MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations
Seventy-second Session
May 22, 2003
The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Maurice E. Washington, at 2:20 p.m., on Thursday, May 22, 2003, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator William J. Raggio (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director
Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel
Johnnie Lorraine Willis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Director’s Office, Administrative Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Claire Jesse Clift, Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Staff, Nevada Legislature
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly
David K. Schumann, Lobbyist, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation
Ex-Assemblyman Bob Price
Chairman Washington:
I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 542.
ASSEMBLY BILL 542 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to operation of Legislature and Legislative Counsel Bureau. (BDR 17-1024)
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Director’s Office, Administrative Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
You should have been provided two documents. One is a brief testimony from Claire J. Clift on one of the provisions in A.B. 542 (Exhibit C), and the other is an explanation of A.B. 542 (Exhibit D), which shows a summary of the proposed changes and a section-by-section review. I will quickly go through the summary of changes and take any questions you have. I will then talk about amendments I would like to propose to the bill.
Assembly Bill 542 would allow us to, instead of introducing a number of separate bills, take anything relating to the Legislature and Legislative Counsel Bureau, put it into one bill, and introduce it. The changes in A.B. 542 are entirely severable. If there is anything in the bill you do not like we can take it out, and the rest of the bill stands as is. We can also add things to it. The first change, which is in the first few sections, deals with deadlines for bill draft requests (BDRs). Some of the deadlines are not specified in statute; others are a little unclear. The second change relates to fiscal notes, particularly local government fiscal notes, regarding what to do without changing the procedure, and what to do in the case of misdemeanors. We technically say there is a fiscal impact when there is a misdemeanor, but generally the report back from local governments is there is no fiscal impact. We have revised that procedure.
The third change regards allowing prefiling bills on behalf of standing committees. We want to encourage prefilings so there can be as much work as possible ready to go at the start of session. Right now, the only ones authorized to prefile are Legislators. The fourth change eliminates the requirement to reprint 100 copies of the bound journals.
Chairman Washington:
I have a question on the prefilings. You are opening it up to others besides Legislators?
Mr. Malkiewich:
This would allow the person designated to chair a committee to prefile a bill for that committee.
The requirement to copy 100 copies of the bound journals is too high. We use far less than 100 copies. We will work with the chief clerk and the secretary to determine how many we need to print. Change five allows us to establish a petty cash account in the gift shop. The legislative police have one for use of the entire Legislative Counsel Bureau. The gift shop has a greater need for a petty cash account, so we have established a separate one there.
Chairman Washington:
Is it for the same amount?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Yes, it has the same limits.
Change six eliminates the requirement the Nevada Legislative Manual contain a directory of State government. This is a frustrating task requiring a great deal of time by our Research Division, and the second it is printed, it is out of date. We are going to do this online, update it, come up with a new procedure, and not require it be included in the Nevada Legislative Manual. Change seven eliminates the designation of director as the federal State coordinator. Thank you for the honor, but it is a decision that should not be made by statute, but by leadership.
Change eight relates to lobbyists. Currently, we have a $10 per day fine for any lobbyist who files his or her disclosure statement late. For an unpaid lobbyist, who spends $15 to get his or her badge, gets no pay, and generally has to pay his or her own cost to come to Carson City, it is a pretty substantial fine. We are proposing to eliminate the fines. We will allow the commission to do it, because currently the rule is the commission can create classifications of lobbyists. The commission has created the classifications of paid and nonpaid. They could exempt the classification of nonpaid from fines. This beefs up enforcement as far as revocation and will ensure we still get the reports. If someone merely does not submit a report, or continually submits it late, we would revoke the lobbyist’s registration. We do not have nonpaid lobbyists paying fines.
Change nine allows the Legislative Counsel to make name changes in codifying the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), so if you changed the name of an agency, and it was missed in another bill, the Legislative Counsel could make the change throughout the NRS. If authority for something was transferred from one agency to another, a bill is introduced late in session to put that authority under the former entity. The Legislative Counsel could handle that in codification. Number ten is another one concerning the Legislative Counsel, and this is, for example, what we are doing this session with juvenile law. We are repealing chapter 62 of NRS and recodifying all the provisions in several chapters. What this is saying is if we are just recodifying current law, the interpretation of the old one would apply to the new one as well, so we would not lose the history of interpretation of the law.
Senator Wiener:
On that particular one, what will happen to Senate Bill (S.B.) 197? What would happen under current law?
SENATE BILL 197 (2nd Reprint):Repeals, reenacts, reorganizes and revises certain provisions relating to juvenile justice. (BDR 5-633)
Mr. Malkiewich:
The problem right now is we do not know. A court could look at that section and say, “Well, yes, this reads the same as NRS 62.285 used to read, but it is a brand new section. Although we have years of interpreting ‘child in need of supervision’ to mean this, I am going to come up with a brand new interpretation.” Section 19 of the bill puts a provision in the preliminary chapter of NRS that says to the court, “When you are interpreting this, if it was merely repealed and reenacted, that interpretation goes with it.” Someone who is litigating a case can say, “Look at the preliminary chapter, look at the former NRS 62.285; this is just a recodification,” and they should be able to get the court to look at those old cases to interpret it.
Senator Wiener:
I do not remember the effective date because we just concurred with it. Let us say the effective date of the changes in S.B. 197 is prior to the effective date of A.B. 542. What would occur with new chapter 62 and chapter 63 of NRS?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I do not believe it will be a problem. I believe this will be a general rule of construction for the NRS, and since the recodification is in the NRS, it should apply regardless of which one takes effect first.
Change 11 designates a new symbol for flush lines. You can see the symbol in section 20 of the bill. We will put it in place next session when we are sure it does not cause the system to crash.
Chairman Washington:
For the education of some of the members of the committee, I used to see “flush line,” and I wondered what that meant. Could you explain what flush means?
Mr. Malkiewich:
If you look at section 20 of A.B. 542, you will see the explanation of a flush line, which is in subsection 2 of NRS 0.025. In a bit of exceptional cuteness on the bill drafters’ part, they explained it with a section that uses a flush line. Subsection 2 says, “Text that follows a statute …“ and then lists conditions in the next three paragraphs. Text that follows those conditions is not designated as a separate section and begins flush to the left margin. It applies to the section as a whole. If you look at the top of page 12, the flush line symbol applies to the section as a whole or the whole subdivision rather than merely the preceding one. It is not part of paragraph (c) of subsection 2; it is part of subsection 2, as a whole.
Chairman Washington:
The reason I am asking is because I am sure as soon as this bill hits the Senate Floor, someone is going to ask what a flush line is, and I will have to answer the question.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Subsection 2 of NRS 0.025 answers that question and uses the symbol we will have starting next session.
The next and last change is dealt with in the secretary of the Senate’s memo and provides that session employees who work 6 or more months during session are entitled to 1 year of eligibility for the purpose of determining eligibility for retirement. As she explains in her handout (Exhibit C), the problem is if you only work 6 months every 2 years, especially under the old system where it took 10 years to vest, it would take 20 years to vest. These people were withdrawing their contributions and would never vest in the system. This says if you work 6 months of session, it will count as 1 year toward retirement eligibility. In addition, the transitory provisions allow people who have previously withdrawn their contributions to repurchase them, if they wish, so they could vest for this benefit. It also requires the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to recalculate the benefit if there is a request by someone affected by this. For the purpose of the benefit, it would still be the actual years of service credit, but this would allow someone to vest within five sessions.
Senator Rawson:
This would not apply to any session hires, then, because they are not here for a full 6 months?
Mr. Malkiewich:
That is the question. If you are required to be here for 6 months or more, you are required to participate in PERS. If you only work 4 months, you do not participate in this system, and it would not apply to you.
Claire Jesse Clift, Secretary of the Senate, Legislative Staff, Nevada Legislature:
The reason I brought this forward is on page 2 of my memo (Exhibit C) under No. 3, “The Catch 22.” What is happening to the staff who work at least 6 months is, by law, they have to contribute to PERS. Under the current system, like Mr. Malkiewich says, it takes 20 years to vest. That is not even reaching retirement; it is to be eligible for a retirement benefit. What they are doing is withdrawing their contribution, and now, they have nothing. They do not have any State retirement benefit, they have no federal retirement benefit, and they have no social security. So, they are with nothing, yet they have given us 20 years or 10 years of wonderful work, professional dedication to the Senate and the Assembly. Yet they have no eligibility for retirement. That is why this was particularly brought forward.
Chairman Washington:
Who brought it forward, you or Mr. Malkiewich?
Ms. Clift:
I did, Senator.
Mr. Malkiewich:
The Public Employees Retirement System does not have any problem with the change. They have reviewed it and are all right with it.
We would like to propose three amendments to A.B. 542. I have distributed a separate document describing the amendments (Exhibit E). First would be to add a section, “To the extent practicable,” which would give the legislative counsel an out just in case we are not going to have time to get this done, to include a legislative counsel’s digest, which explains what the current law is, what this bill does, and how it changes the law. It is a handy tool, and we have discussed putting it in as part of the bills.
The second one is an issue that came up a few days ago in one of the money committees. The bill was amended to take out an appropriation, yet the reprint still shows “contains appropriation not included in the Executive Budget,” which this session is a red flag to kill the bill. So if it were amended out, we would change the summary at the top of the bill. Instead of saying “contains appropriation,” it would say “fiscal impact no,” or “fiscal impact yes.” If, on the other hand, a bill that did not have an appropriation was amended to add one, it would be changed to say “contains appropriation not contained in the executive budget” or “contains appropriation included in the executive budget.”
Chairman Washington:
If a bill comes out with a fiscal note on it, is amended and loses the fiscal implication, would you put a summary saying there is no fiscal note?
Mr. Malkiewich:
We would not do that. Right now we do not do fiscal notes on reprints or amendments, and we do not want to. That would be a budget impact; we would need more people in the Fiscal Division to do that. Right now, when a bill is reprinted, you do not do another amendment, but if the fiscal impact is changed substantially, the presiding officer can request one be prepared. Frankly, at any time, if you want to ask fiscal to take a look at a reprint, they can to make sure it does or does not have a fiscal impact.
Chairman Washington:
Let us go back to your proposed amendment No. 2 (Exhibit E), “Provide that the summary of a bill will be changed when an appropriation is added or deleted by amendment.” How would that work?
Mr. Malkiewich:
It would just be if there was an appropriation and we took it out, then instead of saying “contains appropriation,” it would say “fiscal impact no,” in the summary at the top of the bill; or the reverse if it says “fiscal impact no” and we add an appropriation to it, we would change the summary to say “contains appropriation.” It is just a flag, a very easy thing to check when doing the amendment.
The third proposed amendment relates to bringing food into the building that, theoretically, we are not supposed to have delivered from outside, such as pizza. We are not supposed to be having events catered in Room 3100 because we have the Caucus Deli downstairs. We are proposing adding an exception allowing persons catering an event inside the building, or otherwise delivering food or beverages to the Legislative Building, so when we send out for pizza, we are not breaking the law.
Senator Mathews:
What happens now if we bring food into the building?
Mr. Malkiewich:
Theoretically, the statute applies to the person who brings in food. So the pizza delivery person is the one who would get into trouble. If you went outside and got the pizza it would not violate the provision, but if a delivery person brought it in, they would be bringing in something the Caucus Deli could theoretically provide.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 542 WITH THE AMENDMENTS IN EXHIBIT E.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
Next on the agenda is Senate Resolution (S.R.) 8.
SENATE RESOLUTION 8: Amends Senate Standing Rule No. 40 for 72nd Session of Legislature to transfer jurisdiction over measures affecting adjudication of contested cases to Standing Committee on Judiciary. (BDR R-1351)
Mr. Malkiewich:
Senate Resolution 8 proposes to amend Senate Standing Rule No. 40 on standing committees to change the reference of measures relating to the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act that govern adjudication of contested cases. Right now, chapter 233B of NRS covers both regulations and adjudication of contested cases. Under this change, instead of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs getting all of chapter 233B of NRS, they would continue to get matters relating to regulations, but something having to do with the adjudication of contested cases, which is more of a judiciary issue, would be referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. I believe Senator Amodei would like to see this change made. Since we have basically referred all the bills, this would not take effect until next session. If we put it into the Senate Standing Rules now and readopt it next session, it would already be in there.
Senator Rawson:
Does Senator O’Connell support this change?
Chairman Washington:
I spoke to Senator O’Connell prior to the start of session, and there was a concern about it. I believe Senator O’Connell and Senator Amodei have worked out their differences, or this rule change would not be before us.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO ADOPT S.R. 8.
SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rawson:
I will support the motion to move it along because we are at a late point in session, but I wish to have a discussion with Senator O’Connell before I support it on the Senate Floor.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
We will next address Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 38.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of transitional housing for released offenders. (BDR R-1344)
Jackie Crawford, Director, Department of Corrections:
Accompanying me today is Dorothy Nash Holmes. We are here today because I was contacted by your office in reference to the combination of this bill and a request for an interim study of transitional housing. I am just here to reiterate my testimony from the last time. We are here to serve this committee in whatever way possible and to work with you. If there is any additional information you need, feel free to contact us. We welcome this study and are here to support and cooperate with your efforts.
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections:
I would add, earlier this week I spoke to a group in Las Vegas, the Association of Halfway House/Alcoholism Programs of North America, Incorporated. Several of the halfway houses and Alcoholics Anonymous houses in Las Vegas are members of that organization, and they are eager to participate in this study. They want to come to the table, do a round-robin, and solve all the problems at once. Senator Titus also got a commitment from drug treatment providers in the community to come to the table and help us solve this problem.
Senator Titus:
I had a bill dealing with halfway houses, which required they not be around places children frequent. The bill opened a whole can of worms. There were fair housing problems, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) problems, and we decided rather than pursue the bill, this would be the way to go. There are some concerns, not about legitimate halfway houses, but with some of these transitional facilities. I am pleased to work with the association on this and thank them for coming forward.
