On February 16 the Legislative Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections held a hearing on AB 110. This proposal is directed at changing Nevada’s lobbyist law to make it possible to require lobbyists to register under the circumstances of the Legislative Building not being locked down for public entry.
The law before this proposed change qualifies someone as being a lobbyist by “appearing in person in the Legislative Building…”
The bill itself isn’t really a change that is going to mean life or death, but it does serve as representation that those in charge are working to paper-over fundamental details of how normal citizen engagement shouldn’t actually be working this way. As the hearing unfolded and responses were made to questions about the details of the change it seemed very similar to the scene in the Wizard of Oz, when the little dog pulls the curtain back on the “Wizard” who is operating behind the curtain… “Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain,” the “Wizard” says. As Nevada citizens we are also evidently supposed to follow those instructions.
Legislators, legislative staff and selected media representatives are granted the ability to be in the Legislative Building under the current operations in “the People’s House.” Everyone else is locked out of legislative building and for that matter even to engage beyond the narrow parameters offered through virtual connections.
Under the proposed changes to AB 110, “lobbyists” will mean “a person who communicates directly with a member of the Legislative Branch on behalf of someone other than himself or herself…” Based on the views of the sponsors for AB 110, Assemblyman Jason Frierson and Assemblywoman Brittney Miller, this isn’t a big change. Supposedly, changing the definition isn’t going to strap a new group of participants with the requirements for lobbyist going forward and we’re supposed to believe that some of those currently participating by virtual connections will continue to do so forever.
Based on current conditions and reality, we understand that those in charge of the Legislature really appreciate having the public kept out of the Legislative Building far more than those who are on the outside locked out of the building and the process. If they didn’t think this way was acceptable, then those in charge would be doing things differently.
Although the 2021 Legislative Session is an improvement over the two special sessions that took place during the summer of 2020, the “regular” session has been anything but normal and is less than the open and interactive process that Nevada citizens deserve. This made more frustrating as we enviously watch the openness and transparency of other state legislatures, who have managed to keep their doors open and include the public.
Legislators, who serve on Legislative Committees work through these virtual channels hearing bills and receiving “public input” on proposed legislation, are also restricted in their participation. They are limited to Zoom video conference meetings. Their only “in-person” interactions come during floor sessions, and some members remotely participate in those as well.
Legislators who take the process of legislative activities as something more than “sausage-making” are also frustrated by the virtual limitations. A legitimate system recognizes that interaction with citizens is vital and it consults with those knowledgeable on the subjects related to the proposed legislation and those who know how legislative proposals will impact people. Not having a legitimate system – even if we’re pretending that we are doing the best we can – is not good enough.
Most of the committee chairpersons open their meetings with enthusiastic cheerleading about all the ways that the public can engage. This requires properly registering the day before you give your two-minute statement when the agenda item takes place. You can also email your more extensive input through the proper committee management system, or use the link on the Legislature’s Website to share your opinions on whatever legislation you’d like to address. Beyond these “many” avenues for input…there is also places on the agenda for “public comment” catch-alls for two-minutes of statements at the end of the committee’s business for the day.
There is no actual opportunity for questions, clarification, interchange for most participants, although government agencies making their case for the legislation that they are pushing for do seem to have a more of an advantage than those who will be impacted by the legislation.
At this point, scheduling appointments with Legislators to talk by phone or video conference has been an option. These contacts are much more limited and structured than the normal bumping into each other in the hallways or stopping by the office, but for the most part these back-and-forth conversations are the only route open.
It has been almost a year since Governor Sisolak issued his first executive order to close down Nevada ( at least those determined unessential). Over the course of the past year there have been news conferences by the Governor sharing the occasional next steps/phase and providing minimal increases in personal freedom. These announcements also came with a lecture on how we better improve our behavior and follow his orders more closely.
Whether we can expect the Nevada Legislature to open the doors to “the People’s House”, even on a limited basis, is unclear. COVID vaccination and protocols requiring negative test are likely to be fundamental when the restricted opening begins, but at this point there is nothing on the horizon to even speculate about. Playing cards very close to the vest seems to be the rule for those who get to decide how the Legislature operates. Transparency like so many other things has become virtual.
It’s rather ironic that the present Legislative process would have us reminiscing about “the good old days” of Legislative sessions. Although those sessions had their own frustrations and problems, being able to engage and interact at least made the process workable.
Elections have consequences, as we’ve learned and experienced. Changing back to an open and interactive Nevada legislative process should be a base-line expectation voters will press for when they next have their next opportunity to have a say at the ballot box.
In the meantime, we’re supposed to believe that the current process is “good enough.”
By Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau