MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-second Session
May 16, 2003
The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 3:49 p.m., on Friday, May 16, 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 William J. Raggio
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Warren B. Hardy
Senator Dina Titus
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Terry Care (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel
Tara DeWeese, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dean Heller, Secretary of State
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 150.
ASSEMBLY BILL 150: Amends Charter of City of Las Vegas to clarify that City Attorney and Deputy City Attorneys may represent indigent persons in certain circumstances. (BDR S-1054)
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 150.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 244, dealing with the rural preservation of neighborhoods. Those of you who served on this committee last year will remember this is former Nevada State Senator Porter’s bill to try to get a buffer zone around the larger portions of land in those rural neighborhoods. There was an amendment to change a “shall” to a “may.”
ASSEMBLY BILL 244 (3rd Reprint): Eliminates prospective expiration of provisions for protection of rural preservation neighborhoods and revises provisions relating to protection of rural preservation neighborhoods. (BDR 22-919)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 244.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS RAGGIO, TIFFANY, AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO. SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B. 291.
ASSEMBLY BILL 291 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to city and county planning commissions in certain larger counties. (BDR 22-728)
Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst:
This bill makes various changes to procedures related to land use matters in counties whose populations are greater than 400,000, provides planning commissioners serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and addresses continuances.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 291.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 356.
ASSEMBLY BILL 356 (2nd Reprint): Revises various provisions relating to determination of livable wages and establishment of certain benefits for certain employees in private employment. (BDR 18-682)
Mr. Stewart:
Assembly Bill 356 requires the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation to calculate the cost of living for families in Nevada, and requires the Commission on Economic Development to determine if certain taxes and other incentives are ethical with respect to certain jobs within Nevada that pay livable wage. Livable wage is defined in the bill, and there are several other provisions addressing the issue. We had one amendment proposed by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani providing an exemption of employees for the calculation of the business activities tax, and deleting sections 7 and 8 of the bill. The language provides exemptions or incentives for employers who cover family medical coverage for no fewer than 70 percent of their employees.
Senator Townsend:
I reviewed the bill and have to abstain because my two partners and I own a company that would bid on this if A.B. 356 were to become law.
Senator Tiffany:
I am not in favor of A.B. 356. At first glance, it looked like a “get Wal‑Mart” bill, which really got my attention. I do not think this is the place to single out any particular business or entity. Livable wage is in the eye of the beholder; I would hate to start putting livable wage in government hands, let alone in statute. The legislation could work itself up to every employer who then has to provide all these benefits and has to raise salaries.
SENATOR TIFFANY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 356.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR TOWNSEND ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 450.
ASSEMBLY BILL 450 (1st Reprint): Prohibits designation of certain positions in government as being position for which monthly service retirement allowance may be paid when previously retired employee fills position during critical labor shortage. (BDR 23-34)
Senator Raggio:
We talked about A.B. 450 last meeting and I expressed what I felt. I think this was aimed at the appointment of Mr. Kirkland and the assistant. Bills like this should not be used to target that kind of situation. In this case, the Governor had the capability to appoint a well-qualified person who had earned his retirement and there is no reason he should be penalized. It does not cost the State anything.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 450.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Titus:
As I recall, this did not have anything to do with one individual. This bill would allow school districts to hire people who had special qualifications. It turned out to have unintended consequences; a lot of people who were retired went back into positions where there was not a critical shortage. There were a lot of editorials against it in the papers. The bill then came back this session with its original intention. This is what I remember, and I would vote against indefinite postponement. I think A.B. 450 is a good clarification of the original intent of the bill from 2 years ago.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS VOTED NO. SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the hearing on A.B.526.
ASSEMBLY BILL 526 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning contests of general elections for offices of Assemblyman and Senator. (BDR 24‑1289)
Mr. Stewart:
This bill makes various changes concerning election contests for seats in the State Assembly and Senate. There were no formal amendments offered and no opposing testimony was received.
SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 526.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will open the work session on A.B. 541.
ASSEMBLY BILL 541 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to elections. (BDR 24-166)
Mr. Stewart:
If two or more candidates have the same or similar surnames, it could cause some confusion. Assembly Bill 541 provides the incumbent’s name would be listed first in bold print. There is some language addressing the distribution of contributions before and after a special session.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is the time 15 days before and 15 days after the special session?
Mr. Stewart:
That is correct, Madam Chairman. There are some other issues about the placement of ballot questions, and some cleanup language. Two formal amendments have been submitted. The first amendment would change all the references from the fifth Saturday to the fifth Sunday. The amendment would make the measure consistent with the Help America Vote Act. Senate Bill 453 was amended yesterday by the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics as a consistency amendment. Lucille Lusk proposed an amendment to delete sections 4 and 13 of the measure, which relate to the return of absentee ballots by another person. Current law in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.330 and NRS 293C.330 states it is unlawful for a person to return an absentee ballot, other than the voter who requested the ballot, or at the request of the voter a member of his family. Sections 4 and 13 of the bill specify the voter may authorize a person, including a person other than a family member, to return his or her absentee ballot.
SENATE BILL 453 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes concerning elections. (BDR 24-560)
Dean Heller, Secretary of State:
We have some concern with section 15 of this measure, which I do not think is necessary. I understand the concern the author had on this, not allowing the Secretary of State to request or require a candidate to list expenditures of $100 or less. We made the mistake during the last election cycle by not making this optional. We would put “optional” on it this time so the candidates know.
Chairman O’Connell:
Are you talking about A.B. 529?
Secretary of State Heller:
Many candidates out there like to list all of their expenditures. Putting this language in the bill does not assist the candidates, especially those who do like to list all their expenditures. We will make it clear section 15 is not required.
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9:
The Assembly committee unanimously wanted that language and made it very clear because we had not required the $100 reporting, yet the forms were developed with the $100 reporting which misled many people. We wanted to make it very clear you do not have to report expenditures of $100 or less. The Secretary of State indicates he still plans on providing the paper with the optional language. Our intent was very clear. You do not have to report it, which is the current law. We wanted to make sure you did not misinterpret the language.
Senator Titus:
Once you place it on the form and you put “optional,” those who choose not to list those expenditures are going to look like they are not complying; people who do look like they are revealing more. It is better to not have it as an option. I would support the language as written.
Senator Townsend:
Some of these forms we put in the statute have always concerned me. If in the interim you need to change them, you then have a problem. I bring this up because, if you have workshops in the interim to create a form, it is helpful if the form shall have, “but not limited to A through G,” then you have regulations for the particular section of government. Did you consider that kind of thing, because these forms have been bit of a challenge for the Office of the Secretary of State as well as us, to make sure the forms are user-friendly?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We did not discuss that part of it. The discussion was derived around wanting to make the form simple and easy to read. We found other statutes where we listed forms, especially in the elections when we show them what we want for the oath. The committee thought we would work up what we think is an easier form and put that in statute. In answer to your question, no, that is another backup policy decision.
Senator Townsend:
The Secretary of State has made a huge effort on all of this. In the end, we do not want to forget it is the average guy picking up the information and what he gets when he picks it up. I am just trying to offer some flexibility that might not cement us. I am trying to think about it in terms of consumer-friendly use. I think at some point we will have to trust that office to hold hearings and come up with forms that are usable for the average person.
Chairman O’Connell:
My concern is if Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s committee voted unanimously not to have the $100 reporting in there, then we might spend a little time in a conference committee.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 541.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Townsend:
I just want to make sure I know what we are amending.
Scott Wasserman, Committee Counsel:
I can help clarify the question. Under the existing provision, it says it is unlawful for any person to return an absentee ballot other than the voter who requested the absent ballot or at the request of the voter to a member of his or her family. This bill would amend the provision to allow any person to return the absent ballot if authorized by the voter.
Senator Townsend:
It is only a family member or the person?
Mr. Wasserman:
Under this section, that is correct. Another provision allows for somebody to return an absent ballot if the voter is unable to go to the polls because of illness or disability. It would not leave the law as status quo.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TOWNSEND ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. SENATOR CARE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
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)
Secretary of State Heller:
I began my testimony on Wednesday by saying I was not in support of the bill in its current language. Actually, Assembly Bill 529 came from my office originally as a bill to make access to information during a campaign easier and more accessible to the general public. My interpretation is this bill has reversed course. Assembly Bill 529, in its current form, offers less disclosure and less information to the general public. What I have suggested and am concerned about is the removal of current statutes in this bill. The Assembly committee removed several provisions currently in law.
One provision is the excess of $10,000 not being triggered until the election year. The reason it was put into place was because there was plenty of election and political activity going on during nonelection years where candidates raise amounts greater than $10,000. It has been the exercise and the commitment in the past that candidates involved in raising dollars in nonelection years would report those campaign contributions by January 15 of the following year. The report gives the general public information about what kind of political activities happen during nonelection years. I believe that piece of legislation ought to stay in statute.
Another concern is the removal of language to contract on the expenditure side of the report. The statute says currently to report all expenditures made or contracted during the reporting time period; the contracted portion has been deleted. The specific language is a requirement of the federal government for federal candidates and has been language in our statutes for several years. I am concerned about taking that language out or deleting “or contracted for,” because a candidate could, at the beginning of a campaign, contract for a multitude of billboards, street signs, and so forth. If the vendors do not bill until the election is over, then all those expenditures would not have to go on the forms. We are trying to pick up current and contracted expenses. I believe we have a right and obligation to tell the general public where our expenditures are spent. As there are multiple forms, if a candidate wanted to remove all expenditures from the contributions and expenses reports, he or she could do it in the third report, but not during the election cycle. I think the public has a right to know about the contributions and the expenditures of the candidates. This is the way we have run these campaigns for many years and to delete that is problematic.
Another amendment change states, “A candidate who receives contributions for one elected office and is now seeking a different office, must get permission from contributors to use that money for the new campaign.” Current language was changed on the Assembly side to say a candidate may use those contributions without receiving permission from the contributors. I do believe it is intellectually honest and we ought to leave in the language which states a candidate who says he or she is running for one particular office, and at the last minute makes a change, should return to contributors and let them know his or her intentions and the changes being made. I would urge the committee to keep that language in the legislation.
There were some issues on audit authority raised in previous hearings. I know Senator Townsend has done some research on this and gone to the Attorney General. I think it would behoove my office to go to the Attorney General and get clarification to bring this back at another time if there are any controversies or issues. I think, at this time, we will leave it out of the legislation.
If there are concerns about electronically filed reports, the technology is there; the reporting technique is now in our office. The Assembly side has argued the issue of lack of access to both this information and to computers to electronically file. I accept the access issues and maybe we can come back in a couple of years when the digital divide is not so broad for some of these candidates. We will keep more controversial issues out at this time. I would urge the committee to go back to the issues in current language and not allow them to be deleted from current statute.
Chairman O’Connell:
Do we know how strongly the Assembly felt about these issues?
Senator Townsend:
Assemblyman Beers made a suggestion to remove the financial disclosure statement form from the bill. The Assembly placed the form in the bill. If you are satisfied with the form, I do not have a problem. I have always believed if we gave guidelines for which you agree in the bill, and then you go to a hearing and develop the form, that is your business. Generally speaking, it is a little more detailed than I think we might get. Are you comfortable with the form like this, or would you prefer just to have the authority to draft the form given certain guidelines?
Secretary of State Heller:
I have gone back and forth. It is a very difficult process to put these forms together and make everyone happy. It has been helpful to have some flexibility; during the last election cycle, we had Form 1 and Form 2. We took so much heat trying to follow statutes on the forms, we actually changed Form 3 midstream and received a lot of praise. People appreciated the fact we made these forms more readable. We have needed the flexibility in the past. If this form is put in statute, it is the form we are going to have to use. No matter how much heat we get, we will not be allowed to change the form. If we find an error in the form, we will not have the flexibility to change it. I will leave that up to the committee to decide. The last election cycle is a good example where midstream we did change the third report because of glaring omissions. By having discussions with candidates, the general public, and the media, we thought we wanted to make some changes and get some feedback on the third report. The feedback was very positive. We needed the flexibility. If you put it in statute and then we find out the form had a problem, we would not be able to change it, and would have to use the form as printed. The amendment with the form was done on the Assembly Floor; there was no discussion in committee on the form.
Senator Tiffany:
On the “excess of $10,000” on the filing, what do you think the difference is on the timing? I made an effort to raise the $10,000 ahead of time because I believe it made a statement. What is the reasoning for changing the time to after the election year?
Secretary of State Heller:
I was not part of the Assembly discussion. You are aware of the original reason this was implemented in 1997, because we had statewide candidates running who had war chests of over $1 million; none of that was disclosed until 10 days before the primary. This was money raised years in advance. I believe there are political activities going on during nonelection years. The Assembly’s argument as to why it does not want the post-election year report is something I do not understand. Perhaps the chairman of that committee could explain.
Senator Tiffany:
You feel like disclose, disclose, disclose, is always the safest thing to do; is that where you are coming from as the Secretary of State? I could see how, politically, it could cut both ways.
Chairman O’Connell:
The Secretary of State has addressed item 4 on the page of suggested amendments (Exhibit C), and believes he would be able to “give” on these points.
Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State:
Yes; as to the electronic filing and the audit authority, we are not asking those provisions be put back in at this time. We do want some of the other technical amendments changed as the Secretary of State mentioned.
Chairman O’Connell:
I thought it would be easier if we could work through this, so we know what would be acceptable to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s committee.
Secretary of State Heller:
I would be happy to list the suggested changes. The first would be the excess of $10,000 not triggered until the election year. It is our position it should remain in statute as is, and in nonelection years, we should make sure the public has access to whatever political activity occurs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That is acceptable. We did not realize we took the $10,000 out; that was not our intent.
Secretary of State Heller:
The next change was deleting “or contracted for” on the expenditure side of the report. The position of my office is deleting this language would remove many of those expenditure bills which do not do not come in until after the election. I think a candidate could delay reporting a large percentage of expenditures until after the election has been completed and then declare them in the third reporting period.
Chairman O’Connell:
When you are working with public relations consultants, you usually have to pay up front. You do not always get a billing for this activity when you pay. They just give you a proposal, then it might be another few months until they bill you with a whole list of things that might just be one-liners, to include mailings, and other items. You do not have it broken out, and when you ask us to report these expenditures ahead of the fact, we can only give you an estimated amount. The bid might come in, but when the actual bill comes in, it might be different. Then you amend the report. This has never worked well in trying to determine individual expenses; it is difficult to get a breakdown from the consultant. The bills do not always match and it becomes difficult to fill the report out.
Secretary of State Heller:
How do we catch as much information as possible? I understand there are concerns if the information does change. Our office readily accepts amended versions of the contributions and expenses reports, which does happen from time to time. My goal is to capture as much information as possible. I often use the numbers from the proposal. If they do change, I make sure that information is available. My only argument is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) requires the same information from federal candidates. I think if the President has to do this, then someone running for office in the State of Nevada ought to have to do the same.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think the Secretary of State did raise the issue several times in our committee about trying to parallel the FEC. We made the decision not to get complicated. We are a citizen Legislature; we want people to have disclosure and know where the money is coming from and to whom it is being written. When we chose to delete “contracted for,” it was because no one could tell us if anybody really knew what that was about. We thought it was more inclusive to say your expenditures, regardless of whether you have contracted for them or not, are to be reported. The term “contracting” threw everybody off.
Senator Townsend:
I happen to agree with the Secretary of State because I know what he is trying to help the public understand. I certainly understand Chairman O’Connell’s point, which is the minutia and the realities of the billing. I think the Secretary of State’s point is the people who might make a $50,000 television buy or a $50,000 mailer are not going to pay immediately; therefore, they are not going to disclose until the election is over, I think the delayed report is an appropriate goal. This way you do not raise a bunch of money, cash in hand and disclose the fact you made a $50,000 television buy. These are the big issues. I think the goal for the public side is to allow the public to see expenditures have been contracted, and to know those expenditures will be acknowledged at some time in the future.
Secretary of State Heller:
What I am trying to avoid is having candidates put all of their expenditures into the third period. With this kind of language, there are candidates who would wait and report everything in the third period. You read about campaigns that have debts and the reason why is they contracted out.
Chairman O’Connell:
If I contract for something and my certified public accountant (CPA) does my contributions and expenses reports, she will not report on the form until she has my check. Until that check is returned, and it might be after the fact when the check comes through, she will not include it. Your registry does not make any difference to her; she is very strict about this.
Senator Townsend:
I support what the Secretary of State is saying. I would encourage we get a number of CPAs on a technical committee where they could voice their concerns and speak about the problems they face. I think this would be helpful to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Heller, do you have any accountants in your office?
Secretary of State Heller:
The head of our commercial recordings is a CPA and he has discussed several different ways. Let me read a sentence out of the FEC; you will see their language is much more broad than what we are talking about here:
A written contract (including a media contract), promise, or agreement to make an expenditure, which has not been paid for by the committee is an expenditure as of the date of the contract, promise, or obligation is made and is subject to the reporting requirements.
As you can see, even a promise, or an agreement, or anything of that nature ought to be on this reporting form. If we look at a time when services are rendered, it would be better.
Senator Titus:
I appreciate that. I think we do want to get as much information as possible, but I think “or contracted for” just causes more headaches than it solves problems. Sometimes it is not so formal as a contract. Your consultant says they could get you, let us say, a good deal for signs, then down the road you get the bill. I do not think it is a problem because I believe what the public really cares about is the money you are getting, and who is contributing to you. They care a little bit about how you spend it; your opponent is real interested in how you spend it, and the press likes to report about it, but the real issues are campaign contributions and all of that is covered. If you miss a little on the expenditure side, I think you make up for it down the road in the third report. I do not think we are doing any harm to policy by taking “or contracted for” out.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That was kind of our committee’s discussion. We thought it was encompassed. They assumed you report what you bought and put it down on your list. We do not want to overthink this. I agree with Mr. Heller. We want to make sure people do not hide money from one reporting period to another, but you cannot protect against that.
Senator Townsend:
I respect what Senator Titus said because I agree. But to say “bill me later,” even that statement is a contract. If the term “contracted for” is not accepted back into the bill, then we should get CPAs and consultants into the Secretary of State’s Office and see what they face. Then we can have 20 months to see how it is working, and what needs to be changed. We can sit here and think of all of this stuff, but we are not doing it. We are paying our accountants and we really do not know how it works.
Ms. Parker:
What if you said, “at the time the expenditure is made, or at the time the services are rendered, if the value of those services can be determined at that time.” This solves Chairman O’Connell’s problem. If you cannot determine expenditures, then you wait until you get the bills and put them in your third report.
Senator Townsend:
We just have to try and see if it works out.
Chairman O’Connell:
The stress you feel when you are filling this out is almost unbearable. I have decided it is just not worth it to me to try to decide if the report is exactly correct.
Secretary of State Heller:
We want these to be as readable and as easy to fill out as possible. We all have the same goal.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That language is acceptable.
Secretary of State Heller:
We also have a concern about a candidate who may use contributions without receiving permission from contributors. We thought that ought to stay as current statute. The statute says, “a candidate who receives contributions for one elected office and is now seeking a different elected office, must get permission from a contributor.” We think that should stay “must” and not be changed to “may.”
Chairman O’Connell:
I can see problems if you had a great deal of money. I think of the county commissioners who get hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they spend all but a $150,000. If they were going to run for something else and use that money, how would they report it? Whose name would they take off the list and decide to call?
Senator Townsend:
When former U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt was contemplating a run for President, I wanted to support him and wrote him a check. When he decided he was not going to pursue the presidency, I received a very nice letter saying he raised a certain amount of money, spent a specific amount, this was how much was left, and it had been apportioned based on how much I had donated. I got about 20 percent of my money back. He did that with everyone. It was not all of the money because he had made expenditures, but that was how Senator Laxalt did it. The remaining funds were apportioned and returned to the donors.
Secretary of State Heller:
That is how it is done currently with other candidates.
assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Our committee thought likewise; you give to the person, not to the race.
Secretary of State Heller:
You may switch races and become involved in a race a corporate or private contributor does not want to support. That happened in the last election cycle and there were contributors who wanted their money back. I believe it is upfront and forthright with the current law.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
This came up in the committee, because we were confused with what might be the real rule. We just said it was campaign money contributed to you; if you choose to use it for another office, you may. We went with this simple method.
Mr. Wasserman:
There was a bit of confusion at the hearing on how to deal with campaign funds. If you look at page 46 of A.B. 529, NRS 294A.170 deals with the situation in which a candidate changes his or her mind and runs for another office. You have to make a reasonable effort to notify the persons who contributed to your campaign and return the unspent portions of those contributions, if so requested. If this committee decides to go in a different direction, the committee would have to remove this section from the sections being repealed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would have to get back to members of my committee on that one. They felt “the keep it simple method” would be best. I do not feel comfortable speaking for them.
Secretary of State Heller:
We had one other issue. In this bill, we had originally suggested all reports be filed with the Secretary of State’s Office. One of the reasons we did that was because we have candidates who get fined for nonfiling.
Chairman O’Connell:
I think Ms. Parker did a good job of explaining this to us last time.
Secretary of State Heller:
The amended version says to file with both the local office and the Secretary of State’s Office. Wherever the report gets filed, it needs to be filed in a timely manner. It would be administratively difficult for our office to keep track of filings to a local office, as opposed to our office. We thought it would be simpler to require candidates to file with one office in order to eliminate any confusion. I do not believe it was the intention of the committee to make it more difficult. I think they were looking for a compromise, but it may prove problematic for our office to follow through on this.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Our committee was quite clear. We felt the filing officers were the appropriate people to get the report; we added the Secretary of State because sometimes information does not get up to the Secretary of State and is not posted for days. The press and the public would not have access to reports if we had to wait for that period of time. We believed the compromise was for both offices to receive the report, but the Secretary of State would have to receive the report.
Senator Townsend:
Based on Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s point about how to get access quickly, it would be beneficial so everyone knows about it. There has got to be a point where a candidate can file all of this electronically through your office.
Secretary of State Heller:
They can now, and that was one of the amendments. Federal candidates do it now. It was one of the original proposals in this bill. The system is already in place in our office. We used it during the last election cycle as an option for candidates who did not want to use paper. This bill would have required it, but it became controversial and therefore was amended out. We can do it today, but there is opposition to it. We can do it next session.
Senator Townsend:
In the interim, can we get the information about how many candidates there were, how many filed electronically, and how many had a problem, so we can get a sense of what is going on?
Senator Tiffany:
I did not get to use electronic filing because my CPA was not comfortable with the process. I wonder if the current form has to be retyped, or can the form be kept electronically on your own computer? Also, can the information that has been transmitted be viewed on the Website?
Secretary of State Heller:
Yes; that is how the report works. For example, if you receive several contributions, the information could be inputted immediately. All the reporting can then be done in the Secretary of State’s Office.
Senator Tiffany:
I do not want to use the Secretary of State’s Office to store all my data. I want to use my own personal computer (PC) because the information does not yet have to be filed. Are you saying I can load the information on my PC, and transmit it to your office when it is ready to be filed?
Secretary of State Heller:
No, at this point, it is not possible to store your information for future filing in the Secretary of State’s Office. It is still a pilot program. We will be looking at some changes and will be updating the program.
Senator Hardy:
Is your office working on such a program?
Senator Tiffany:
The program has no value to me if I cannot stop the paperwork. I should be able to have the form and then when it is time to file it, the information is uploaded to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Secretary of State Heller:
I believe, before the next election cycle, we could make the software available to all the candidates, on a disc, to do what you have requested.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I believe we have a resolution to that question. On page 19, beginning on line 25, of A.B. 529, we suggest deleting “or the Secretary of State.” If that line is deleted, the Secretary of State is not responsible for determining if a report has been filed in a timely manner. The timeliness would still be with the filing officer who would transmit the information to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Senator Titus:
The candidate sends his or her report to the filing officer, and then the filing officer forwards it to the Secretary of State’s Office. The candidate is not being asked to send 2 reports to different offices, is that correct?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That is correct. You could choose to send 2 reports, but it is not required.