Chairman Washington:
I also thank them. Unfortunately, I had the dubious task because of my other profession, of getting involved in a halfway house, in which I had no idea what I was doing. I became deeply immersed in it and tried to pull it out of its spiraling demise. It is interesting to find out all the players involved with a halfway house. Besides parolees, you have administrators, neighbors, local municipalities, county commissioners, and on and on. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody can tell you how to get it done. I look forward to the study as well. We would encourage drug agencies, local municipalities, the zoning ordinances, and school districts, to also become involved. As we indicated during the last hearing, we are going to merge the study concerning judicial operations in rural Nevada, as well.
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 38 and open the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 7.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 7 (1st Reprint): Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise provisions relating to legislative sessions. (BDR C‑43)
Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District No. 9:
This resolution was sponsored by ex-Assemblyman Bob Price. I picked it up when he did not return from election. The committee on the Assembly side spent a great deal of time reviewing this whole issue. We have passed annual sessions over to the Senate since 1983. They were first sponsored by former Assemblyman Bruce Bogaert, then Clark County Assessor Mark Schofield, then Mr. Bogaert, and from then on, Mr. Price. Now I get to add my name.
Basically, there are reasons I feel it is important and imperative for putting this on the ballot. The public has not had a chance to vote on this issue since 1960, which was the one time we did have an annual session. I believe annual sessions, in the long run, would be less expensive by doing a shortened session, the 120 days, and this bill is a change from last session, which was 60 days in the second year. We changed it to 45 days, because we did not want to open up the whole gamut of argument. It was pointed out by Assemblyman Bob McCleary, in the second year, if you did the 60 days, you would run up against deadlines for filing to run for office. With no disrespect to anyone, that put some people into an awkward situation. We wanted to give individuals enough breathing time to think about it rather than convening session in the middle of filing time.
Another key change to this legislation is we kept the 120 days, but they are suggesting we allow 140 legislative days, and that you must be convened for 120 calendar days. Legislators would only be paid for 120 calendar days, but it would allow for a 2-week break, per se. With our crazy rules of having to pass every bill by this time, you could actually take 3 days off, allow staff time to take a breath, get caught up, deal with processing legislation, reconvene, and finish up. Assembly Joint Resolution 7 recommends an extra 20 days, but Legislators would not be compensated for those 20 days. Additional arguments in favor would be it is less disruptive and taxing on members of the citizen’s Legislature. Most of us have jobs we have to return to; if your employer knows a specific time, that gives you an opportunity to say you need to be gone, and your families also would have an opportunity to see you. It allows ample interim time for program reviews and evaluations.
At this point, State agencies can currently spend an inordinate amount of time having to come back and forth, especially before the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), which I believe is unconstitutional. At some point we could be in jeopardy, which would cause us to have to go into a second year. I believe it is time to at least give voters an opportunity to vote on this. Cities, counties, and every other group, spend a great deal every quarter to send their people here, and often we send them away without even hearing them. Most importantly, we are one of the fastest growing states in the United States. We are now ranked 35th as far as that is concerned, and we cannot properly plan and budget for a projection of 2 years. If we make an error, we are stuck waiting 2 years out to fix things, not just budgetarily. When we pass legislation, we do not intend to harm anyone, but sometimes we do. This would give us an opportunity to go back and correct potentially harmful errors. We also believe it would help eliminate the potential for more special sessions having to be called.
There are 44 states with annual sessions; there are only 6 states that have biennial sessions (Exhibit F). Out of the 44, 12 of those states have shortened sessions, such as the one A.J.R. 7 is recommending. The rest choose to go on ad infinitum; we are not recommending that. In addition, if the committee considers processing this, I noted in the paper that you have passed one resolution out to at least put on the ballot for us to consider in the Assembly to pay you for the days you work. This one still stays at the 60 days. At the time, I agreed with the Assembly just to get the bill out, but I do believe we should be paid for the days we work. If you do consider processing the bill, that is 120 days, so we are honest and up front with the public about paying for that period of time. I have not seen any new public polling since 1997, but the public is always over in the 58 percent to 60 percent range in support of annual sessions.
Senator Mathews:
I know some states do the budget on the odd years and policy in 45 days on the even years. Is that what we intend to do with this?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That approach was discussed, and I believe there are 6 days restricted to budget, but we could not figure out the language. If an issue, such as medical malpractice, came up while you were in the middle of the session, and you were restricted to budget, then you force yourself into a special session when you could have dealt with it during the regular session. We believe reviewing appropriations and the budget should be the main focus, but we did not come up with language to specifically restrict it. However, one thing I did suggest, this committee as coworkers could change our rules and specifically state you could have only one measure per Assemblyperson and two per Senator during the shortened period. If an issue came up that was important to a constituent or if a problem arose, you would at least have an opportunity to address it. We did not resolve how tightly to tie the budget language, as you will note.
Senator Cegavske:
I have the same concern with budget and policy. The days I have looked at and have been studying, were the 60/90. One year we would be in session for 60 days and the other for 90 days. Of course, I would have picked the budget for the 60 and the 90 for the bills, because of the number of bills. We could also limit the number of bills we are allowed. I like that idea. Wyoming was the state I looked at, and I know it is a small state, but they had the 60/90. They have the budget one year and policy the second year. I agree you should be paid for the days you work. I am concerned with the 120 up to 140 days. I do not support that part of the language, but I did like the 60/90 adopted by some of the other states. I do not know if you have a record of how many of the 44 states had limited days.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I will make a copy for the committee of the information noting the dates and times other states meet.
Senator Cegavske:
In answer to Senator Mathews’ question about the budget, the policy, and being able to have bills introduced or something we could do during the budget period, I believe other states have some type of flexibility, which is why I was pointing at Wyoming. Wyoming seemed to me to have the most flexibility. I would have concerns about allowing everyone to have a bill during a period that would need to be focused on budget. As we see now, we are trying to run to committees during budget hearings and budget closings to get our bills passed, which really takes us away from one of the huge issues we are trying to deal with this session.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Wyoming does 40 days in the odd-numbered years and 20 in the even‑numbered years, according to my latest information. We have changed the days each session trying to anticipate concerns, and we need to discuss this. I believe when we went back and actually looked at this in the last regular session before the 120-day mandate was implemented, Nevada exceeded 120 days. The last time we were able to stay within the 120-day time period was 1977, prior to us mandating adjournment by 120 days. Now that we have served under the mandate, we recognize the pressure and the amount of time, and we do not always practice good diligence on legislation as we should. Now that we have been working for a couple of terms under the 120 days, it is probably better than 60 or 90 for the first year, but then we went to an even shorter period in the second year. That is a worthwhile discussion as a policy decision for this committee to consider. We have to be cognizant of how well we have attempted to work, and the number of bill requests is down. I do believe we have done a good job of restricting the number of bills for local governments; we have fewer appropriations bills, which is a good thing. We have started to clean up our house, but even within the 120 days, people are tired. You just do not have time to read and think, which is part of the process that has to be taken into consideration.
I would like to ask a question of Senator Cegavske. Do you object to the break, the potential concept of a break, or is it just the number of days? It is 120 days within 140, but you would not be paid for 140 days, only 120, if you accepted the amendment into process. That gives everybody a chance to stop, catch up, and then move on. Is that of discomfort or is it just the length?
Senator Cegavske:
If I understand correctly, you are saying there are 120 days, is that for the 2 years?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
No, it is 120 and 45 days.
Senator Cegavske:
The 120 could go up to 140, but not past 140 days in one year, although you would only get paid for 120 days.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It would be a break. The idea was staff could catch up with the processing of the legislation, the writing of amendments, and so forth.
Senator Cegavske:
I do not mind the breaks in between; I know how staff works, and I understand that. I just believe we are up here too long. If you left it at 120 days, had a couple of breaks, and specified you would only be paid for the days you worked and not for the days you are not here, that would take care of it.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
That is a reasonable policy discussion.
Chairman Washington:
Mr. Malkiewich, as the bills pass from one House to the other, how far back is staff really?
Mr. Malkiewich:
You picked an excellent day to ask that question with the legislative counsel too busy to attend the meeting. As Assemblywoman Giunchigliani said, this session has been better as far as overall bills, and probably because of the budget situation, we have had a decrease in bills in the money committees. At the first budget deadline, it was pretty bad. We had over 200 amendments that needed to be processed in 11 days, and I am sure you remember the length of the second reading in general file at that time. You also realize this deadline has not been as bad. The number of bills coming out of committee this week has been much more reasonable. Part of it is something to which Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred. In our third 120-day session, as the principal author of that crazy calendar, I have observed people are starting to get used to it. They are starting to get used to the idea you cannot pass all the bills in the last week before the deadline. So it is getting a little better. The Second-House deadline is not too bad. The Senate is only meeting 3 days this week, and still will be able to finish in time for the deadline. Legal has, when they have gotten very desperate, recruited the director to draft amendments, and you will be pleased to hear they did not do that this week, so your amendments will be of a much higher quality than they were for the first deadline.
The first deadline is very tough with it being at 11 days. At 7 days between committee passage and House passage in the second House, that 11 days in the first House is a much more difficult deadline for staff to meet. If there was to be additional time, that is probably when you would want to have it, when you get a couple of hundred bills coming out of the first House. That is my impression this session, and I believe one thing you are saying is true. As people are getting more used to the 120-day session, most Legislators are also cutting back on their requests, recognizing there is only so much that can be done during the session. Instead of typically waiting until the end of session with the risk of losing bills on the deadlines, there is more of an emphasis on making sure your bill gets out before the deadlines.
Senator Mathews:
Regarding Mr. Malkiewich’s comment that the Senate is only meeting three times this week, I want to make sure people know I am here 6 days this week, and I am doing something every one of those days in committee. I know people are watching this on the Internet, and I want them to know what we are doing and why we are or are not doing it. I know he meant we were meeting on the Senate Floor 3 days this week, but I want to make sure people out there listening to us know we are here 6 days this week, and we are working.
Chairman Washington:
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, if we process A.J.R. 7, would there be an opportunity for discussion to work with the extra 20 days, or maybe whittle it down to 5, 6, or 7 days to give staff an opportunity to catch up between deadlines?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Absolutely. I believe it was a different policy concept we had not considered before, and it was almost like a breath of fresh air, saying, “Okay, I understand,” so we tried to delineate between calendar and actual legislative days for purposes of pay. You would not be paid if you took any breaks. I do not want to speak for Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, but I do not believe they were tied to a line in the sand; it was more the concept.
Chairman Washington:
Perhaps 127 days, you get paid for 120 days, give 7 days to the staff to prepare amendments, and so forth.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I believe anything that would help staff catch up would be welcome.
Senator Titus:
Where I believe it would be nice to have a few extra days is when this complicated tax bill ever comes out that some of us would like to read in detail instead of just vote on the Senate Floor and a concurrence or pick an amendment, such as this, and not have time to study it.
Mr. Malkiewich:
I would like to ask a question on behalf of the committee. The next bill we have up is A.J.R. 13, which is Assemblyman Mortenson’s bill concerning the Legislature calling itself into special session. The provision in your joint resolution is exactly the same, for the Legislature calling itself into special session. I caught most of the discussion regarding this constitutional amendment, but I did not get to the very end. Could you tell us what the thinking was in sending both over, one with just that and one with the exact same special session language?
Chairman Washington:
Before you answer the question, we will open the hearing on both bills, then you can testify on either bill if you want.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (1st Reprint): Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise provisions regarding special sessions of Legislature. (BDR C-313)
Mr. Malkiewich:
Assemblyman Mortenson asked me to cover A.J.R. 13 for him, which is why I am asking you to provide that testimony. It is identical to the special session provision.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It is identical, and Ms. Lusk was quite helpful with part of this language. We took out the provision that the proclamation could be wide open, so we restricted the legislation both from Assemblyman Mortenson and from me. The anticipation was we did not want two of the same questions on the ballot at the same time. In case we were not able to move the annual session bill, Assemblyman Mortenson strongly believed at least the public should have the right to vote on whether or not the Legislature should call itself to special session. It was there more as a countermeasure in case A.J.R. 7 did move forward.
Chairman Washington:
On both your bill and Assemblyman Mortenson’s bill, the Legislature could have a petition, is it two-thirds of both Houses?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Yes. The subject matter is very narrowly defined for both the Governor’s bill and the Legislators’ bill in A.J.R. 13. It used to say, “If the Legislature is convened for a special session pursuant to this paragraph, the Governor may add to the list of topics.” We removed that from current and from the legislative piece. That is the main change, because we believed if you are calling us in for a special session, it should be limited. Assemblyman Mortenson’s legislation and mine both parallel that concept. The days are the same.
Senator Wiener:
I attended a conference in Washington where it was an eye-opener to find we were one of the few states not allowing this. Do you know how many states currently do not allow the Legislature to call itself into special session?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I can count very quickly. Legislature may call in Alaska by two-thirds, Arizona by two-thirds, Colorado by two-thirds, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, I suspect overwhelmingly the majority, and most of them are by a two-thirds vote or by a form of petition. I will get you a copy; I believe it is a good document for you to review.
Senator Wiener:
Is there some way in an electronic age, when it says a petition signed by two‑thirds, it could be expedited more quickly?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
It was not discussed, but I do not think it would be a bad thing, because you need two-thirds of the signatures from both Houses. You might want to include that electronic means would be acceptable as far as processing.
Chairman Washington:
Senator Wiener, I believe Mr. Malkiewich can answer your question.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Since we have opened the hearing on A.J.R. 13, let me just briefly go through it. Mr. Mortenson has presented his testimony (Exhibit G) which I would like to enter into the record. I will briefly summarize a couple of points he wanted to make. He believes the authority of the Legislature to call itself into special session is important for two reasons; first, as a matter of separation of powers, the Legislative Branch should have the authority to call itself into special session. The Governor having that authority alone is contrary to the separation of powers principle. This allows the Legislature to operate with a reasonable degree of independence from the other branches.
Second, 34 states have the ability to call themselves into special sessions. We are, therefore, 1 of 16 that cannot, and we are 1 of 9 that cannot determine the matters to be considered at the special session. Assembly Joint Resolution 13 provides a special session may be convened by petition of two-thirds of the members of each House, and you may only consider the matter for which you were called into special session. The bill limits the special session to 20 calendar days, and it allows Legislators to be compensated for the actual number of days. Again, this provision is identical in both resolutions, and when I asked why, the explanation was that if A.J.R. 7 did not go forward, A.J.R. 13 would have the opportunity to go forward.
On Senator Wiener’s question, I wanted to make the point that it says “one or more petitions,” and upon receipt of one or more substantially similar petitions signed in the aggregate by the required number of members. You could be circulating a petition or two down south, a petition or two up north, get all of them sent to the secretary of state, and once the secretary of state had two‑thirds of each House, you could go into special session. I would be a little concerned about electronic voting without some kind of digital signature provision or something similar. The one good thing about a petition is the secretary of state will have something signed by two-thirds of the Legislators on file in the office.
Senator Wiener:
We have addressed electronic signatures. If we would be able to address technology, we are talking constitutional change. Again, we are looking at doing electronic signatures in the Office of the Secretary of State, and we should address it appropriately if we are looking at changing the Nevada Constitution. When you talk special session, sometimes it can be extraordinarily timely, and you may not be able to round signatures up that way, but you could with a digital signature.
Chairman Washington:
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, I believe Senator Cegavske and I talked about this, and it has been brought up in other conversations. I just wanted to know in your declaration of this bill, had the conversation of term limits come up in the discussion of this bill?
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
No, not that I recall, but I was not in all five hearings for the entire length of time.
Chairman Washington:
There was some thought or discussion about taking a look at the possibility of repealing it, but I know it is a voter mandate as opposed to a legislative decision.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Term limits were discussed several years ago, and I support the concept, because when the judges were able to remove themselves, I believe they invalidated a great deal. The Legislative Commission may even have the authority to take up the issue and make a recommendation. I would wholeheartedly agree.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
I have spent a lot of time working on the issue of term limits because it was tied up with a call for constitutional convention, and eight or nine other states have already invalidated it in the courts. I believe if you looked into term limits, you would find if there were any kind of challenge, it would be invalidated here. I talked to ex-Assemblyman Price about this previously, but I believe it was invalidated in the courts in nine other states where it passed. So you should look into that. It is probably invalid here, as well, but just has not been challenged.
Chairman Washington:
Who actually took it to court?
Ms. Hansen:
It was different in different states. In many states it was the American Civil Liberties Union. In other states it was actually the legislators. It depended on the individual states. It did not happen in exactly the same way in every state.
Chairman Washington:
California sought to repeal term limits, and it failed in their supreme court, if I am not mistaken.
Ms. Hansen:
Well, a lot of them did pass, and I believe it is worth looking into because, in many states, they were successful in repealing it. Every state may not have had exactly the same legislation, so it may have depended on that. I really think it is worth looking into because so many states have repealed it. Ours may be invalid, and we may not even know it.
Chairman Washington:
Let me ask this question of staff, just out of curiosity. If it is a legislative initiative petition, that is one thing, but I do not believe a legislative initiative petition can repeal a voter initiative.
Ms. Hansen:
In most cases it was invalidated through the courts.
Senator Titus:
This is interesting and it says something Assemblywoman Giunchigliani mentioned. I believe one of the things that puts ours into jeopardy is you have to pass something twice in the same form before it becomes a constitutional amendment. The first time it passed, it had the judges in it. Then the judges took themselves out, so the second time it passed, it passed without the judges. Technically, we have not had that amendment passed twice by the voters in the same way. I believe that is a real good case for making it invalid.
Chairman Washington:
I guess the best way to challenge it is to have somebody term out, run for office, and win.
Ms. Hansen:
I will try to get the information I had gathered on this issue and get it to you, because I believe it is very much open to a challenge.
Chairman Washington:
I just heard Senator Titus ask what the first date is and when does it actually become effective?
Mr. Malkiewich:
We have looked at this, and the interpretation of both the legislative counsel and the attorney general has been it operated prospectively. It did not take effect until after a canvass of the votes when passed in 1996, which means term limits did not apply to people who were elected in 1996. Therefore, it would first apply to people elected in 1998, being totally prospective, all the Assembly members elected in 1998 and all the Senators elected at that election that would term in 2010, and those were elected in 1996 and 2000. The year 2000 was the first election candidates were subject to term limits, and they would term in 2012. Our interpretation is 2010 and 2012, with the majority being 2010, are the first elections to which it would apply.
Chairman Washington:
I believe it would be an interesting subject to pursue.
Ms. Hansen:
I will follow up and get you the information I have available.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:
I am one of those who has attended all of the sessions of the discussions on this and participated extensively in the development of the provisions. We do continue to oppose annual sessions of the Legislature, however. Hopefully you have my handout covering this (Exhibit H), and I will just talk to it briefly. Such a session is not truly limited in any sense, except by the number of days. The discussion you previously had about it being focused on budget is unquestionably the intent of the sponsor, but there is nothing in the language that affects that. The language you discussed, on lines 7 and 8, page 3 of A.J.R. 7, says, “In even-numbered years, any proposed appropriations or proposed revisions to the executive budget,” but that has to be taken in context with lines 5 and 6, which state what will happen in odd-numbered years, which is the proposed executive budget. That is in no way a limitation. It is simply something that has to be done during the session.
What does not operate is any form of limitation on such a session. Our problem is, with no limitation on either the number or type of measures that can be introduced, it seems likely we would have several hundred more bills and would not reduce the crunch. The pressure on you, on the Legislative Counsel Bureau, and on the citizens as a whole, would simply be duplicated every year. We do not see that as desirable. In addition, we feel the character of our citizen Legislature may be at risk, especially for people in private employment. To take that much time off every year would eliminate additional people from being able to serve. We have no objection whatsoever to other provisions within this legislation, such as having the regular session be 120 legislative days within 140 calendar days, if the Legislature believes this will allow it to function better. If 140 calendar days will reduce the pressure somewhat on the Legislative Counsel Bureau and allow some periodic breaks to catch up and allow yourselves and the citizens to review legislation in a little more timely fashion, that would be desirable.
I would ask you to please consider publishing the dates of those breaks well in advance of the session, so you would know and we would know when those breaks would be and could make plans for traveling and spending time with your families. If you do indeed adopt 120 legislative days within 140 days, there might even be time for a whole week off at some point, during which you could actually see your families. That seems desirable to me, but it would not work unless the schedule was developed at least 1 month, 6 weeks, 2 months in advance, more if possible. I am not asking you to include this in the constitution, but that you seriously consider it.
In terms of a special session being convened at the call of the Legislature, I believe Assemblyman Mortenson is 100 percent correct. There is a problem here with the separation of power. In response to the comment made earlier by Senator Wiener about electronic signing of a petition, if I understand correctly, when it says several petitions, each person could have a petition. They could be sent out by e-mail, or by facsimile transmission, signed and sent back to the Office of the Secretary of State. It seems this would eliminate the problem. It is possible to change the language slightly, rather than saying signing, to say confirmed by. I, too, would be very uneasy about not having a signature on file for something as serious as this.
Another provision in A.J.R. 7 you have not discussed previously is requiring the Executive Budget 21 days before a session. I believe the requirement is now 14 days. This session, alone, seems to provide evidence the earlier before session you can get the Executive Budget, the better. So if 21 days will work, that is great; if 30 days will work, that would be even better. There was some discussion of 30 days, with the thought that it pushes the demand back too far into the holiday time for the Executive Branch, and that is why 21 days was settled on rather than 30.
Chairman Washington:
Can we back up just a little? On page 3, section 2, subsection 2, the Governor shall submit his Executive Budget on odd-numbered years, and paragraph (b) has the even-numbered years that appropriations are to be proposed. Would it not be advantageous once they are separated to have the budget, along with appropriations, submitted on the same odd year?
Ms. Lusk:
I believe the intent of the legislation was the primary budget would be established in the regular year, but the intervening year would allow a look at revisions to it. Rather than having to do a whole new budget, there would be adjustments to the budget. I could be mistaken, but that is my understanding of the intention.
Chairman Washington:
The reason I asked is currently we have the IFC, which basically deals with any adjustments in the budget and oversees implementation of the Executive Budget throughout the biennium.
Ms. Lusk:
I believe the intent of the sponsors was the Legislature itself would do many of the functions done now by the IFC.
Chairman Washington:
So it would eliminate the IFC if we went to annual sessions.
Ms. Lusk:
There was not a discussion of eliminating the IFC, and I personally do not perceive eliminating the IFC, because there would still be almost a year in between. However, there was discussion the Legislature itself, as a body, would perform any functions; IFC does not function while the Legislature is in session, and that would be another time in which they could act on various appropriations. I am probably not the person to speak to eliminating the committee.
Senator Rawson:
Examples would be such as with the Distributive School Account (DSA). We always know, when we come back into session, we have a period of months where we have to make up money to be able to finish the year out. If you had an off-year budget, you could deal with the next year in DSA or in mental health or in Medicaid, the really big budgets that are hard to predict and hard to project. There is some benefit to it. I do not know that I am an advocate of annual sessions, but I believe that is the theory behind it. I believe you would still need an IFC to make decisions between sessions.
Chairman Washington:
I guess the same question would be proposed concerning the Legislative Commission, which meets and sets the members for the interim studies during the interim. I do not know if that was brought up for discussion or not.
Ms. Lusk:
There was actually no discussion of the Legislative Commission at all.
Senator Rawson:
I believe they review all of the regulations, the development of law through the Nevada Administrative Code and so on, so there are still functions for the Legislative Commission in addition to session.
Senator Titus:
As long as we are talking about the subject, I believe one of the things that gets around the 120-day limitation is when the finance committees come in and meet early. They say, “We can get it done in 120 days,” but finance comes 2 weeks early. If you are looking at restructuring this, you might want to take that into account too. Meeting early is not a good way to do legislation, because just a handful of people who are involved attend, and there is not a lot of accountability. It goes around what the public said they wanted with the 120-day limitation. If you are going to make some corrections, you might want to address all the problems at one time related to this same topic.
Chairman Washington:
That goes back to your issue, Ms. Lusk, with the 20 days before the session when the Executive Branch has to submit their budget. I guess it would not hinder them from turning in their budget. I guess what you are saying, Senator Titus, is when the money committees will actually convene, which is what, 14 days before session begins?
Ms. Lusk:
The proposal is budget submission, not starting the Legislature or money committee meetings, but that the budget be available for review. My understanding was the Legislators would like the budget to be available for all of them to review, not just a limited number. There was not a lot of discussion about what their thinking was except it was quite a crunch at that point.
There was one additional provision we believe is very important, both in A.J.R. 7 and in A.J.R. 13. It is the actual limitation of a special session to 20 days. It has been commonly understood special sessions were limited to 20 days, but they are not constitutionally limited. All that is limited is the number of days for which Legislators can be paid. We believe it is exceedingly important any provision of this nature dealing with special sessions does actually place a 20-day limit, so they do not become open-ended. The 20-day limit is in both A.J.R. 7 and A.J.R. 13. As was stated earlier, those two are essentially identical. There was also discussion about incorporating pay for the Legislators for each day of service. We are strong advocates of that. I personally do not think it wise, however, to put too many things in one bill to go before the public. I believe it is better to separate them so you do not lose it all. If you get too many things together, you get too much confusion. You may or may not be aware that Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 11, which has been introduced in the Senate Committee on Finance, calls for pay for each day Legislators are in service. This, of course, is a decision for you to make as to whether you want to combine everything, or keep them separate, and so forth.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 11: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to provide for payment of compensation to members of Legislature for each day of service during regular and special sessions and to provide for payment of reasonable allowances to such members for postage, express charges, newspapers, telecommunications and stationery. (BDR C-1353)
I am just expressing a personal opinion that people are more likely to support what they understand, and they are more likely to understand what is not extensive and, therefore, not too confusing. I believe the public, as a whole, would see it as simply fair to pay people for the days they work. It is an essential unfairness not to. I believe the bill would pass if it were put before the public essentially by itself. I do not know if it would pass if it were put forward in a bill advocating annual sessions, and since I am not a proponent of annual sessions, I would hope it would not. Again, A.J.R. 13 is the same as the portion of A.J.R. 7 we support, so we are in support of A.J.R. 13.
Chairman Washington:
I know you are opposed to annual sessions, but this is just a resolution to put the proposal on the ballot. We cannot say yea or nay.
Ms. Lusk:
As a matter of opinion, you go through those all the time. You make choices as to what you are going to put forward and what you are not. It is important what you put forward be a policy you really want in the end, because you have to be careful of what you ask for, because you may get it.
John L. Wagner, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly:
We support A.J.R. 13. We believe it is a good idea for the Legislature to have the right to call itself into special session. We do not like the idea of annual sessions, and we do not want to be known as East California. I lived in California a number of years, and I remember when they had annual sessions, but they were limited in time. It was only after they decided to go to annual sessions the state went downhill, and I was lucky to escape when I did. Also, as far as your salaries are concerned, you have the authority, as I understand it, to set them now. When I asked one Assemblyperson, he said, “Yes we do, but we don’t have the guts to do it.” That is exactly what he told me. I told him I would not be afraid, I would go ahead and do it. Senator Raggio told me why you only get paid for 60 days. The idea was you would get here, do your business, and get out of town as quickly as possible. We all know that does not work. Therefore, it is only right for you to be paid. I am on the record for this. I also believe having a break in your sessions is a good idea. That way you could take a deep breath, go home, whatever, rethink things, and come back.
Senator Rawson:
I believe it is important to clear up the issue of voting on our salaries. We have the ability to raise our salaries for 60 days. We can change the amount we are paid, and I do not know if that is a matter of courage or just a matter of faith with the public. A number of Legislators here have said they will not vote on their salaries, and I believe they are just keeping faith with the public. When it comes to the amount of days for which we are paid, it is strictly regulated by the Constitution.
Mr. Wagner:
Yes, I understand that is the case, but you could still raise your pay for the 60 days, and then hopefully be compensated somewhat for the time you are here. I believe most people in the State of Nevada believe a person should be paid for what they do. You are doing a lot, and you are not getting paid for it. I believe that is wrong, and I believe it should be corrected. I do not believe in commissions doing this, because Congress does it, and it is a coward’s way out. They have a right to refuse it, but they never do, so each year it goes up.
Senator Rawson:
I would like to say one more thing on the subject. We could double our salary for 60 days with the idea of getting a reasonable salary for 120 days, but that gets around the spirit of what is in the Constitution. We have to go by the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law. Whether that ability is there or not, we certainly should not look at Legislators who want to keep that faith with the public as being cowards. I believe they are being honest in the process. It is a small distinction, maybe, but I believe it is important.
David K. Schumann, Lobbyist, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood:
I am here to testify against A.J.R. 7 and for A.J.R. 13. As a recent escapee of California also, I can tell you the annual sessions predispose government to become bigger. Once you are meeting every year, you can start off with 45 days, and again, there is a predisposition to make it larger. I believe it is called Parkinson’s Law, the work will expand to meet the time available for it. You are starting down a slippery slope those of us from California have been down. The fact the State is getting larger is not a good reason to have more days. The idea of 120 legislative days in a 140-day session makes sense, and my solution for the pay is simply a Legislator is worth $60,000 a year; you meet one-third of the year, so the Legislator is worth $20,000. They should simply pay you $20,000, and I do not believe this is a partisan issue. Congress is not worth $157,000. Their committee gave them that pay, and they are not worth that much, by a long shot.
Assembly Joint Resolution 7 is the first tiny step down a very slippery slope to Sacramento, California, and you really do not want to go there. One of the attractions to my wife and me in Nevada was the Legislature could only hurt us for 120 days every 2 years. I believe Nevada Legislators are a lot more focused than in California. If you had not been hit this year with a huge raise in proposed programs, I do not believe your session would have been as horrendous this time. That is my personal opinion. The main thing is the philosophical idea that every-other-year sessions exercise a discipline on the State, tamping it down from becoming excessively large. It is just a mechanical fact. Wyoming is a small state, but still there are basics like schools, roads, police, and fire. If they manage to do it in 40 and 20 days, we, as a bigger State, should be able to do it well in 120 days.
Assembly Joint Resolution 13 is an excellent idea. A point I would like to make regarding electronic voting, is you could vote electronically with a key word or password, and when you come in here, you could sign the petition as the first order of business. It could be accomplished in 2 hours over the Internet. You would only come to special session if two-thirds of the members sent their keyed vote in over the Internet.
Ms. Hansen:
Most of my concerns have been addressed. I just have two concerns with A.J.R. 7. The limiting of issues and the number of bills is not addressed in the resolution. I believe one of the problems I have with 140 days is, once again, it tends to limit the number of citizen Legislators, which I believe is a serious issue. The more time you are here, the more you limit those who can actually serve. That is one of the negatives in my thinking, even though it might be nice to have a break. I want to strongly support the provisions in A.J.R. 7 and A.J.R. 13 that are similar. I believe this is a critical issue at this time, particularly as we face the issue of terrorism. I consider this to be one of the constructive ways to deal with issues of terrorism, for the Legislature to be able to call itself into special session.
One of the things we dealt with in Senator Rawson’s Legislative Committee on Health Care was the idea the Governor, under the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, was made a dictator. Essentially, what A.J.R. 13 does is provide a real check in the balance of power. It is very important and vital for this Legislature to be able to call itself into session, and I support A.J.R. 13.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Families Education Foundation:
We support A.J.R. 13. Of all the people I have talked to, no one wants annual sessions because it would double the bills, provide more laws, and we are already burdened with too many laws. Most people see the need for A.J.R. 13 giving the Legislature the ability to call themselves into special session.
Ex-Assemblyman Bob Price:
I am a recent resident of Sparks. The arguments, pro and con, have been covered well. I will go on the record as being in favor of annual sessions. I personally, and people I have talked to over the years, believe the constitutionality of some of the actions taken by the Legislative Commission and the Interim Finance Committee have been questionable, because the Legislature is supposed to be the people’s branch of government and making those types of decisions. I have believed for a long time if someone were to constitutionally challenge some of the actions taken, it would be a strong argument. Regarding the discussion about the states that still have biennial sessions, Texas gets around biennial sessions by taking a recess one year and reconvening the next year.
As indicated earlier, there have been many polls of citizenry over the years, and everyone has had a high percentage of citizens favoring and, I would think, expecting annual sessions. Most people coming to Nevada, which percentage‑wise is the fastest growing state around, are used to their legislatures meeting annually. It is something they are aware of and normally live with. With us being the “people’s branch of government,” the closest branch to the people, and having to run every 2 years or 4 years, it seems to me we should be here making parts of all the decisions coming down the line. I have no problem with limiting bill draft requests. I had a little problem with the concept of having one session just dealing with fiscal matters because, in my own mind, for those who have not sat on the money committees, you might question whether you are educating people in that area. You should be able to deal with any subject matter that comes down the road, but have built-in rules adopted by the Legislature to put some restrictions into place.
I would respectfully request that you give positive consideration to this matter today. I do not believe you should add term limits to it. I believe they should be considered on their own merit. I believe term limits are unconstitutional, and they have been challenged down the line.
Chairman Washington:
The chairman will entertain a motion on A.J.R. 13. I will work out the concerns with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani on A.J.R. 7 and bring it back to you on the Senate Floor.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 13.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
In your packets you will notice there is a colored matrix (Exhibit I). In our last meeting we had a request for a bill draft request (BDR) from Senator Cegavske. Unfortunately, it was lost in the shuffle, but it does have a BDR number, which is BDR 1359.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1359:Requires interim study of school to work transition for disabled students, ADA and service animals.
Senator Cegavske:
This was the one Ed Guthrie Jr. from Opportunity Village talked to us about regarding the transition from the school to work program for disabled students. We had talked about it, agreed, and voted, but for whatever reason, something happened. We are getting it back on track. I would like Senator Wiener to talk about an idea we talked to Senator Titus about, because it pertains to her bill. We have a recommendation to not only carry this further in a study, but we have something germane to the BDR we believe is very important after looking at some of the legislation.
Senator Wiener:
Yesterday in the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, we heard a bill about service animals in training and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements, and so on, but we only addressed part of it. I was appointed to chair a subcommittee this morning to hear A.B. 332 one more time. We had three staff members from three different committees who offered information regarding what had occurred in the other House. It seems the bill deals with service animals and two pieces of legislation, the other being Senate Bill (S.B.) 231. The more we heard, the more confusing it got. I do not know what transpired with S.B. 231, but it was on the Assembly Floor for a vote on general file. The more we learned, the more we realized different committees focused on different parts of each bill, certainly on A.B. 332, and some parts were not addressed at all in the appropriate fashion. I thought perhaps we could take another look at the earlier proposal about education transitional opportunities for those who are disabled, I believe we recommended it go to the Legislative Committee on Education, and possibly expand it to include our concerns with A.B. 332 so it could be addressed in a more reasonable fashion than we are able to do at this time in session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 332 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes relating to persons with disabilities, service animals and service animals in training. (BDR 38‑1)
SENATE BILL 231 (2nd Reprint): Revises provisions concerning service animals. (BDR 38-98)
Senator Cegavske:
In subcommittee, we were looking at the ADA also. We sat with staff and they were not pulling their hair out, but I think they would have liked to, in frustration, because they said there was so much and they do not have the time to look into it. I would like to request this be one of our three studies and we not send it to the education committee. I believe this should be studied in all three of those areas. That is my recommendation and I would appreciate the committee’s support.
Senator Rawson:
Could we enumerate the three areas: the school-to-work for the disabled, the ADA, and the language in the bill regarding service animals.
Senator Titus:
We passed a bill out of the Senate to create a standing committee on the disabled, a legislative standing committee. The bill is still sitting over on the Assembly side, as I understand it.
Mr. Price:
It was heard in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means 2 days ago.
Senator Titus:
If the bill moved forward, I believe the standing committee could hear these three things. If it does not move forward, these three things could be addressed in an interim committee. I agree education has enough to work with, and this is more specifically regarding the disabled, but these three things would be something the committee on the disabled could address. Maybe before we do this as an interim committee, we ought to see if that committee is going to be formed. The bill is S.B. 137.
SENATE BILL 137 (1st Reprint): Establishes Legislative Committee on Persons With Disabilities. (BDR 17-700)
Chairman Washington:
What was the appropriation?
Mr. Malkiewich:
I believe S.B. 137 was the bill out of which the appropriation was amended.
Senator Titus:
I believe one of the things they were mandated to study was what caused the original fiscal note.
Mr. Malkiewich:
Senate Bill 137 is an Elections, Procedures, and Ethics bill. The bill in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means that had the appropriation amended out of it was a different bill relating to the Executive Branch Commission on Disabilities. The Legislative Committee on Persons with Disabilities is in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics.
Robert E. Erickson, Research Director:
I just looked at our fiscal note, and it was $944,000, but Michael Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources, came before us, and I believe he said if they used internal resources in the department, it would greatly lower the cost of doing this.
Chairman Washington:
If everybody has his or her handout (Exhibit I), we will go through this quickly. We amended S.B. 292, which deals with industrial insurance, to include the insurance commissioner’s language to take a look at professional medical liability as one study. Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 21, which deals with reconfiguration, we sent to the statutory committee on education. Senate Concurrent Resolution 31, which deals with the feasibility of a magnetic levitation train, would be considered as a study. We will amend S.C.R. 38 into S.C.R. 32, which deals with the criminal justice system within rural Nevada. So S.C.R. 32 and S.C.R. 38 will become one study.
SENATE BILL 292 (1st REPRINT):Directs Legislative Commission to appoint subcommittee to study impacts of recent privatization of industrial insurance program. (BDR S-784)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 21: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning reconfiguration of school districts in this state. (BDR R-56)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31:Directs Legislative Commission to conduct preliminary feasibility study of long-range mass transit within State of Nevada and to large urban areas in neighboring states. (BDR R‑1136)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of criminal justice system in rural Nevada. (BDR R‑1215)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.C.R. 32 WITH LANGUAGE IN S.C.R. 38 AMENDED INTO IT TO STUDY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AS WELL AS RURAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR RAGGIO WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
Regarding S.C.R. 37, dealing with geoexchange technology, I believe this is a study the Legislative Committee on Public Lands could take a look at.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 37: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of geoexchange technology. (BDR R-1287)
Senator Titus:
Do we still have a department of energy, or Governor’s commission on energy, or energy office? Could we send a letter to them and ask them to take a look at this instead of public lands?
Mr. Erickson:
Yes, I would agree with Senator Titus’s direction. I am not sure public lands would be the right mechanism for this. It is more of a science energy subject than it is public lands.
Senator Cegavske:
What about the Desert Research Institute (DRI)? Would they be the appropriate place for this topic?
Senator Rawson:
That certainly fits into their mission, but if they were going to do a study, I am sure they would want funding. If we wanted to direct a letter to ask them to investigate geoexchange technology within the means available to them, they can probably find grant money for the study.
Senator Wiener:
Regarding Senator Rawson’s idea about grants, if we set up a supportive letter from the Legislature, I believe it would assist in getting grant money, because it would be a great exhibit to the application for the grant showing the Legislature supports the effort.
Chairman Washington:
The chairman will entertain a motion to send a letter to either the Nevada State Office of Energy or DRI.
Senator Rawson:
We have a little bit of interim budget set aside for probably three studies from the Senate. We know there is staff time and money set aside for that. Is there anything we can direct toward DRI to help them in setting the study? Is that within our budget means?
Mr. Malkiewich:
The money we put into the budget for interim studies is for Legislators’ salaries, travel expenses, and things like that. Generally, if we put in grant or contract money, it would be done through a separate bill. Some committees have enough money to build it into their budget, but those are more the statutory committees. Otherwise, if we want to do something like that, we normally do it by legislation where we can direct a separate appropriation.
Senator Rawson:
If we use this as one of our studies, there might be $5000 worth of travel or whatever that could be sent to help them in a grant application to pursue this. I am not necessarily suggesting that, I just wanted to know our options.
Senator Cegavske:
Could we send a request to the parties to ask if either is interested without funding, because we do not give funding to anyone else to do this? We could ask either of them or just the Nevada State Office of Energy. I am sure they will ask for money also.
Senator Titus:
It does not have to be an either/or. Could we send a letter to both, introducing them to this new technology, saying there is an interest, and asking if they could do some research on geoexchange technology and report back to the Legislature to determine whether it is something we would like to pursue next session to a greater extent?
Chairman Washington:
Let us amend it to send a letter to both entities to take a look at the subject and report back to the Legislative Commission.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO SEND A LETTER TO THE NEVADA STATE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND THE DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE TO SEE IF EITHER IS INTERESTED IN CONDUCTING A STUDY ON GEOEXCHANGE TECHNOLOGY.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND MATHEWS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
The last item to be addressed is Senator Cegavske’s request to amend into BDR 1359, once we receive it, the study on the ADA requirements, and those requiring service animals.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE MOVED TO ADD TO BDR 1359 THE SCHOOL TO WORK TRANSITION FOR DISABLED STUDENTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACTS REQUIREMENTS, AND THE SERVICE ANIMALS IN TRAINING FOR AN INTERIM STUDY.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS RAGGIO AND MATHEWS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Washington:
The four studies currently on the list are S.B. 292, the privatization of industrial insurance program and request from the insurance commissioner’s office, S.C.R. 31, the magnetic levitation train, S.C.R. 32, which includes S.C.R. 38, and the newly formed BDR 1359. We will vote on those on the floor after we get them back.
Mr. Erickson:
You have already decided on one of them; it was amended and do passed.
Chairman Washington:
Yes, that was S.C.R. 32. We are looking to choose two more out of the three.
Chairman Washington:
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Jo Greenslate,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
DATE: