Townsend:
Every bill in this Legislature has a 2-year sunset because that is when we meet again.
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 398 PUTTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT BACK IN, ADOPTING THE ENERGY AMENDMENT, ADOPTING ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES AMENDMENT, AND APPLYING THE LANGUAGE IN SECTIONS 3 THROUGH 7 ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Wasserman:
The bill currently has a sunset provision in it and would sunset on June 30, 2005. I assume the motion includes repealing section 30 out of the bill, is that correct?
Senator Townsend:
Correct.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TIFFANY VOTED NO. SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 424.
ASSEMBLY BILL 424 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions concerning penalty for person who contracts with state agency and fails to perform according to terms of contract. (BDR 28-959)
Mr. Stewart:
There were no amendments or opposing testimony on this bill.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 424.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 529.
ASSEMBLY BILL 529 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. (BDR 24-558)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill is the campaign finance measure and there were several amendments proposed.
Chairman O’Connell:
This bill is the one the Assembly completely changed. The Assembly totally deleted everything the Secretary of State had in their original bill. The Assembly put in the construction of the forms into the law. They requested it be in the law so the forms could not be changed again. Assemblyman Beers explained the context of the bill. Outside of that, the Secretary of State has offered some amendments to try to put them back into the bill. If we were to entertain any of the amendments, would we have to worry about a conference committee? Do you have any indication whether the Assembly would accept the amendments?
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary Of State, Office Of The Secretary Of State:
Some of the more contentious issues, the audit authority and the automatic reporting of contributions, could end up in a conference committee. We do have some technical amendments we proposed with which I do not foresee any issues. On the summary sheet, the first amendment deals with page 2, section 2, line 11, the expense for the filing fee paid. The cumulative should be carried forward, but expensing the filing fee is only done in the first reporting period. I think that was an oversight in developing the form. We asked the Assembly for the annual filing and proposed coming up with one form that incorporated all of the other reports. On page 9, we asked you to delete section 3, paragraph (a).
The reason is some candidates do want to put that information in there. We recommended putting section 3.5 back to the way it had been. We had some concern about the “contracted for” language. Our point is we did want this section to allow someone to say to not send him or her any of his or her bills until after the general election. It would open up that loophole. Page 10, section 4, subsection 1, creates the annual reporting with the current statute we are trying to pull into this report. Our intent was not to delete the $10,000-plus reporting, or only provide that reporting in the election year; it was to make that form be a part of this form. We recommended adding the language, “or the year in which the candidate receives contributions in excess of $10,000.“
Senator Titus:
This would say everyone has to report every year whether you raise $10,000 or not?
Ms. Parker:
The way it currently reads, you would trigger this annual reporting on January 15 of every year beginning in that first election year and subsequent years. The Assembly essentially has to report every year, but the Senate would have this every-year filing and in an election year, you would have the three reporting periods. The January 15 report would be both your third report and annual report. In nonelection years you would report January 15 to cover January 1 through December 31 of the previous year.
Senator Titus:
What about the first report in your election year, what would that cover?
Ms. Parker:
The first report would cover January 1 through December 31 of the previous year, if you raise any money. In an election year, the first report would be the annual January 15 filing, then the August and the October filings, and then the January 15 filing the following year.
Senator Titus:
Is the January 15 filing for that campaign or is it the same as a regular annual filing?
Ms. Parker:
It would be both in an election year. In an election year, the January 15 filing, which is your annual filing, would also be your third report.
Senator Titus:
Does it have to be on a different form?
Ms. parker
No, it would be the same form. The form as it is in here is intended to be applicable. Even if it is not in an election year, you could have raised money or incurred expenses from the previous year and you would report them on one report for that whole period, if you were not in an election year.
Senator Titus:
Are you getting rid of the unspent disposition report? Is it being replaced by an annual total report?
Ms. Parker:
Yes, as a separate report so you only have this one date to remember in those opposite years. The total report also incorporates the ethics financial disclosure report because you have to file that within 10 days of declaring your candidacy and then March 31 of the following year. We are trying to ensure there is one day you remember, January 15, and then when you are in an election year you have to remember those August and October dates. I am not sure the Assembly would have an issue with ensuring the $10,000-plus reporting requirement is retained.
The other amendment we proposed is on page 11, section 4, subsection 6, lines 34 through 38. The original bill proposed all these filings be in the Secretary of State’s office, rather than with your filing office, at different times. When you file this report you file it with our office. The reason being if we get several candidates by the time we receive the report, it might be several days later than the 10-day period and some counties have problems gathering information and the reports in a timely manner. The timeliness is an issue because by the time we get it, if it is 10 or 15 days late, you already have candidates running. We send letters out saying they were late and have a $1300 fine. Our purpose in having them all filed in our office is to ensure we can get the letter of candidacy out within a day or two because the fine is not our goal.
The county clerks did have some concerns about that because the press is used to asking the clerks for that information, and if they do not have it, they then have to direct people to our office. In the Assembly they amended A.B. 529 to say you have to file it in both places. Our concern is if it is in both places it is timely filed, even if you file it in the wrong place. This might create the same administrative problems we have today. By the time we get the information and find out they are late, we have to call the county clerk to double-check they did not file it there. It gives people the opportunity to file in Clark County. If you do not want the press to get hold of your report in a timely manner, everybody is looking for it, and that is the main concern.
Chairman O’Connell:
My concern is we have to pay $5 to mail these things and now we have to mail it to the Internal Revenue Service as well. We are looking at $15 just to mail our forms.
Ms. Parker:
I think the Assembly wanted to address the problem, and then they recognized the concern about filing only in our office and the clerks not having the form. We recommended they file only in our office with a requirement for our office to send a copy to the clerks and the registrars. I do not know if there is a better solution, other than leaving the filing as it is now and not adding this, because I agree the more you have to file, the bigger the administrative nightmare. We added provisions to allow faxing or electronically filing the report. Except for a couple more changes, the rest of the pages are duplicative in other sections of the statute.
Chairman O’Connell:
I will give these pages of amendments to Assemblyman Beers and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and ask them to go through it so they can figure out which ones they have problems with, then bring it back to the committee to study in context, and reserve voting on this bill until they have had the opportunity to look at this. The meeting will adjourn at 1:29 p.m.
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: