NEVADA LEGISLATURE 2011
Assembly Bill 257
From the website: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20110414/NEWS/110419956
CARSON CITY, Nev. - Citizen activists on Wednesday urged the Government Affairs Committee not to adopt amendments they say would weaken a bill designed to expand public comment at governmental meetings. Assembly Bill 257 was originally written to require that public bodies offer public comment at the start and conclusion of board and commission meetings - plus the opportunity for citizens to comment on each action item before it is voted on during the meeting. But the sponsor, Assemblyman John Ellison, R-Elko, said at the outset of the hearing he wanted to amend the measure to remove the requirement for public comment before each action item is voted on. "There would be no public comment in the middle of the meeting," he said. He said AB257 still would be an improvement because it provides public comment at the start and finish of a meeting, but wouldn't lengthen meetings by having numerous comment periods. He said he brought the measure because some bodies aren't accepting comment from the public. "There are a lot of problems with some of the smaller boards," he said adding they only allow comment at the end of the meeting, which can require citizens to wait hours before getting to speak. "A lot of school boards are not allowing the public to address the board." Gardnerville resident Jim Slade objected to the amendment saying the public should be allowed to testify on all items before they are voted on. "The open meeting law is not intended to keep meetings short or ensure members get home in time to watch the next episode of 'Dancing with the Stars,'" he said. Slade said people should be able to comment on each action item before a board, council or commission during the debate on that item, not wait until after the vote is completed. Gary Schmidt of Reno argued the bill should mandate an open public comment period at both the start and finish of a a meeting as well as on every action item and that the elected members should welcome that participation. "What do our elected officials have to do that's more important than the public business?" he asked. He said some boards like the Reno and Sparks city councils occasionally "abuse their discretion." "When you have 50 people who want to speak, it's because there's a problem and they (the elected members) ought to listen to them," he said. The committee took no action on the measure.
BUFFET BILL FROM HELL
Well then there comes the 2010 census in which Washoe County exceeded the 400,000 population threshold that screwed the whole thing up. Now hundreds of laws that were “intended” to apply just to Clark County (over 400,000) now would apply to Washoe County and hundreds of laws that were intended to apply to Washoe County (originally between 100,000 and 400,000) now did not apply. It raised similar “havoc” with the rural counties but not lack of clarity or “conflicting” in the eyes and minds of the LCB. Thus the Buffet Bill from Hell that attempts to change the population threshold tests in around 400 very diverse, independent, and unrelated to each other laws in one Bill by moving the principle population figure of 400,000 up to 700,000 was hatched. This created another Constitutional issue in that you see the Nevada Constitution also says (in Article 4 Section 17) that each Bill before the legislature should only address one subject or law, this Bill addresses some 400 subjects and laws. What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to ignore the State Constitution.
The Bill passed the Assembly by a 30 to 11 vote and is now before the Senate Government Affairs Committee with its first hearing held on Monday May 9th. Of principle interest to Washoe County Residents might be Sections 1 and 2. Current law provides that since Washoe County is now over 400,000 in population it is entitled to 7 County Commissioners the same as Clark County instead of 5. This Bill will negate that by raising that population threshold up to 700,000 so Clark County will remain the only County with 7 Commissioners(Sections 1 and 2). The current law also provides that Washoe County will now be entitled to a 2 percent transient Lodging Room tax instead of 1 percent which principally goes to school funding. This Bill will negate that resulting in a loss of revenue to the schools of around 4 million dollars. Indecently while Washoe County has for years had the right to license prostitution, even though it has never done so, since the County has now reached 400,000 in population it would by current law the County would no longer have that authority. This Bill if passed will assure that Washoe County retains the right to license prostitution.
One may support or oppose these three law changes I have cited, out of the some 400 included in the Buffet Bill from Hell but the issue is that each of these 400 or so changes in current law should have its own introduction and hearing process legislature as is so wisely declared by the State Constitution.
Respect the State Constitution and the process that is due !! Vote NO on AB 545
From: gary schmidt
[mailto:nobullschmidt@hotmail.com] BDR 548 AB545 should
be withdrawn as it was illegally submitted (see e-mails below). Any
Legislator that participates in even the consideration of this so called
Bill other than to reject it could be considered as a co-conspirator with the
LCB (see below). If this Bill moves forward at this time it will subject
the LCB, the Legislature, and others to substantial Court action and
Administrative Complaint/Disciplinary Action! Please let me know what
you know about this Bill and its origin and backers. I would also
like to know your thoughts on the issues I and others (Terry Tierney) have been
raising on these matters for months (years). Thank you for your kind
attention to the forgoing. Gary Schmidt Reform Nevada
Politics . com From:
nobullschmidt@hotmail.com From:
nobullschmidt@hotmail.com First in response to your
allegation in paragraph one, NRS F.150 only makes (tentatively) confidential
matter “entrusted” to the LCB, not the internal responsibilities, obligations,
and/or authorizations as a matter of specific law assigned to the LCB as
internal functions. NRS F.150 1 (b) further denies any claim of confidentiality
unless "at the time of creation a representation
of confidentiality was (is) made and you
have adversely admitted that such was not done by your refusal to provide a
certified copy of such. This exception does not make provisions
of the BDR confidential; it only provides the opportunity for said
provisions to be made confidential by declaration at the onset of
consideration. That is why I have requested a certified copy of any
“at the time of creation a representation of
confidentiality” which was made. Your subsequent claim that
Statutes do not require you to prove said “representation” is curious especially
coming from an attorney. You of all people should have been cognizant that
you may indeed have to prove such claim in a Court of Law if challenged and any
level of prudence would have cried out for you to timely document any such
claim. Your apparent position that you are the originator within the LCB
and apparently perhaps made the “representation” of confidentiality in your
subconscious at the time of the origination of the BDR and before any work on it
is laughable. Further you are just now disclosing and/or identifying
yourself as the person within the LCB that hatched this BDR which is an
untimely disclosure to my previous Public Records Requests. I hereby re-request: Under NRS 239 and all other relevant authority in law
please provide me with a
"certified" copy of any document that affirms that "at the time of creation a representation
of confidentiality was (is) made" of The content of the work product
of the Legal and Fiscal Analysis Divisions" in
relation to BDR 548 or acknowledge if no such copy of a
“representation” exists.
Your
statement in paragraph
two
“In your prior email you indicated that you
were merely trying to determine who requested BDR 548 and why it was
requested” appears to be a diversion and is taken out of context. I
withdraw any comment that “I am merely trying to determine who requested BDR 548
and why”. It should be obvious that the depth and scope of my inquires are
broad and far reaching and my exact intentions and motivations, while not
masked, are not relevant to your and other’s responsibilities and obligations to
comply with the law included but not limited to the Nevada Public Records
Law. Further, in paragraph two you claim or state that part of your duties
are to “make recommendations to the Legislature for clarification of specific
statutes and call the attention of the Legislature to conflicting statutes.” I
see nothing “unclear” or “conflicting” in any of the cited statues now released
as subject of BDR 545/AB 548. What I see “you and/or the LCB” doing is
making and/or “urging “substantive changes to a vast array of State Statutes
which is specifically forbid of you and yours and I believe is not only a clear
violation of NRS 218D 100 1 (b) and (c) as well as NRS 218 F .150 1 (a), but
very likely a violation of Nevada Ethics Law. If the “Legislature may wish
to revise some of the thresholds” they should have timely submitted BDR’s which
they had the clear authority to do and you do not.
As to paragraph three, let me just say that just because you and/or others
may have acted in an unauthorized by law and perhaps unethical manner in 2001
and before it would not, of course, justify any such repeat in 2011.
What happened in 2001 and/or before is not directly relevant to current issues
and concerns.
In response to paragraph four, let me just repeat that I have made a request for
Public Records under NRS 239 and all other relevant authority and you have
not complied fully to said requests as is required by law and are now
potentially subject to any action I may file for full and compliant disclosure
under the law.
We will leave for subsequent review and determination as to the sufficiency of
the summary statement of the (unauthorized) BDR but let me just say that
changing the population thresholds so as to not permit/require 7 County
Commissioners in Counties of 400,000 or more persons does not “change” “certain
powers of local governments” but at least in part vetoes and eliminates a
long standing right (or power) of representation of the people, not local
governments.
Please forward me under the
authority of NRS 239 and all other relevant law any and all documents that
reflect, commemorate, describe, and/or otherwise identify and/or reveal any
contact with any “local governments” in regards to BDR 545 and/or AB
548.
It would seem incredulous that you would recommend or “urge” the legislature to
“make changes to population basis for exercises of certain powers by local
governments” without consultation with or recommendations from the “local
governments” whose powers you are attempting to “change”. As
previously stated if any of these so called local governments had wanted changes
to existing law they should have timely submitted BDR’s themselves. The
“powers of local governments” are in no way the direct concern of the LCB and
for a variety of reasons under the Law the LCB had no authority to initiate this
BDR. There is absolutely nothing “unclear” or “conflicting” under the
current law(s) you are attempting to change and/or recommend changes
to. From:
erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us Dear
Mr. Schmidt,
In response to your initial email on March 7, 2011, your follow-up email on
March 10, 2011, and your latest email on April 4, and as previously stated to
you, we are prohibited by NRS 218F.150 from disclosing “the contents or nature”
of the matter of BDR 548. Since, pursuant to NRS 218F.150, all of the
information relating to the “matter” of this BDR is confidential other than the
limited information noted in your request that is required to be included on the
BDR List, this office is unable to “redact, delete, conceal or separate” any
information relating to BDR 548, because we have already disclosed all that we
have that we are allowed to disclose.
In your prior email you indicated that you were merely trying to determine who
requested BDR 548 and why it was requested. As indicated on the BDR List,
BDR 548 was requested by the Legislative Counsel – I am the Legislative Counsel,
and I requested the BDR. NRS 220.080 provides that one of my duties as
Legislative Counsel is to make recommendations to the Legislature for
clarification of specific statutes and call the attention of the Legislature to
conflicting statutes and such other matters as the Legislative Counsel deems
necessary. Many statutes base the exercise of the powers of local
governments upon the population determined by the census as provided in NRS
0.050. With the 2010 census being completed and delivered to the State,
the Legislature may wish to revise some of the thresholds.
As for your specific questions, the Legislative Counsel is authorized pursuant
to NRS 218D.155 to request the drafting of as many legislative measures as are
necessary or convenient for the proper exercise of the Legislative Counsel’s
duties. You seem to believe that this matter was requested by somebody
else: it was not; as indicated on the BDR list, I requested the measure so that
the Legislature could again consider this issue (similar legislation was
considered and approved in 2001).
I will not be providing a “certified” copy of a representation of
confidentiality, both because no such document is required by statute and, if it
were, there is no requirement in statute to prove a representation of
confidentiality. Further, as indicated in my previous emails, there are
several grounds for the confidentiality of this information.
Finally, your claim that the summary is inadequate is similarly without
merit. The summary describes exactly what the legislation does (to the
extent that a brief summary can) and is comparable in length and detail to every
summary ever placed on a BDR List.
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Erdoes
Legislative Counsel From: gary schmidt
[mailto:nobullschmidt@hotmail.com] This is the
third written request
for Public Records as described within the e-mails
attached. If after 3 days you have not complied with your
obligation under the Nevada Public Records Law I may be forced to proceed with a
District Court Action against you and your
organization. I would additionally request at this
time that BDR 548 (AB 545) be withdrawn and removed from consideration
before the legislature as it was not offered or introduced by
any person or organization with said authorization under the
law. Additionally since the bill as currently drafted proposes to change
population thresholds not just "inform" the legislature as to the effects of the
new population figures, it obviously constitutes a recommendation
or "urge(ing)" of support for the population changes. Since you
have purported that the Legislative Counsel is the initiator of the Bill
(unauthorized) you have violated the State Statute that forbids the Legislative
Counsel from "urge(ing)" any legislation. This additionally taints
the Bill and is further reason for it to be immediately withdrawn. It
would appear to me at this time that there also may likely be State Ethical
Violations that have occurred in this process. From:
nobullschmidt@hotmail.com From:
nobullschmidt@hotmail.com (a) Oppose or urge
legislation, except as the duties of the Director, the Legislative Auditor, the
Legislative Counsel, the Research Director and the Fiscal Analysts require them
to make recommendations to the Legislature. If the Legislative
Counsel is indeed the actual requester of BDR 548 that would then imply that no
Legislator or other person made the request for the BDR of the Legislative
Counsel and indeed it was initiated solely by the Legislative Counsel and not by
them as a surrogate for any other person or persons. In that event, please
provide copies of any and all documents that reflect who within the Legislative
Counsel made the request, that is which person or persons actually
initiated and/or completed the request that caused the BDR to be placed on
the web site. If the Legislative Counsel was just an intermediary,
then please provide copies of any and all documents that disclose the
actual
Legislative requester or requesters and/or other requesters. NRS 218D 130
certainly provides that the actual requester must
be disclosed and not just some shill or pitchman used to hide the true identity
of the requester. From:
erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us Dear
Mr. Schmidt,
In response to both your initial email on March 7, 2011, and your follow-up
email on March 10, 2011, we are unable to furnish any public books or records at
this time because disclosure of any information described in your request is
prohibited by NRS 218F.150. That section provides: 1. The Director, other
officers and employees of the Legislative Counsel Bureau shall
not: (a) Oppose or urge
legislation, except as the duties of the Director, the Legislative Auditor, the
Legislative Counsel, the Research Director and the Fiscal Analysts require them
to make recommendations to the Legislature. (b) Except as otherwise
provided in this section, NRS 218D.130, 218D.135, 218D.250 and 353.211, disclose
to any person outside the Legislative Counsel Bureau the contents or nature of
any matter, unless the person entrusting the matter to the Legislative Counsel
Bureau so requests or consents. 2. The nature or
content of any work previously done by the personnel of the Research Division of
the Legislative Counsel Bureau may be disclosed if or to the extent that the
disclosure does not reveal the identity of the person who requested it or
include any material submitted by the requester which has not been published or
publicly disclosed. The content of the work product of the Legal and Fiscal
Analysis Divisions is confidential and not subject to subpoena only if at the
time of creation a representation of confidentiality is made. 3. When a statute has
been enacted or a resolution adopted, the Legislative Counsel shall upon request
disclose to any person the state or other jurisdiction from whose law it appears
to have been adopted. 4. The records of the
travel expenses of Legislators and officers and employees of the Legislative
Counsel Bureau are available for public inspection at such reasonable hours and
under such other conditions as the Legislative Commission
prescribes. (Emphasis added.) The only one of the 5
exceptions to the prohibition in NRS 218F.150 that is applicable to your request
relates to the BDR List. NRS 218D.130 provides that, with certain limited
exceptions, the BDR List “must only contain the name of each requester, the date
and a brief summary of the request.” Thus, we are prohibited by NRS
218F.150 from disclosing “the contents or nature” of the matter of BDR
548. Since, pursuant to NRS 218F.150, all of the information relating to
the “matter” of this BDR is confidential other than the limited information
noted in your request that is required to be included on the BDR List, this
office is unable to “redact, delete, conceal or separate” any information
relating to BDR 548, because we have already disclosed all that we have that we
are allowed to disclose.
All of the other citations included in my first email to you are redundant in
this matter so are not further set out here.
In response to your assertion that there is an “air of secrecy and resistance
evolving in reaction to our attempts to become informed” I will renew my earlier
offer to you to discuss with you the BDR
process and the manner in which BDRs of this kind are generally brought
before the Nevada Legislature. My phone number is (775) 684-6833.
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Erdoes
Legislative Counsel From: gary schmidt
[mailto:nobullschmidt@hotmail.com] Thank you for your
response to my Public Records Request. Under NRS 239.010 3. "A
governmental entity that has legal custody or control of a public book or record
shall not deny a request made pursuant to subsection 1 to inspect or copy a
public book or record on the basis that the requested public book or record
contains information that is confidential if the governmental entity can redact,
delete, conceal or separate the confidential information from the information
included in the public book or record that is not otherwise confidential."
Please comply with my request providing the documents in any form, redacted or
otherwise, with specific reference and identification to any and all
privileges claimed for each line or data point. Even if you redact
substantially a complete document the form and such things as the
dates will be of value the the Court in its review of your claims of
privilege and/or confidentiality. Further any reference to "case law" in
general does not satisfy the strict parameters required under NRS 239.0107
(d) (2) "A citation to the specific statute or other legal authority that
makes the public book or record, or a part thereof, confidential."
A "specific" reference
to each claim you are now making in reference to each item of information on
each "document" on which you are claiming any privilege and/or confidentiality
is required. Further, a reference to "case law" is not "specific" and does
not satisfy the requirements of the statute. You must identify the
specific "cases" and the relevance to each item of information that any
claim of privilege or confidentiality is made. Hopefully with further
disclosure and explanation of your positions we can avoid the necessity of an
'application to the Court" can be avoided. Certainly you are familiar with
the provisions of NRS 239.011 whereby "If the requester prevails, the requester
is entitled to recover his or her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in the
proceeding from the governmental entity whose officer has custody of the book or
record." From:
erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us Dear
Mr. Schmidt: In your e-mail below to me on March 7, 2011, you
requested copies of any and all documents, electronic or otherwise related to,
referencing, noting, involved in the inception or creation of, indentifying the
authors or requestors of, commemorating conversations concerning, and/or
requesting the posting on the Legislative or Legislative Counsel’s WEB sites of
BDR 548. The term “public books and public records” for the purposes of
chapter 239 of NRS does not include the information you requested.
Additionally, the information you
requested is not subject to disclosure based on the following
grounds: confidentiality of matters entrusted to officers and employees of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau (NRS 218F.150(1)(b)), legislative privilege (under
the Nevada Constitution, NRS 41.071 and case law), the deliberative process
privilege (under case law), the official information privilege (under case law),
attorney-client privilege (NRS 49.095) and communications made to a public
officer in official confidence (NRS 49.285).
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely,
Brenda J. Erdoes From: gary schmidt
[mailto:nobullschmidt@hotmail.com] To Brenda Erdoes, Attorney for the Legislative
Counsel This is a Public Records Request under NRS 239 and all
other relevant law, policy, procedures, and/or Judicial Directives.
Please provide copies of any and all documents electronic or otherwise related
to, referencing, noting, involved in the inception or creation of, indentifying
the authors or requestors of, commemorating conversations concerning, and/or
requesting the posting on the Legislative or Legislative Council’s WEB sites AB
548 as depicted from the following “copy” from said sites. Legislative Counsel Respond under the requirements as commanded in law
to: Gary Schmidt at nobullschmidt@hotmail.com and/or gary@reformnevadapolitics.com and/or Gary Schmidt at 775 622-4670
Nevada Legislature: Citizen activists urge committee not to weaken open meeting law bill
Please let me take this opportunity to express opposition
to the content and the illegal process by which AB 545 has been placed before
the Assembly!!
The attached
steam of E-mails is self explanatory!!
In summary, AB 545 was
hatched from BDR 548 which
was allegedly initiated by the LCB!
The LCB has no
athority
under the law to propose (or support or oppose) legislation! (see E-mails
for cites).
This AB should immediately
be removed from consideration as it has no authority or basis in law to exist or
be considered at this time!
The LCB has
committed multiple violation of NRS 239, the
Nevada Public Records Law, in regards to my inquires and investigation of these
matters as well as, I believe, possibly violations of the State Ethics
Laws.
Any persons that proceed
with consideration of this Bill at this time may be considered as
co-conspirators and also may be subject to judicial and/or administrative
complaints and/or disciplinary actions.
AB 545 is a ill advised
back room "illegal" attempt by a few to change law that has existed for over a
decade at the very last minute by relying upon multiple violations of due
process and any reasonable semblance of an open and transparent process.
If any person or persons had a desire to modify these long adopted
statutes they should have engaged in the process some years ago. Any
attempts to move forward with this legislation at this time in this manner will
likely result in multiple years in the Courts and stain the reputation of
the State Legislature and many so called Public Officials. The Law is the
Law and the Process that is Due is the Process that is
Due.
I suspect that this is at
least in part an attempt by certain elected and/or appointed officials to avoid
a dilution of their power basis by avoid the application and
enforcement of the law as it has long existed to now move the number of
County Commissioners in Washoe County from 5 to 7. The County has
reached the population threshold of 400,00 and by an application of long
existing law there are now 7 County Commission seats. The Governor should,
as a matter of Law, immediately appoint two additional Commissioners to serve
until the next election.
Please respond with your
thoughts on these matters.
Gary
Schmidt gary@reformnevadapolitics.com
nobullschmidt@hotmail.com
The following e-mail
stream is self explanatory:
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 6:24
PM
To: Benitez-Thompson, Teresa Assemblywoman; Bobzien, David
Assemblyman; Daly, Richard Assemblyman; Goicoechea, Pete Assemblyman; Hansen,
Ira Assemblyman; Hickey, Pat Assemblyman; Kirner, Randy Assemblyman; Smith,
Debbie Assemblywoman; Brower, Greg Senator; Gustavson, Don Senator; Kieckhefer,
Ben Senator; Leslie, Sheila Senator; Settelmeyer, James Senator; Assembly
Government Affairs Exhibits
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR
548 SECOND REQUEST !!!!!!!!!
To: asmga@lcb.state.nv.us;
kmunro@ag.nv.gov
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548 SECOND REQUEST
!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:20:46 -0700
To: erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us; kmonro@ag.nv.gov;
gtaylor@ag.nv.gov; brianb@newsreview.com; norme@dailysparkstribune.com;
sfalcone@reno.gannett.com; jsiavent@dailysparkstribune.com; svoyles@rgj.com;
evogel@reviewjournal.com; ralston@vegas.com; thepanamashow@yahoo.com;
producers@ktvn.com; kfrosdick@krnv.com; info@northvalleys.org;
don.gustavson@sbcglobal.net; gdornan@nevadaappeal.com; kmagin@tahoebonanza.com;
anythingiron@charter.net; naprice@att.net; truthseeker4freedom@gmail.com;
ttierknee@aol.com
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548 SECOND REQUEST
!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:09:23 -0700
To: nobullschmidt@hotmail.com; kmonro@ag.nv.gov;
gtaylor@ag.nv.gov; brianb@newsreview.com; norme@dailysparkstribune.com;
sfalcone@reno.gannett.com; jsiavent@dailysparkstribune.com; svoyles@rgj.com;
evogel@reviewjournal.com; ralston@vegas.com; thepanamashow@yahoo.com;
producers@ktvn.com; kfrosdick@krnv.com; info@northvalleys.org;
don.gustavson@sbcglobal.net; gdornan@nevadaappeal.com; kmagin@tahoebonanza.com;
anythingiron@charter.net; naprice@att.net; truthseeker4freedom@gmail.com;
ttierknee@aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:27:16 -0700
Subject: RE: PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548 SECOND REQUEST !!!!!!!!!
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:32
PM
To: Erdoes, Brenda; ag monro; ag taylor; brianb@newsreview.com;
norme@dailysparkstribune.com; rgj s falcone; sparks tribune josh; sue voyles;
vegas review; ralston; panama; ktvn; kirk tv 2; info@northvalleys.org; d
gustavson; carson appeal; bonanza tahoe; anythingiron@charter.net;
naprice@att.net; Truthseeker4 Freedom; ttierknee@aol.com
Subject: FW:
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548 SECOND REQUEST !!!!!!!!!
To: erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us
Subject: FW: PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548 SECOND REQUEST !!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011
12:17:15 -0700
Second Request !!
To: erdoes@lcb.state.nv.us; kmunro@ag.nv.gov;
brianb@newsreview.com; info@northvalleys.org; gary@reformnevadapolitics.com;
sfalcone@reno.gannett.com; jsiavent@dailysparkstribune.com; svoyles@rgj.com;
truthseeker4freedom@gmail.com; ttierknee@aol.com
CC:
malkiewich@lcb.state.nv.us
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR
548
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:32:09 -0700
Brenda J. Erdoes; Legislative Counsel
The
web site listing for BDR 548 lists the Legislative Counsel as the
requester. Please provide copies of any and all authority for the
Legislative Counsel to initiate this BDR
and/or any BDR. Please note;
( 1. The Director, other officers and employees of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau shall not:
Please also provide a "certified" copy of any
document that affirms that "at the
time of creation a representation of confidentiality was (is) made"
of "The content of the work product of the Legal and Fiscal Analysis
Divisions" in relation to BDR
548.
Additioally I believe that the verbage "Makes changes to population basis for exercises of
certain powers by local governments.." included on the BDR (548) does not satify the
requirement of "a brief summary of the request." Does it propose to raise
or lower the "population basis", what "certain powers, and there is no assertion
or description of any fiscal impact?
I again repeat;
The air of secrecy and resistance evolving in reaction to our attempts
to become informed just further creates an atmosphere of distrust and
suspicion that is unbecoming to a legislature and State that makes claims to
openness and "sunshine" in the overall process of
governess.
Gary R. Schmidt, Reform Nevada Politics
.com
To: nobullschmidt@hotmail.com; kmunro@ag.nv.gov;
brianb@newsreview.com; info@northvalleys.org; gary@reformnevadapolitics.com;
sfalcone@reno.gannett.com; jsiavent@dailysparkstribune.com; svoyles@rgj.com;
truthseeker4freedom@gmail.com; ttierknee@aol.com
CC:
malkiewich@lcb.state.nv.us
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:34:25 -0800
Subject:
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011
10:38 AM
To: Erdoes, Brenda; ag munro; brianb@newsreview.com;
info@northvalleys.org; reform nevada politics; rgj s falcone; sparks tribune
josh; sue voyles; Truthseeker4 Freedom; ttierknee@aol.com
Subject: RE:
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548
Please note that I am merely trying to determine
"by whom" and "Why" this BDR was requested as I anticipate I and many others may
likely be opposed to it and we would like to begin to express any such
opposition but require some additional information to commence
any such action. Members of the media also have expressed an interest
in this BDR and its origin. The air of secrecy and resistance
evolving in reaction to our attempts to become informed just
further creates an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that is unbecoming to a
legislature and State that makes claims to openness and "sunshine" in the
overall process of
governess.
Gary Schmidt
I am merely attempting to determine the origin of the
request
To: nobullschmidt@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011
22:31:31 -0800
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR 548
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:58
PM
To: Erdoes, Brenda
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST BDR
548
Makes changes to population basis for exercises
of certain powers by local governments..
Subject: editorial on 7 County Commisioners
Law
now provides for 7 Washoe County Commissioners
Now
that the 10 year National census data is in and it reflects that
This writer believes that while the
There
is also an argument that the County Commission should have preceded with the
redistricting in 2006 when the population of the County reached 400,000 by the
Governor’s annual population report (NRS 0.050)(AG Opinion 98-03).
Of
additional interest is what happens if in the process of redistricting two
existing Commissioners end up in the same new district. Would they have to then have a
runoff election or one of them move to one of the new Districts? The law says that a Commissioners’
office is immediately vacated if one moves out of the District they were elected
to so what happens if the district moves out from under the
Commissioner? The law is
silent to these scenarios but the
From: Ttierknee@aol.com
From: gary schmidt
[nobullschmidt@hotmail.com] FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE Assembly person Debbie
Smith voted on April 25th in the Assembly on AB 545 for Washoe County
to retain the right to license any “house of ill fame or repute or any
other business employing any person for the purpose of
prostitution” Smith along with Washoe County Assembly Delegation
Democrats Teresa Benitez-Thompson, David Bobzien, and Richard (Skip) Daily voted
for Washoe County to retain the right to issue such business
licenses. Washoe County has had the right to issue such
licenses for a number of years. Since the County has reached
a population of over 400,000 persons current State law would now prohibit any
such licensing of prostitution in Washoe County (NRS
244.345). Each of these four Washoe County
Assembly representatives “has found” after consideration and review that it is
appropriate and proper that Washoe County retain the right to license
prostitution and that the current State Law (NRS 244.345) that would now
prohibit Washoe County from licensing prostitution should be changed (AB
545 Section 10) so there would be no such State law prohibiting
licensing (and legalization) of prostitution in Washoe County.
Note: There is a current Washoe County Code
against licensing of prostitution in Washoe County, as there are in many
counties throughout the State, that could be rescinded at any time by the County
Commission. Prior to the 2010 census Clark County was the only county
where prostitution could not be licensed as a matter of State
Law. Since Washoe County has now reached a population of more than
400,000 NRS 244.345 would now apply also to Washoe County to prohibit
prostitution in Washoe County as a matter of State law. These four Washoe
County Assembly Persons voted to change the law (NRS 244.345) to continue to
allow local Washoe County Commissioners the authority to "make legal"
prostitution in Washoe County.
Subject: FW: Unconstitutional AB 545 Passes
Assembly and Moves to Senate FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE The following four
representatives of Washoe County in the State Legislature voted to block and
deny Washoe County Citizen’s rights under current law to be represented by 7
County Commissioners instead of the current 5. Teresa
Benitez-Thompson David
Bobzien Richard (Skip)
Daily Debbie
Smith Current law dictates that when reaching 400,000 in
population Washoe County is to be represented by 7 commissioners instead of
5. These so called representatives of Washoe County voted in
the Assembly on April 25th to change that population threshold to
700,000 thus at the last minute attempting to deny Washoe County the right to
be represented by 7 Commissioners, a “privilege” long enjoyed by Clark
County. These Assembly persons also voted in
defiance of the Nevada State Constitution which clearly states any Bill before
the Legislature must only address one subject and/or issue (Article 4 Section 17
). AB 545 addresses well over 300
different laws of which the number of County Commissioners to represent the
County is just one. These Assembly persons also in voting for
AB 545 voted to deny Washoe County School districts their lawful increase of 1%
in room tax that amounts to almost 4 million dollars.
Washoe County Schools would be punished by an additional 4
million dollars approximate that they would have otherwise (for decades) have
been entitled to. This was not a new tax but a portion of
room (tax) revenues that had been on the books for decades.
These four Assembly persons (Teresa Benitez-Thompson, David Bobzien, Richard (Skip) Daily, and Debbie Smith)
representing Washoe County voted to deny Washoe County
Schools that revenue to which they are entitled under current law.
This has nothing to do with balancing the budget;
these are room tax revenues currently in law. These four so
called representatives, Teresa Benitez-Thompson, David Bobzien, Richard
(Skip) Daily and Debbie Smith, apparently care nothing about Washoe County
Schools; the State Constitution and the rule of law; or the rights of
representation of Washoe County citizens. They voted
against the citizens and students of Washoe County even without any Public
Hearings in Washoe County in regards to these matters. Others voting
against the students and citizens of Washoe County and in defiance of the State
Constitution were: Paul Aizley
Elliot Anderson Kelvin
Atkinson Steven Brooks Irene Bustamante
Adams Richard Carrillo
Marcus Conklin
Olivia Diaz Marilyn Dondero
Loop John Ellison
Lucy Flores Jason
Frierson Edwin Goedhart
Scott Hammond Joseph Hogan
William Horne Marilyn Kirkpatrick
April Mastroluca Harvey Munford Dina Neal
John Oceguera James Ohrenschall
Peggy Pierce Tick Segerblom Mark Sherwood
Lynn Stewart Melissa Woodbury Many thanks to Washoe County Representatives
Pete
Goicoechea,
Pat Hickey, Randy Kirner, and Ira Hansen
who voted against this measure of sabotage and to protect and preserve the
rights of students and citizens in Washoe County and the State
Constitution. Other
Assembly persons voting to protect and preserve the rights of students and
citizens in Washoe County and the State Constitution were Maggie Carlton, Tom
Grady, John Hambrick, Cresent Hardy, Kelly Kite, Pete Livermore, and
Richard McArthur. Again, many thanks to Assembly Persons Pete Goicoechea, Pat Hickey, Randy
Kirner, Ira Hansen, Maggie Carlton,
Tom Grady, John Hambrick, Cresent
Hardy, Kelly Kite, Pete
Livermore, and Richard McArthur. This matter, AB 545, in now before
the Senate Government Affairs Committee and scheduled for its first hearing on
Monday, May 9th. Committee Members
are Senators John Jay Lee, Chair; Mark
Manendo, Vice Chair; Michael Schneider; Joseph Hardy; James
Settelmeyer
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:53:14 -0400
Subject:
AB545 testimony
244.3352 1.
The board of county commissioners:
(a) In a county whose population is
[400,000] 700,000 or more,
shall impose a tax at a rate of 2 percent;
and
(b) In a county whose population is less than [400,000,]
700,000,
shall impose a tax at the rate of 1 percent,
of the gross receipts from the
rental of transient lodging in that
county upon all persons in the business
of providing lodging. This
tax must be imposed by the board of county
commissioners in each
county, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of
any other
license fee or tax imposed on the revenues from the rental
of
244.3354 The
proceeds of the tax imposed pursuant to NRS
244.3352 and any applicable
penalty or interest must be distributed
as follows:
1. In a county
whose population is [400,000] 700,000 or more:
(a) Three-eighths of the
first 1 percent of the proceeds must be
paid to the Department of Taxation
for deposit with the State
Treasurer for credit to the Fund for the Promotion
of Tourism.
(b) The remaining proceeds must be transmitted to the
county
treasurer for deposit in the county school district’s fund for
capital
projects established pursuant to NRS 387.328, to be held
and
expended in the same manner as other money deposited in that fund.
3.310 1.
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the
judge of each district
court may appoint a bailiff for the court in
counties polling 4,500 or more
votes. In counties polling less than
4,500 votes, the judge may appoint a
bailiff with the concurrence of
the sheriff. Subject to the provisions of
subsections 2, 4 and 10, in a
county whose population is [400,000] 700,000 or
more, the judge of
each district court may appoint a
deputy marshal for the court
instead of a bailiff. In each case, the bailiff
or deputy marshal serves
at the pleasure of the judge he or she serves.
4.010 1.
A person may not be a candidate for or be eligible to
the office of justice
of the peace unless the person is a qualified
elector and has never been
removed or retired from any judicial
office by the Commission on Judicial
Discipline. For the purposes
of this subsection, a person is eligible to be a
candidate for the office
of justice of the peace if a decision to remove or
retire the person
from a judicial office is pending appeal before the Supreme
Court or
has been overturned by the Supreme Court. .......
67.050
In a county whose population is [400,000] 700,000 or
more, a person who lives
65 miles or more from the justice court is
exempt from serving as a trial
juror. Whenever it appears to the
satisfaction of the justice court, by
affidavit or otherwise, that a juror
lives 65 miles or more from the justice
court, the justice court shall
order the juror excused from all service as a
trial juror, if the juror so desires.
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 1:09
PM
Subject: FW: Assembly Woman Smith votes to
continue permiting Washoe County to Licence Prostitution
Subject: Schmidt Proposes Ammendment to AB
545
To" the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, 2011 Session of the
Nevada State Legislature
re: AB 545
This proposed amendment would be accomplished by simply removing Section 2 (page 2 lines 17 through 27) from the Bill.
The effect of said removal would allow NRS 244.016 to remain the same as it now exists and has existed for decades.
Their was no support offered for the changes which would occur to NRS 244.016 if Section 2 were to remain in the Bill. The changes currently proposed by Section 2 would only currently affect Washoe County and the lawful number of Commissioners therein. If the Section 2 is removed from the Bill and NRS 244.016 is allowed to remain as it currently is and has been for decades then Washoe County as a result of recent population growth would move from 5 County Commissioners to7. The Washoe County Commission failed/declined to enter a Bill Draft Request to circumvent the lawful change under existing law from 5 to 7 Commissioners. There was some testimony from a lobbyist that claimed to officially represent Washoe County as to the County’s official support of the proposed change to the law to prevent the change from 5 Commissioners to 7 Commissioners (which is what the current and long standing law allows for) but that testimony was fallacious and/or unauthorized. Washoe County can only take a position official or otherwise through a vote of the County Commission in a properly agenized and conducted Public Meeting of the Commission and that has not occurred. The testimony of the lobbyist if it has any foundation in any fact would be indicate that three or more Commissioners had engaged in a flagrant violation of the Open Meeting Law and any such vote, decision, and/or position would be invalid under the law. Furthermore there has been substantive testimony and support expressed by multiple individuals for removal of this section (2) from the Bill.
Please enter these comments and this amendment request to remove Section 2 from AB545 into the official record.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration of this matter.
Gary R. Schmidt 775 622-4670 gary@reformnevadapolitics.com