Legislators already ‘fudging’ on 120-day limit

Thursday, Nov. 19, 1998 | 11:09 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Voters overwhelmingly approved restricting the Nevada Legislature to a 120-day session, but lawmakers are already finding ways to skirt the limit.

A panel of legislative leaders Wednesday agreed to allow the budget committees of the Senate and the Assembly to begin meeting two weeks prior to the Feb. 1 opening of the Legislature next year. These lawmakers would receive their $130-a-day salary, and the time would not count against the limit.

In addition, several other legislative committees will be able to convene one or two days before the session.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, objected, saying, "We told the public we could do this in 120 days. We ought to do it in 120 days." Titus originally opposed the 120-day limit.

"It's a matter of fudging to the public what we are doing," Assemblywoman Jan Evans, D-Sparks, agreed.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, countered that the two weeks of meetings by the money committees would "give us a running start" on considering the budget submitted by the governor.

The constitutional amendment approved by the voters restricted the length of the session to 120 days, starting the first Monday in February. It also said the governor must present his budget two weeks prior to the opening of the session, but made no mention of allowing paid committee meetings.

In the past, the governor submitted his budget during the opening week of the Legislature.

Wednesday's action came during a meeting of the Legislative Committee to Consult with the Director, which set deadlines for the processing of the bills in order to complete the work by the May 31 deadline. These new rules, which must be approved by the Legislature on opening day, place more power in the hands of the leadership to move bills along during the session.

The Legislature hasn't completed a regular session in fewer than 120 days in 22 years. The 1995 and 1997 meetings tied in duration at a record 169 days each.

The heart of the plan calls for all bills by individual legislators to be introduced by the 43rd day of the session on March 15. The deadline for introduction of committee bills is the 50th day. The bill would have to be passed out of its first house by April 19 and out of the other house by May 21. That would allow 10 days at the end of the session for cleanup work, such as that done by conference committees.

Waivers can be granted if the Senate's Raggio and House Speaker Joe Dini, D-Yerington, agree. If the two don't agree to extend the deadline on a bill, each will have a reserve of five bills that could be used as emergency measures to skirt the deadline. The minority leader in each house would have two emergency bills to use in these cases.

Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas, complained that the schedule treats all bills as equal, meaning that a major bill requiring comprehensive study faces the same deadline as a one-paragraph item. And the power to waive the deadlines is concentrated in the leadership, without a majority having a say.

James said this was "not a good legislative process."

He also objected to the blanket exemption on the deadline given to the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in building the budget. These two money committees, James said, "can grab any bill" and hold it, even if the bill requires no accompanying appropriation.

In the most recent session, a domestic-violence bill sponsored by James got tied up in the money committees, even though he said there was no funding involved. The bill did pass, however.

Sen. Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, said the deadlines would throw more "sunshine" on the legislative process. One house or the other would not be able to hold bills until the end of the session and then pass them on an emergency basis, giving the second house little time to study the legislation. He said some bills were "run through without public scrutiny" in the past.

In the deadline plan, the second house would have adequate time to study the bill instead of rushing to pass it after only hours of consideration.

Evans, however, suggested that the 120-day session will limit the public's voice on issues. As an example, she said the budget committees held 27 meetings in 1997 on human services and public education. This time, she said, the schedule calls for 18 meetings.

"I don't see this being adequate time for public input," she said.

Lorne Malkiewich, director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, which drew up the suggested deadlines, said there would be more public participation because the second house will have more time to review the bill than in the past.