Ms. Parker:
The above referenced information is repeated in several sections throughout the bill. The language was changed in various sections.
Mr. Wasserman:
On page 12, subsection 7, of A.B. 529, the provision referring to a report “that is mailed or transmitted pursuant to subsection 6 in a timely manner to the wrong filing office shall be deemed to be timely filed,” will be deleted from the bill.
Ms. Parker:
There is one technical change on page 2, line 11 of the form; it needs to be made clear that the expense for the filing fee is only reported in report Period 1. If the form remains in statute, it needs to be clarified that the fee be reported in Period 1, otherwise, the filing fee would be duplicated in every report period.
Senator Titus:
We heard this form was added as an amendment on the floor and there was little debate about it. Does the Assembly feel strongly about having the form in statute as opposed to regulation?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It was toward the end of the time line, so the Assembly had to move it quickly, and the proposed amendment was not reheard in committee. We were unable to double-check the language. The committee wanted to make sure the form contained the beginning balance, and to make the form as simple as possible for all the people who had to file the paperwork.
Chairman O’Connell:
Can the committee bring an amendment back for discussion at a later date? If we vote to amend and do pass this bill, and the committee asks for the amendment to be returned to the committee prior to going to the Senate floor, we could make changes at that time.
Mr. Wasserman:
I could bring the amendment back for the committee to make sure it meets the intent of the committee, but to change the amendment would take an action to further amend and that would be past today’s deadline.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
We definitely want to take the financial disclosure clause out of the amendment. The Ethics Commission is in the process of redoing the financial disclosure information and it would be inappropriate to have it in the amendment at this time.
Senator Tiffany:
I think having a form in statute is too difficult. I suggest we use the term “send a letter of intent.” We could say the letter of intent is to have the ending fund balance.
Mr. Wasserman:
The committee could put language in the bill stating the form shall be “substantially in the following form.” That wording would allow technical changes, but not make changes that are contrary to the substance of the form.
Ms. Parker:
If the committee chooses to reword the language, page 9, subsection 3 of section 2 will need to be reworked. That section states the Secretary of State’s Office cannot use anything other than the existing form.
Senator Titus:
Before we vote on A.B. 529, I would like to return to one of the provisions we discussed earlier. I believe the section using the phrase “contracted for” is unclear. I would rather have it out of the amendment altogether. The term will contribute to confusion among the people using the form.
Chairman O’Connell:
Mr. Stewart needs clarification on the four different requested amendments or points under consideration. He needs to know if the form is going to go only to the Commission on Ethics, and if they will send it to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It will be all one form. When the Ethics Commission has finalized the design, the form will be all-inclusive. It will be filed with the filing officer and the Secretary of State.
Mr. Wasserman:
There is still a separate issue as to whether or not you are removing the financial disclosure statement from the form. In the current wording of the bill, the form would be returned to the Ethics Commission. If the statement were removed from the form, it would then be filed just with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Senator townsend:
If the Commission on Ethics, the Secretary of State’s Office, and numerous Legislators realize there is a problem in the form, and they all agree it is the same problem, could the form be amended with the term ”substantially”? Would there be enough flexibility to rework the form.
Mr. Wasserman:
Any technical clarification of something in the form would be allowed with the term “substantially.” However, if a reporting item were changed or added, it would not conform to being “substantially in the following form.” It would open the opportunity to allow discussion and make technical changes to the form.
Senator Townsend:
If everyone agrees the form should be in statute, I will not disagree. I do believe flexibility needs to be incorporated in the form.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think if you outline for your committee’s purposes the items Mr. Beers spoke to: the cash on hand, the carry-over, the balance, and the summary, it will allow the bill to move forward.
Chairman O’Connell:
There is another item on page 42, section 23, lines 3 through 11, of A.B. 529 bill that needs clarification. Janine Hansen brought it to the committee’s attention. The section discusses filing a declaration of candidacy for office, and at the same time he or she files the declaration, the candidate must also file a disclosure form concerning the money. Was that the Assembly’s intention?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Because we are going to a single form, we will file a disclosure concerning money in January. Currently, a report concerning money is also required in March. The intent was to fulfill the statute requirement in a single form.
Mr. Wasserman:
The statement of financial disclosure is being changed to require you file it with the officer with whom the candidate files and at the same time he files the declaration of candidacy.
Chairman O’Connell:
The language seems very cumbersome and some candidates may not be able to provide the financial information at the time they file their declarations of candidacy. If a candidate should file for office at the last minute, they would not be able to provide the required disclosure information.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I do not believe the language clarifies the committee’s intent, which was to simplify the process by requiring only one financial statement.
Mr. Wasserman:
The change can be removed from the bill without problems. The other provisions of the bill do not require the change in the time line for filing the financial disclosure statement. It is possible to go back to the dates currently set forth in statute.
