Plan to cut sessions draws fire

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, says shrinking the session would transfer power to an expanding legislative bureaucracy and restrict lawmakers' ability to review of important issues.

"When we talk about limiting legislative sessions, what we're really talking about is limiting access by the voters," she said.

Titus, who made her comments Wednesday during a review of the proposed budget for the Legislature and its staff for the next two years, was contradicted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, the main supporter of the 120-day session proposal.

Raggio said a 120-day session would save more than $3 million because of reduced salaries for part-time staff hired for the session and reduced lawmaker expenses such as travel costs and lodging.

Legislative staff members have estimated the savings from the shorter session at $3.5 million to $4 million.

The Legislative Counsel Bureau's Biennial Budget Review Committee approved a budget for its staff of $35.6 million for the 1999-2001 budget years, an 8.9 percent increase over the current two-year budget. The budget included 12 new positions and would bring the permanent legislative staff to 212.

Titus said the $2.9 million spending increase for the legislative staff was proof that shortening the legislative sessions, which occur every other year, would not save money.

"It's not a legitimate statement," Raggio said of Titus' comments. "These other costs will increase whether we limit the sessions or not."

While session savings are estimated at about $3 million if voters in November approve the limit, the costs of the legislative staff continue to rise, Titus said.

The budget proposal for the next two years, which was approved for submission to the Legislative Commission by the review committee, would wipe out any savings from a shorter session, Titus said.

Raggio succeeded in the 1997 session in gaining approval to put Question 5 on the ballot, which asks voters to amend the Nevada Constitution to limit legislative sessions to 120 days. No limit exists now.

The 1997 session was the longest and costliest in state history, lasting 169 days and costing $15.5 million. The cost of the session is accounted for separately from the legislative staff's ongoing budget.

Titus said she voted last year to put the session limits on the ballot because of evidence that it would save money. But the proposed budget showed that no savings would occur, she said. Titus refused to vote on the budget as a member of the review committee.

Titus said shorter sessions should mean fewer bills, but the Legislature's legal division, which drafts bills among its other duties, continues to grow in the proposed budget by four positions to 59.

Instead of savings, lawmakers and the public will see more complicated issues rushed through at the last minute and more decisions being made behind closed doors, she said.

"We're limiting the power of the Legislature and instead building a giant bureaucracy," she said. "The public thinks we'll reduce costs, but that's not going to happen."

Raggio said the full-time legislative staff will continue to grow because of increased demands put upon it by lawmakers and a growing state population. The expansion of the staff and the growing legislative budget is a separate issue from the 120-day session limit, he said.

archive