MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session April 11, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 11, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson Senator Mark A. James Senator Dina Titus Senator Bob Coffin COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Bernice Mathews (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17 Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, Clark County Assembly District No. 41 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Rachel Parsons, Intern, University of Nevada, Reno Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America Janet Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association Chairman McGinness asked for a committee introduction for Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1924 which was requested by Senator Rawson at the meeting of April 11, 1995. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1924: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to provide for joint sponsorship of bills and resolutions introduced by standing committees of legislature. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR R-1924. SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** In accordance with Joint Rule 7, Senator McGinness, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, said he had reviewed the following bill draft requests: BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1299 Memorializes rodeo cowboy Brent Thurman. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1752 Memorializes former Chief Justice of Nevada Supreme Court, Gordon R. Thompson. Chairman McGinness asked approval for a BDR requested by Senator Adler condemning the bombing of the Forest Service office. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST THE DRAFTING OF A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE BOMBING OF THE FOREST SERVICE OFFICE. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness then requested a BDR for the Hawthorne Girls Basketball team that has been repeat state champion for the past 2 years. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO REQUEST A DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THE HAWTHORNE GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 195 and welcomed Assemblyman Robert Price to the committee. ASSEMBLY BILL 195: Requires immediate disclosure on weekly list of bill draft requests of name of legislator who requests preparation of legislative measure. (BDR 17-15) Assemblyman Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District 17, said, as background information, that for the first 125 - 130 years of Nevada's history there was no way of knowing what legislation was "coming down the road," or what the agenda was; however, in 1985 or 1987 the Legislature approached the idea of setting up an agenda, or at least publishing a list of bill draft requests, so that the legislators would have some idea of what the agenda for the session was going to be. He said that there have been about three different alterations since that original bill, and the proposed change to the list that A.B. 195 suggests, is rather than where the BDR says, "requested by legislator", that it would have the requestor's name right at the beginning. He stated that the purpose of A.B. 195 would simply be that the name of the requestor would show. He mentioned that a district judge from Las Vegas suggested that when a legislator requests a BDR, for example, on behalf of a constituent, that the constituent's name should appear along with the legislator's name. He noted that Oregon actually has a place on their bill drafts that lists supporting organizations, such as the chamber of commerce or the Nevada Taxpayers Association. He said he has always thought the more people that we are able to include in the process, the more acceptance the whole situation would gain. Senator McGinness said he thought he saw a bill draft list before the session that had a legislator's name, but also had an individual's name. Mr. Price indicated that last year the Legislature amended this so that a committee introduction was supposed to include who made the request to the committee. Senator Raggio asked if the bill that is before the committee now, would repeal the measure that is on the back page of the bill, which is what the committee added last session? Mr. Price indicated that the section beginning with "if a standing or special committee" is not omitted. Senator McGinness said this does not address the floor session. Mr. Price replied it begins in July of the year preceding the session the BDR list is started, and the only thing this bill actually affects is those few cases where "requested by legislator" is listed, then the legislator's name would be printed. Senator McGinness asked if Mr. Price had any figures on how many BDRs were anonymous this year? Mr. Price said he did not, that it never occurred to him to count that up. One of the advantages he noted, is that when a name is indicated, it gives an opportunity for people who are interested to contact the requestor to get some idea of what the bill contains. He stated that since legislators serving a broad spectrum of constituents, are elected from individual districts to represent the entire state, and with today's general attitude of accountability and open government, it is good to have the information so that the constituents and affected organizations have an opportunity, as early as legislators, to start talking and preparing themselves for the session. Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated that the taxpayers association has, from the beginning, consistently supported the additional opening up of the lists, and they support this bill. The association feels that this bill continues to open up the lists, thus providing greater information to the public as to who is requesting a bill to be considered by the next session. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, also indicated the support of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce for Assembly Bill 195. Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People to Protect America, agreed with Assemblyman Price's statements, noting that this bill would help open government even more. Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, lent her organization's support of this bill, stating the need to demystify this process for the public. She remembered when the League of Women Voters from Las Vegas came to the Legislature during the Grass Roots Lobby Days, and even though they received a tour, and were given a Bill Draft book, they did not know how to go about finding out any information about a bill that interested them. She said this just helps people participate and urged the committee's support. Senator McGinness stated that Ande Engleman, Lobbyist, Nevada State Press Association, was trying to be in three committees at one time, and she had provided testimony which will be included in the record. Exhibit C and Exhibit D were distributed to the committee. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on Assembly Bill 195 and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 7. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT: RESOLUTION 7: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly for 68th legislative session to establish waiting period for voting on general appropriation bill. (BDR R- 1122.) Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, Clark County Assembly District No. 41 said: A.C.R. 7 is a resolution that I proposed. It amends the joint rules of the Senate and Assembly for the 1995 regular session by establishing a waiting period of 3 days between the introduction of the general appropriations bill and a vote on its final passage by its house of origin. The testimony had indicated that the general appropriations bill for the operation of the Nevada State Government, which is one of the final measures introduced before the Legislature adjourns sine die, sometime is approved on the day of its introduction. The three- day waiting period is recommended to allow more time for a review of this particularly significant measure by both legislators and the public to promote more openness in the legislative process. This approach should allow adequate time for review of the general appropriations bill without delaying the conclusion of the legislative session. The bill is very brief. We did do one amendment in the Assembly, because it was somewhat confusing where, we meant passage, would be. Another thing that had come up that we wanted to make very clear, and we've made very clear in the history of the ... resolution, is that this is simply 3-calendar days from when it's introduced in the Assembly until it leaves the Assembly. If someone tries to amend it on the floor, it does not restart a legislative clock. ... No one can do a game where you keep starting the 3-day period. The 3-days is always linked to the moment it is introduced on the floor, in this case, in the Assembly, until it leaves the Assembly. I went back as far as 1985 to look at when the bill was actually introduced, and when it had its final passage in the house of origin which was the Assembly. In 1985 it was on the floor of the Assembly 2 days before it was passed. In [19]`87 it was on the floor 1 day before it passed. In 1989 it was on the floor of the Assembly 1 day before it passed. And interestingly enough, in 1991 it was on the floor 10 days before it passed; and I went back because ... suddenly flags went up and I couldn't quite understand that, and looking at the history, of course, that was reapportionment, and as you all know, I think we all thought we were going to leave much sooner than when we actually left, and the bills got down there and then reapportionment held up a lot of things. ... That was the longest period that the bill had ever been on the floor. And again it's only in its house of origin, which in this case is the Assembly, and then in 1993 it was on the floor 1 day before it passed. Actually I can also give you ... the times that the sine die occurred. The thing to remember here is this really ... makes the Assembly more accountable in this instance, because you literally have to plan for when the bill comes down. ... this will probably put extra work on ways and means, but I think ways and means is probably up to doing that, so that the bill gets down there, gets introduced, the public, everyone has an opportunity. And it's not only the public but legislators who are in judiciary or government affairs really have very little opportunity to know what's in the bill. ... I was at a meeting with the Nevada Taxpayers Association, and I think the thing that brought this to my attention, was so many people were interested in why do you ram these bills out so quickly when the public doesn't have a chance to look at them. And when I started looking at it and saw that, I thought this is something that we can correct and does not delay what's going on, it just requires better planning. Senator Rawson said he is concerned about coming down to the end of June and running into the end of the fiscal year, and theoretically, there could be a bill where the decision has been made, and the Legislature would have to wait for 3 days before the session could end. He concluded the committee would just have to figure the theoretical end is 3 days earlier than what it is now. Mr. Spitler said one of the things, from a press perspective, that he finds interesting, is that the Legislature is so often criticized for a slow start and a fast ending. He agreed that there is probably some justification for that because everything sort of wears very thin at 2:00 a.m. or 10:00 p.m., as legislators wait for conference committees to get resolved, and other kinds of issues. He said that measures like this ultimately require legislators to plan better, and though people have indicated others will try to amend the bill, he said, they can do that now. He thinks that if someone were trying to do that, they would have tried before. He stated that this gives the opportunity for more people to look at the bill, and to realize that there is nothing magical in there, that there is an openness about how the Legislature does business. Senator Raggio said he thinks the intent is sound, but that the likelihood is that a week would be added to the session if the appropriation bill is not finalized by the joint committee and processed by the printing department. He stated that if the final bill were introduced on Monday, and 3 days must elapse between the introduction and a vote, the vote cannot be held until Friday in the Assembly, and assuming the Legislature is in session on the week end, the Senate could act on Saturday or Sunday. He noted that would not happen necessarily if it was not the appropriations bill the Legislature was waiting to pass before sine die. Summarizing, he said, if the bill is introduced on Monday, Friday would be the earliest that it could be voted on in the Assembly. and then it would have to go to the Senate, and though he commended Mr. Spitler for the thought, he noted that a week of a Legislature costs a lot of money which he thinks is a consideration. Mr. Spitler said that would be a consideration, and he does not take this measure lightly, or feel that it does not have any impact at all, because it does impact how the Legislature does business. He stated it will get the Legislature busier earlier so that the Legislature does not run into these crunches at the very end. He noted that when committees start closing budgets they start off with the minor budgets spending 45 minutes with a budget that may have $20,000 in it, then end up at the very end dealing with the major budget that may have $50 million in it, and be limited to time. Mr. Spitler stated he does not take this lightly, and he understands Senator Raggio's concern, but he thinks it forces planning to take place earlier so that the process unravels more smoothly. Senator Coffin said he thinks that the period from January 17 this year until adjournment in June, the entire process of the construction of the budget, which is the general appropriation bill, is probably the most open, most discussed, most exposed bill the Legislature handles. He indicated there are bills right now that are moving, basically in secrecy, that will be passed after a relatively small amount of discussion, but there will not have been one person denied access to that budget bill construction for almost 6 months. He said it is an extraordinary process, and one most states do not entertain, and he has never seen a budget bill changed after it has been introduced. Senator Coffin asked if is it likely that anything would change, or anything would happen from the time that bill was introduced until the time it passed in the 3-calendar days? Mr. Spitler replied: "Well of course, for someone, if it were on the floor and introduced, someone would have to come forward with an amendment and would have to, at that point in time, convince 42 members of the Assembly that what they were doing was in fact correct." He discussed the difficulties involved in the budget process. Senator Coffin asked if the way the bill is written, would amendments be allowed, and could those amendments be substantial? Mr. Spitler replied Senator Coffin was right, but noted that is true in today's environment. Senator Coffin said once the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means initiates the appropriations bill, it usually comes from the Assembly. Mr. Spitler said the committee introduces it, but, as Senator Raggio mentioned, it is after it has been jointly closed, but, he confirmed, the bill does come first to the Assembly for introduction. Senator Coffin asked once the Assembly has passed the bill, does "a vote on its final passage" mean the first vote on general file by the house of origin. (Mr. Spitler replied yes) Continuing, Senator Coffin said, "So that if it came to the Senate and we made changes, it doesn't start a new clock" (Mr. Spitler confirmed this) so games could still be played with the bill?" Mr. Spitler replied that there could only be the games that are currently played; there could be no new games that could be played. Senator Coffin stated, "But as it stands, it doesn't solve any problems." Mr. Spitler responded, "On games, no. It didn't set out to solve those games." Senator Coffin indicated that in this bill, of all bills, there are games that need to be stopped. Mr. Spitler noted he did not think people will play games with this bill. Senator Coffin indicated he likes the process in terms of the way it is, and he does not think it could be made any more open. Mr. Spitler reminded that the bill is only for this legislative session, that it would have to become a part of the standing rules for each session, and that if it did not work, the Legislature could go back and change the rule. Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, indicated the association's support of A.C.R. 7, noting that they feel this is another move to open up and make the legislative process more available, more understandable by the public, and they believe it is important that the public have an opportunity to look at the bill. They also believe it is important that other legislators, who do not serve on one of the money committees, have an opportunity to look at the bill, and they believe it is important that state agencies have an opportunity to look at it. He agrees that the budget office does have an opportunity to look at it, but the individual state agencies on whose programs the Legislature is making decisions, generally does not have an opportunity to look at it, and certainly not in depth. He also agrees that it could possibly extend the length of a session, but noted that this is a bill that is going to cost approximately $2 billion, and an additional day or two of the legislative session seems to be small in comparison to that size of bill. Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Barrett would therefore recommend the same thing with respect to the capital improvements projects bill? Mr. Barrett said the association would, but that they are not striving for that at this session. Senator Raggio asked: "The same argument would follow?" (Mr. Barrett said yes.) "Or even the authorization bill?" (Mr. Barrett replied yes.) Senator Raggio continued, stating, "Now we also have some bills pending which would require, in the event you raise revenues, that there be a double vote, a period of intervention between the final vote." (Mr. Barrett indicated they support that bill.) "You're aware of my comment that this could cause a week's delay?" (Mr. Barrett indicated they were aware of Senator Raggio's comments.) "And the cost of that doesn't concern the taxpayers association?" Mr. Barrett responded the association would not like to see a delay for a couple of reasons; one is money, and the other is the length of the legislative session. But, he continued, they do believe that is a small price to pay for opening up and making the information available, by giving the public and others an opportunity to comment before it is voted on. Mr. Cooper said the business community has a history of acting with caution on any matter where public funds are expended, and for this reason the Chamber of Commerce was on record with the Assembly in support of A.C.R. 7, and they support it with the Senate also. Ms. Cox stated they support the concept of A.C.R. 7, but are wondering if it would do any good: Would the Legislature still honor it, or simply suspend the rules at the end of session? Senator Raggio asked Mr. Spitler if it was his intention, when he requested this bill, to have the final vote after a 3-day elapse or was he thinking about having it introduced on a Monday and passed on a Wednesday? Mr. Spitler replied it was until 3 days had passed; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Senator Raggio indicated he just wanted to make sure he understood what Mr. Spitler's intent is, and said that is the way he reads it, that it takes a week to do this. Mr. Spitler said if legislators wanted to change the days differently, and do 24-hour periods, or 12-hour periods, so that the vote could be on Thursday, that would be possible; but the idea is that it is on the floor in its house of origin long enough for people who want to can read it. Ms. Gilbert said she wondered if a 24-hour period was possible. She asked would a 1-day waiting period allow people, and divisions, time to look at the appropriations bill? She noted she was very sympathetic to extending the session, as legislators are working without pay, but it would allow people to at least examine it. Senator McGinness noted that Ms. Engleman has again provided more testimony from the Nevada Press Association and Exhibit E was distributed. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 7 and reopened the hearing on A.B. 195 recognizing Assemblyman Price. Robert E. Price, Clark County Assembly District No. 17, stated he did a quick scientific study as to how many BDRs indicated "requested by legislator" and he counted 188 in the current issue. Senator McGinness asked "out of how many?" Mr. Price determined that it was probably accurate to say 188 out of 1732. Senator McGinness stated that was roughly 10 percent, with which Mr. Price agreed. Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on A.C.R. 7, indicated that the next meeting would be in 2 weeks, and adjourned the meeting at 2:24 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations April 11, 1995 Page