A swipe at looming term limits

By Cy Ryan

Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008 | 2 a.m.

A state senator has moved to abolish term limits for state legislators.

Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, has asked that a constitutional amendment be drawn up to repeal the ban on serving more than 12 years in either the Senate or Assembly.

The proposal — which would lift limits on legislators only and not on executive positions — would have to be approved by the 2009 and 2011 Legislatures and ratified by voters in 2012.

“We have something called ‘term limits’ — it’s the vote,” said Washington, who will serve in his final regular session next year. “If constituents don’t like the job, they can vote the person out.”

This will be the final legislative session for seven senators and 10 Assembly members because of term limits placed in the state Constitution by voters in 1996.

Washington says Northern Nevada and the rural counties will suffer after the 2011 session because term limits will eliminate experienced lawmakers representing the region.

There’s no prohibition on senators running for seats in the Assembly, but senators rarely do. Assembly members often run for Senate seats — 10 of 21 members in the 2007 Senate had previously served in the Assembly.

In addition to Washington, this will be the final session for Sens. Terry Care, Margaret Carlton and Bob Coffin, all of Las Vegas; Mark Amodei of Carson City; and Bernice Mathews and Randolph Townsend, both of Reno.

Assembly members serving their last term in the 2009 Legislature are Bernie Anderson of Sparks; Speaker Barbara Buckley; Morse Arberry, Jerry Claborn, Ellen Koivisto, Mark Manendo, Kathy McClain and Harry Mortensen, all of Clark County; John Carpenter of Elko; and Sheila Leslie of Reno.

•••

Two and a half months remain until the 2009 Legislature convenes, but preparations are in full swing.

So far, 671 bills have been requested, 100 fewer than two years ago at this time.

The first bill to be introduced has been drawn up: It calls for appropriating $15.5 million to pay most of the cost of the 120-day session.

That’s enough to get the session rolling. But Lorne Malkiewich, director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, said this session may cost more than the $20 million spent on the 2007 session. The full amount won’t be known until near the end of the session.

Applications are also being accepted for 280 positions that need to be filled for the session. The full-time staff will grow by 100 in both the Senate and Assembly.

Every legislator will have a secretary. Additional workers are needed for the staffs of the various committees, plus security personnel, messengers, proofreaders and janitors.

The session doesn’t officially start until Feb. 2, but the Senate Finance Committee and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee will hold hearings on state agencies’ budgets two weeks before the start of the session.

•••

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday will hear arguments in the appeal of a state government computer specialist who claims he was forced out of his job by the sexual advances and harassment of his female superior.

Tom Loux alleges his boss in the state Division of Child and Family Services, Madilyn Maire, frequently touched and hugged him and made unwanted advances. He claims that when he refused Maire’s advances, she filed complaints claiming he didn’t perform his duties and was often absent from work.

That led to his resignation or “constructive discharge,” Loux says. (Loux is the brother of Bob Loux, who is stepping down as head the state Nuclear Projects Agency amid allegations he raised his and his staff’s pay without authorization.)

But Deputy Attorney General Andrea Nichols tells a different story in her brief to the appeals court. She says the allegations of sexual harassment are false and that Loux failed to prove them at trial in federal court in Reno. Nichols says Loux was often absent from work, couldn’t complete the jobs assigned to him and told one official he wanted Maire’s job.

The appeals court will hear arguments and rule later whether Loux should be granted another trial.