MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session May 23, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:25 p.m., on Tuesday, May 23, 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 Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorne J. Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Dugger, Manager, Department of Information Systems Senator McGinness indicated he had reviewed and approved Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-2076. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2076: Memorializes former Secretary of State, John Koontz. The chairman stated he had received requests for the drafting of resolutions for Larry Johnson, the policeman that was killed last night, and for Kenneth Buck, for his public service to the State of Nevada. SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED THAT THE RESOLUTIONS FOR KENNETH BUCK AND LARRY JOHNSON BE DRAFTED, AND TO APPROVE BDR R-2076 FOR SECRETARY OF STATE, JOHN KOONTZ. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Coffin asked, regarding the resolution for Larry Johnson, if it would be appropriate to honor all officers killed in the line of duty in the last year or two. Senator McGinness indicated that he would talk with Senator Washington. Senator Raggio agreed that the committee should defer to Senator Washington, but he also agreed that a resolution honoring all of these officers would be appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Senator McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 465 and introduced Mr. Malkiewich. SENATE BILL 465: Revises the provisions governing appointment of commissioners on uniform state laws to represent Nevada. (BDR 17-1983) Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated he was also testifying in his capacity as a former commissioner on uniform state laws. He stated the uniform law commissioners meet for 5 days each July and read uniform laws, line by line. He stated that by law the Legislative Counsel is an ex officio member, and that the Legislature appoints two additional members, attorneys if possible. Mr. Malkiewich commented that having attended these meetings, gone through the line by line reading, and participated in the discussion, he finds it is extremely helpful to have someone who is very familiar with the uniform law to testify at committee meetings. He said this bill would allow two more legislative members, making up to four legislators, who are attorneys, being able to attend these meetings, providing the Legislature with a better chance of having a few legislators at each of the annual meetings to participate in the discussion of these sometimes complex and detailed laws. A second component, he said, would allow the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to designate a couple of deputies to attend these meetings for basically the same reason, which would not only allow LCB to have better coverage, but would be an incentive for some of their attorneys to make sure they are licensed to practice in Nevada. Senator McGinness asked if this is this included in his budget? Mr. Malkiewich replied that Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, indicated that it would be absorbed within her budget, and Mr. Malkiewich stated he was not going to increase LCB's out-of-state travel budget. Regarding legislators, he noted the travel policy states legislators get paid for up to two meetings a year, and this meeting would count as one of those. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 465 and opened the hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 31. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 31: Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly to provide for joint sponsorship of bills and resolutions introduced by standing committees of legislature. (BDR R-1924) Raymond D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, said S.C.R. 31 is kind of a task force approach to get at the situation where there are have members of both houses working on a complex issue, and it is always a difficult or awkward time deciding which house will hear the bill first. Sometimes, he noted, that is done simply on the basis of which house may be more favorably inclined to listen to the bill, other times issues are pretty straightforward. He pointed out it would be appreciated by those who have worked on the bill to be able to have their name associated with it. He distributed Exhibit C to the committee and they discussed it. Senator Coffin said he thought they should follow the past practice of listing the prime sponsor first. Senator Rawson stated he is satisfied to list the prime sponsor first, and the chairman of a committee, if they want to cosponsor the measure, and then list the members alphabetically. Senator Coffin added that the legislative bodies could be in separate paragraphs. Senator Rawson noted that a distinction could be made between the Senators and the Assemblymen by printing a paragraph heading in bold print. Senator Raggio asked if this only applies when a bill or resolution is introduced by a standing committee? Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, replied they thought it would work best if it were strictly for committee introductions, because otherwise the top line would have a mixture of Assemblymen and Senators as bill introducers. Senator Raggio responded that he thinks he understood, from their previous discussion, that this was going to be broader than that; that if several Senators and several Assemblymen wanted to introduce a bill, other than through a committee, they would have this opportunity. Senator Rawson said he would like to see whoever wants to sponsor these issues listed, even if it is every member of both houses; if the bill started in the Senate have the Senate sponsors first, if it started in the Assembly have the Assembly sponsors first, or if it is a committee introduction then the members of the committee would be listed if they so chose. The committee further refined the structure of the bill. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 31 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 478. He introduced Senator O'Donnell. SENATE BILL 478: Creates legislative committee on data processing. (BDR 17-15984) Senator William R. O'Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, stated he was here to testify on setting up a data processing committee to look at and analyze all the data processing needs of the state, noting that as the state continues to grow larger and larger, departments will continue to expend more and more money on data processing. He noted that the majority of the people that sit in the Legislature, have a very limited knowledge of data processing, and limited education as to what data processing can do, as well as the equipment and processing power necessary. He said an educational process needs to take place so that members of the Senate Committee on Finance and the members of the Senate as a whole, can determine what are true and valid requests for data processing. This bill, he said, establishes a standing committee to look at all aspects of data processing. He drew attention to the wide variety of needs and uses of data processing within the state. He indicated that the problem is that none of the legislators get that information during the interim, and that the dollars expended are very substantial, and he confirmed that this bill would allow the Legislature to look closely at the needs and necessities of data processing. Senator Titus asked if the standing committee dealing with computer application could be expanded to take care of this situation? Senator O'Donnell explained in detail that the standing committee was only advisory, had no authority, could not vote on any measures, and basically did not do much. Senator Mathews asked if the committee is going to try and micro-manage staff, or is it going to make policy for them? Senator O'Donnell indicated that is a valid concern, but said they do not even have enough information to micro-manage. He spoke about the Division of Parole and Probation request, heard this morning, to buy $340,000 worth of computers, (which the committee approved), and not one question was asked regarding the kind of computers they wanted, and what they planned to do with them in terms of communications between their offices. Senator Mathews asked what will happen 2 years from now if Senator O'Donnell is not here, and none of the legislators have his expertise. She expressed her concern, that the management of a matter such as this, should stay with staff and those people that the Legislature pays on a daily basis. Senator O'Donnell stated that the problem is that he needs to impart some of his information. Senator McGinness asked when this agency came before the committee today, do they have a process they go through to make sure they are getting the right hardware, and/or software? Senator O'Donnell indicated that they do, and that this is another concern that he has. He said they submit their requests to the Department of Information Services; and information services, not the Legislature, decides whether or not a particular computer system is valid, is warranted or not warranted. The agency has no ability to come to a body such as this, and present their needs. He stressed that it is the responsibility of this body to determine if data processing capabilities should be in an office or a department, and the Legislature needs to know for sure that it is the right thing to do. Senator Raggio clarified that this is a committee that would have oversight with respect to all three branches of state government and Senator O'Connell agreed. He then asked what is the reason for the seventh person on the committee being an elected officer from the local government? Senator O'Donnell indicated that the state has a number of contracts that are state/city cooperatives that have interaction between local governments and state government, and the committee would need their input. Senator Raggio asked why would it be input from an elected member of a local governing body? Senator O'Donnell replied because they control the purse strings. Senator Raggio asked what authority would the committee have? He said the committee has the right to do these things, but what authority does it have if their guidelines or analysis were disregarded. Senator O'Donnell said the committee is used as sort of a buffer for information to be processed, with explanation, to the Legislature. Senator Raggio noted that the committee would have the authority to report if somebody is not following the guidelines. Senator O'Donnell agreed, and added that the committee could come to the interim commission, or to interim finance, and present the problem. He said it would be the purview of the committee to look at each individual request, and to process that request through before it went to interim finance or the commission. Senator Raggio asked how often Senator O'Donnell would envision the committee would meet during the 2-year period? Senator O'Donnell replied at least 12 times, commenting that the amount of data processing that is going on right now is incredible. Senator McGinness indicated that in the fiscal note, they have budgeted for seven times during the biennium. Senator O'Donnell indicated that it should be more. Fred Dugger, Manager, Department of Information Systems, concurred with Senator O'Donnell that to provide some feedback and education to the Legislature on what actually happens is important. He said there has been a lot of centralization of data processing activities in personnel over the last few years, and some material changes with respect to procurement. He indicated he is not sure how much feedback has come to the Legislature as a result of this, but he thinks that this kind of a committee would provide the Legislature with a finger on the pulse of how data processing activities are, in fact, conducted and administered within the branches. He indicated that another advantage would be oversight for all three of the branches, and perhaps some continuity could be accomplished there. He concluded, stating, he thinks that a committee of this sort would be a good thing to do. Senator O'Donnell described the program he designed for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, which is working very well. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 478, and opened the discussion on S.B. 249. SENATE BILL 249: Requires fiscal note on legislation containing appropriation to indicate if appropriation is included in executive budget. (BDR 17-50) Mr. Erickson distributed Exhibit D indicating that this is the language suggested by Daniel Miles, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, at the last meeting. Senator McGinness explained Exhibit D. Senator Raggio said he thinks that it is appropriate, but indicated they are currently processing two bills that could very likely result in the Legislature having a legislative budget next session. He suggested adding "included in Executive Budget or included in Legislative Budget" to S.B. 249. Senator McGinness confirmed that if it is not included in the Executive Budget, then this line would not appear. Senator Raggio stated that they could very likely have both, the Executive Budget that the Governor sends over, and also have a Legislative Budget. Senator McGinness asked what if it was included in one budget and not included in the other? Senator Raggio replied the appropriate one would be used, or if the item was included in neither budget, it would just say "contains appropriation." SENATOR RAGGIO MOVED TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 249 THAT WOULD MAKE AN APPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO A LEGISLATIVE BUDGET, IF THERE IS ONE, AND TO AMEND AND DO PASS SENATE BILL 249. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator McGinness indicated that they would again hold Senate Bill 342 and opened the discussion on Senate Concurrent Resolution 20. SENATE BILL 342: Creates legislative committee on federal and state mandates and establishes policy of taxation for State of Nevada. (BDR 17-1163) SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 20: Amends Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly to establish policy regarding sexual harassment and procedures for administration of related claims. (BDR R-543) Senator McGinness distributed Exhibit E. Senator Titus said there were several questions that came up in the hearing that had to do with the definition of what sexual harassment included, whether it was political cartoons in poor taste, or if it was something more specifically sexual. She then discussed Exhibit E. Senator Rawson asked for some clarification on page 1 as to whether they are setting the state up for a more serious charge if someone uses uncomplimentary language. Senator Raggio noted that this language is pretty much the policy, but the bill could probably specify that verbal conduct be characterized as those kinds of things that have a sexual connotation. Senator Titus indicated that was the intent. Mr. Erickson said the same kind of situations are found on the next page. Senator Raggio said it is a legitimate concern, and these things should reference a sexual connotation. Senator James said he did not understand how subsection 2 and subsection 3 interplay. He asked if subsection 3 is defining what subsection 2 is referring to; is it only sexual harassment if it is that kind of activity, conditioned on subsections a, b, and c, or is it sexual harassment to engage in the conduct under subsection 3? Senator Raggio said sexual harassment is defined in section 2, and he thinks it is pretty clear that it does have to be of a sexual nature; In section 3 the term sexual harassment is used, so he thinks it probably is limited to conduct of a sexual nature by definition. He concluded they may not need the qualification because one refers to the other. Senator James said, "The question is, is it limited to those things in subsection 2 a, b, and c.? If that is true, why are we further defining the term sexual harassment?" Senator Raggio conceded that they probably do not have to, and they probably do not need section 3, but he does not think it hurts to give some examples of what is sexual harassment. Senator Coffin said he was trying to figure out where in the bill one finds that this affects only those in an employee-employer relationship, that it looks to him like this could be legislator to legislator, and asked if it possibly could be that wide open? Senator James said it appears to him that subsection 2c would extend beyond an employer-employee or superior-subordinate relationship, because you could create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment for anybody. But then, he continued, in subsection 3, it seems to say that one can engage in sexual harassment, by just doing these other things that are not conditioned by those limiting criteria on page 1. He suggested that the bill be reworked again to meld subsections 2 and 3, and to clarify exactly what they are going to say is sexual harassment, whether one can get accused, and be shown to have engaged in sexual harassment by just doing the things that are in subsection 3, or whether you have to do them in a context that submission to such conduct is made a condition of employment. It should be one or the other, he stated, and he thinks it would be incumbent on the committee to make sure that they have a clear sexual harassment policy, because this is an area of the law that can become quite nebulous in the human situations that arise. Senator Coffin asked if Senator James confirmed that one actually could have a complaint by a legislator against another legislator, a situation with which he does not agree? Senator James said that was his opinion, because it says that sexual harassment is these things of a sexual nature, when such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the person's work, or creating an offensive working environment; that would be any two people who could accuse one another. Senator Coffin asked if they could amend that out? Senator Titus replied emphatically, "No." She said the intention was to make it that broad, to include everybody who is involved with the Legislature, not just a relationship between legislators and staff, because that is already in policy. She indicated that the material in section 3, where it says "sexual harassment includes," was added to provide some comfort to people who do not know what it means when you just say verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Maybe, she proposed, instead of saying "sexual harassment includes" it should just say "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature includes," and then give some of these examples. Senator Raggio stated he wanted to direct the committee's attention to one other line that he had marked when they previously heard the bill. Referring to line 3, he said that the statement, that the Legislature will also take any action necessary to deter any future harassment and remedy any loss to the complainant which results from the sexual harassment, troubles him. He indicated that he thinks that is a rather broad, mandatory statement, that he does not know what it means, but he thinks it could result in holding the Legislature responsible for damages. He suggested that they delete that, and just leave it that the Legislature will take any action necessary to deter any future harassment. He noted it is not his intention subject the Legislature to pay damages. Senator Titus asked if the committee wants to leave out subsection 3, which spells out what is included in sexual harassment, or should it be redefined in such a way that it is more clearly just examples of the kind of behavior engaged in under the circumstances of subsection 2. Senator James said it needs to say a person engages in sexual harassment and violates this policy, if he engages in the conduct of sexual harassment under those 3 conditions of subsection 2a, b, and c; then define sexual harassment as being all the things that are in lines 16 and 17 of page 1, combined with the things that are in subsection 3; and finally, either meld those two together, because currently they look like they are independent criteria for sexual harassment, and that makes it confusing. Senator James offered his help in rewriting the bill. Senator McGinness said they would put S.C.R. 20 on the work session for the next week, and asked if the committee could process S.C.R. 31 today. He noted the only thing they needed to do was add standing committee members. SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO ADOPT S.C.R. 31 WITH THE AMENDMENT ADDING THE ABILITY TO LIST INDIVIDUALS, STANDING COMMITTEES MEMBERS, AND PRIME SPONSOR OR SPONSORS. SENATOR RAGGIO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator McGinness also asked if anyone wanted to keep S.B. 465 in the committee? SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 465. SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations May 23, 1995 Page