Ms. Parker:
The only purpose in changing the time line for the financial disclosure statement was to insure the new January 15 date, and the information was received at the same time by the Secretary of State’s Office and the Ethics Commission from elected officials. I believe the January 15 date needs to remain in the bill unless you are filing for office, then it would still be required for the candidate to file the financial statement 10 days after filing the declaration of candidacy.
Chairman O’Connell:
Is the committee ready to make a motion? Mr. Wasserman would you summarize the amendments the committee has discussed?
Mr. Wasserman:
I will sum up the agreed-upon amendments to the bill. The first thing is to leave in the requirement for reporting campaign contributions in a year in which you receive contributions over $10,000. We talked about leaving in NRS 294A.170, which requires you to go back to the people who made the contributions and ask if they want their money returned. We spoke about deleting the form or deciding whether or not you wanted to use a form that is substantially “the same as,” or if you want to use the term “substantially similar to,” that form. You want to change the form to make it clear that you report the filing fee only during the relevant period. There was a change on page 19 to strike some language in that section. We are deleting the provision when you file a form, if you file it with the wrong officer, it is deemed to be a timely filing.
Senator Titus:
I would like to clarify the statement concerning whether a candidate “may” or “must” ask permission to use the money for another office. I think the wording should be “may.” I realize the federal candidates must ask permission, but I believe it will just cause more confusion.
Mr. Wasserman:
To clarify for Senator Titus, the current bill deletes the requirement you have to go back to the contributors and ask permission to use the money to run for a different office. By deleting the requirement, it changes existing law, but it is currently part of the proposed bill.
Senator Townsend:
I wish to make a brief statement about calling the donor back if you choose to run for a different office. Ms. Giunchigliani made an excellent point when she said many donors give to the candidate and not to the office. However, the recipient as well as the donor have a certain level of expectation concerning what is occurring, and that is to run for a particular office. Common courtesy should take you back to the donor to inform him or her you have changed your mind and wish to run for a different office. I believe that is what a respectful person would do, but not everybody is that way. I believe the wording should be “must” to clarify the donor should be contacted if you change your mind.
Senator Titus:
I agree with Senator Townsend, a candidate should call the donor back. However, you cannot legislate manners. I think it would be creating a bookkeeping nightmare that does not address any kind of problem.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Could the committee look at a compromise in the wording? Perhaps the wording could say, “shall contact contributors and may return unspent money.” That might produce a compromise agreeable to both Senators. The money might be leftover contributions from a previous campaign.
Senator Titus:
If you have money leftover from your last race, and you decide not to run for reelection but for a different office, how are you going to contact people who gave you money for the last race?
Senator Townsend:
I want to support the committee’s decision. I just wanted to state my position about notifying donors if you choose to run for a different office.
Secretary of State Heller:
I do not know if it is even an issue. The donors are supporting the candidate during an election cycle, and I am not sure if using excess campaign contributions for your next race is important to the donor.
Senator Townsend:
Mr. Wasserman would you repeat the components of the proposed amendment?
Mr. Wasserman:
The elements of the amendment would be whether or not you want to remove the form; if you keep it, then to include the specific elements the committee wants included in the form. The second element is to make clear a report must be filed in a year in which you receive in excess of $10,000 in contributions. The committee is still discussing whether or not it will repeal NRS 294A.170, which states you shall make reasonable efforts to contact donors if you choose to run for a different office. Another element deletes the provision about filing with the wrong officer, and having it considered a timely filing. The last element was the change suggested on page 19, which referred to campaign expenses “contracted for.” It was decided to leave it in the bill.
Chairman O’Connell:
Senator Titus, since the Chairman agrees with your position, would you make the motion?
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 529 BY DELETING THE FORM FROM THE BILL AND USING A FORM DESIGNED AND PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE WITH THE ELEMENTS ADDED TO THE FORM IN SECTION 2, NOT REPEALING THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CANDIDATE WHO RECEIVES CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF $10,000 IN THE YEAR BEFORE A YEAR OF AN ELECTION MUST FILE A REPORT, REQUIRING THE REPORTS TO BE FILED WITH THE FILING OFFICE ONLY, AND NOT MAKING THE CHANGED PROPOSED IN THE BILL TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF SUBSECTION 1 OF NRS 281.651.
SENATOR TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR HARDY VOTED NO. SENATORS CARE AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We have a Clark County request on A.B. 499 and will reopen the hearing. This bill has to do with the Clark County maintenance and they decided to narrow the legislation to pedestrian overpasses.
ASSEMBLY BILL 499 (1st Reprint): Authorizes governing body of local government to create maintenance districts to pay cost of maintaining and improving local improvement projects and other undertakings. (BDR 21-274)
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I appreciate the committee’s reconsideration of this. The way the bill in its first reprint was written was very broad. Our intent was simply to give us some enabling language in statute allowing us to begin the process of going to the resort corridor owners to discuss the maintenance of pedestrian overpasses. The first group of overpasses is maintained by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), the second group, on Flamingo Road, is maintained by Clark County, and the third group, to be named and built later, has not been discussed. All of the provisions of chapter 271 of NRS would take place. It is a public hearing process, they have the right to protest, and those property owners would have to voluntarily assess themselves. If they choose not to, it does not go forth. We want the opportunity to get this into statute so we can begin the process. It is our intent to limit it specifically, and would hope you would consider the amendment as proposed.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO RESCIND THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON A.B. 499.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARE AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY CLARK COUNTY AND DO PASS A.B. 499.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Hardy:
I would like Mr. Wasserman to look at the amendment to insure we have narrowed A.B. 499 to the degree Clark County requested.
Mr. Wasserman:
I am looking at the amendment for the first time, but I would say the relevant language here is the limitation to a transportation project, commercial vitalization project, street beautification project, or pedestrian overpass project. If you are asking whether the amendment just applies to pedestrian overpass projects, it is broader and pertains to these four terms which might need to be defined. I am not sure we all understand what these terms mean.
Mr. Musgrove:
Those terms are in statute and the three provisions, transportation projects, commercial vitalization, and street beautification already exist and allow maintenance. We wanted to make sure when we added pedestrian overpass, you knew it was those four categories only. An example would be the City of Las Vegas and the work done on Alta Drive. Those property owners came to the government and said they wanted to impose that upon themselves, include the existing maintenance. We do not have the ability to do that with the pedestrian overpass.
Chairman O’Connell:
Does that help in writing the amendment Mr. Wasserman?
Mr. Wasserman:
I understand that is the case. I will confirm that the drafting amendment just applies to the pedestrian overpass projects, in addition to the existing authority under the statute.
Mr. Musgrove:
Exactly, we do not want to cause problems for any other maintenance districts currently out there. That is the reason John Swendseid felt we needed to list all four of those terms, and he was the one who wrote the amendment for us.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARE AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I know the committee indefinitely postponed Assembly Bill 356. However, concerning the living-wage language, the Commission on Economic Development established the wages for businesses to come into the state. The Commission on Economic Development Commission and the Department of Employment Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR) could use that language so they could collect the data they need to best determine wages for businesses coming in to work in Nevada for the purposes of getting their rebate. They have to pay a certain wage and so forth. I promised the individuals who asked me to bring A.B. 356 to come and make an appeal to the committee to take those sections for reconsideration.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO RESCIND THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON A.B. 356.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Townsend:
The Commission on Economic Development has some desperate needs. If we can narrow the language to be acceptable to the committee, I would definitely suggest we bring the bill back.
Chairman O’Connell:
The reason for reconsidering A.B. 356 is to delete all but sections 2 and 3 of the bill.
Senator Townsend:
The proposal, for purposes of economic development, establishes the various incentives used to bring in the type companies they want which pay high wages, and health benefits to employees, emit low pollution, and use little water. They need the information and need to track those kinds of things. The proposal was to keep sections 2.5 and 3, and get rid of everything else. Because of the concerns the committee had was with the term “livable wages,” I would suggest using a term more oriented to the facts and not the definition of “livable wage.” The only requirement is to know the wage actually paid. Many companies do not pay the highest wages, but provide many benefits, including health care, 401ks, and other things.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I think we want to get the data. If the language gave anybody discomfort, subsections 3, 4, and 5 could be deleted as well.
Senator Tiffany:
The Commission on Economic Development, DETR, and the Chamber of Commerce has this information. Everybody already knows this information on what is a wage. What concerns me is this seems to be a way to force all businesses into giving health care benefits and wage increases. That is why I voted to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Unfortunately, the information we received indicated the Commission on Economic Development and DETR did not have the information. The Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation helped write this language with the Commission on Economic Development. I understand it does not exist and part of it is piecemealed for what does exist out there. Assembly Bill 356 would have it all within one place so any business could find out the information.
Senator Tiffany:
If we could hold this, I will call Bob Shriver at the Division of Economic Development. What we are talking about are the credits for free training and I know they do have those programs.
Senator Townsend:
Let me suggest we might move to amend and do pass without a recommendation. That way Mr. Shriver and DETR could look at the language they need in the bill. We could amend out everything except sections 2.5 and 3, and take out the term “livable wage.”
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I do not want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but that would be fine. It is my understanding they do not have this information.
Senator Townsend:
I was shocked they did not have it as well. I offer that information to help the committee members.
Senator Titus:
One of the things we are trying to determine is if the incentives offered through our economic development agencies are working to bring the kind of jobs we want to the state. We are asking the agencies to go back and look at the companies who received the incentives, which is what we had to offer them, and see what they are doing and giving back to the state. If this is the language you are looking for, it would be easy to craft that part of the bill as a first step.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes, that would be a benefit.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS O’CONNELL, TIFFANY, AND HARDY VOTED NO. SENATORS CARE AND RAGGIO WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman O’Connell:
We will close the work session and adjourn the meeting at 5:52 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Olivia Lodato,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman
DATE: