Vol. 1, No. 23
.jpg)
Oct. 1, 2004
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
CRIMINAL DEFENSE |
COPYWRITING
|
|
As We Approach November, Judicial Question Continue On Ballot Questions
Threats That Ballots Won't Be Available For Overseas Troops Heard Around The State
A major battle still rages over Questions 3 and 4, even after the Supreme Court has demanded Secretary of State Dean Heller rewrite part of what is to appear on the ballot. Attached to this article is a listing of how the questions will appear on the November ballot, and the pros and cons of each.
In the case of Question 3, the 'keep our doctors in Nevada' question, we have put the original wording of the question, listed as Ballot Question 3, and the change that the Supreme Court demanded as Question 3A. It is 3A that will appear on the ballot, but to help you understand the underlying politics of the question, we felt it necessary to put both efforts up for review.
Heller is incensed over the handling of the matter by both the Trial Lawyers Association, those fiercely against the measure and the Supreme Court. "As Secretary of State, my responsibility is to create the condensation and explanation language for qualifying initiative petitions," he said in an open letter to Nevada's electorate. "It is not to define the issue, as that is the purpose the 'for' and 'against' arguments and subsequent rebuttals, not to mention the advertising campaign waged by both sides of a controversial issue."
Registrars of Voters and county clerks have had to destroy some $500,000 worth of ballots already printed, possibly delaying absentee ballots. "The decision by the Supreme Court ... places an extraordinary burden on the clerks and registrars," Heller said.
Following the unusual weekend decision by the high court, the Trial Lawyers Association, not satisfied with their partial victory to get Heller to rewrite part of the question 3 introduction for November's ballot, filed suit to have the measure taken from the ballot entirely. That was denied by the high court. The group then tried to get the high court to find Heller in contempt of court, and that was also denied.
In Heller's open letter, he says, "I know it's hard for many citizens to believe that trial lawyers would stretch the truth to fit the 'facts' they want to present, but those are the true facts." He wonders if the electorate is "stunned" by this revelation.
Heller believes the court, by forcing him to rewrite the introduction to question 3 was acting politically rather than judiciously. "Since many members of the Nevada Supreme Court are former trial lawyers themselves, it is not hard to draw a line connecting the dots."
Following the high court's decision, many doctors and others related to medical practice went to the streets in Las Vegas in support of question 3. We recommend you take lots of time to investigate some of these ballot questions that you will be asked to vote on come November. Heller feels that it is because of actions such as the question 3 court cases that many people don't vote.
"At a time when voter apathy and disenfranchisement is at an all-time high," he said, these actions "will no doubt give more citizens a good reason to think that elections are about those in power and not about the will of the people."
The Questions
QUESTION #1
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Nevada Legislature to fund the operation of the public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 before funding any other part of the state budget for the next biennium?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create five new sections to Section 6 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would provide that during a regular session of the Legislature, before any appropriation is enacted to fund a portion of the state budget, the Legislature must appropriate sufficient funds for the operation of Nevada's public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 for the next biennium, and that any appropriation in violation of this requirement is void. The appropriation requirement also applies to certain special sessions of the Legislature.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 1 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 1
Question One seeks a constitutional amendment changing the process by which public school education is funded at the state Legislature.
Education First ensures our state's public school system will be funded, before any other program for the next fiscal biennium, during each legislative session, by an appropriation the Legislature deems to be sufficient to fund the operation of our public schools for the student population reasonably estimated for that biennium.
| Take the politics out of funding Nevada's public schools. A YES vote on Question One will put education and Nevada's children first in line at budget time. |
Education First preserves the Legislature's ability to first fund the cost of the legislative session or an emergency measure demanding immediate action. Education First does not determine the level or source of funding public school education receives, so there is no fiscal impact to the state.
Education First will substantially enhance Nevada's credibility as a stable environment for students and teachers. As the fastest growing state in the nation, that is critical if Nevada is to keep pace with its growing student population.
For example, for the 2002-03 school year, Nevada hired over 2300 new teachers. Most new teachers are hired from out-of-state because Nevada's University and Community College System cannot meet our state's demand for teachers. Teachers make a serious commitment when they choose to move and teach here. Education First will help ensure Nevada is equally committed.
The budget deadlock we experienced during the 2003 legislative sessions must never be repeated. The consequences for our schools, our teachers and our children were significant. Schools opened late, new teachers could not be hired, and special programs were jeopardized as those teachers were designated for reassignment to the general classroom. School administrators could not adequately plan for the coming school year, a process that typically begins each January. Education First prevents that from ever happening again.
As long as public school education is allowed to be the last major budget bill considered, special sessions and court intervention could easily become the norm in the legislative process. When education is first, that won't happen, as it did in 2003. Education First will ensure that the funding of education in Nevada will be given the status intended by the framers of our Constitution and will help prevent another Supreme Court ruling that negates the Gibbons tax restraint portion of our Constitution.
Take the politics out of funding Nevada's public schools. A YES vote on Question One will put education and Nevada's children first in line at budget time.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 1
The Education Funding Crisis of the 2003 Legislative session is the first in 73 regular sessions of the Nevada legislature. It was generated for political reasons to push a huge tax increase. Voters have an opportunity in this election to punish those guilty without changing the constitution. One failure in 73 sessions is insufficient reason to change the constitution.
A "NO" vote on Question1 will force legislators to do the job we elect them to do. A "YES" vote will NOT correct the grave disregard for the Nevada Constitution by the Nevada Supreme Court during 2003. The Court showed blatant disregard for the people's will of the original Gibbons' petition and there is no reason to believe this will improve their attention to their oath of office. Make Representative government work by voting "NO" on Question 1.
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 1
The last legislative session showed that education funding can become a political football and few would agree that scenario should ever be repeated; however, a single event should not be a reason to compromise the public health and safety of Nevadans by detrimentally removing the Legislature's and our Governor's ability to determine our state's priorities.
1. The education budget is such a large portion of the budget that it cannot be determined until after the final meeting of the Economic Forum. The Economic Forum is a panel of experts appointed by Nevada elected officials to formulate detailed projections regarding our state's revenue. The Economic Forum's projections would not be done until just prior to April 30th.
2. In the normal 120 day legislative process, the small budgets with little or no changes are processed starting weeks before the end of the legislative session. This allows the legislative workload to remain reasonable and matters to be handled in a logical manner. Holding all those budgets until the education budget can be decided may actually impede the process of closing budgets and make special sessions more likely, adding unnecessarily to taxpayer expense. Thus, this measure is likely to cause an adverse fiscal impact.
3. Under the current system the smaller budgets come through early providing lawmakers that do not sit on the Assembly Ways and Means or Senate Finance Committees with the time to review these budgets and ask questions. If those budgets are held until the education budget is decided, then the review by other legislators will be lost in the rush to close the session. Public health, safety and the protection of our environment will necessarily be compromised because of the limited time to review non-education budget matters that are equally important to our state's welfare.
4. Further it might be much easier for a lawmaker on the money committees to add "pork" to some budgets without the check and balance time and review process to stop potential wasteful spending.
5. While we agree that the entire budgeting and funding process in Nevada needs to be reviewed to encourage fiscal responsibility and accountability by the legislators and all with budgets within the executive branch, this measure seems to complicate the matter rather than actually improve and simplify the process.
We urge voters not to make the budget process more difficult by passing this measure.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO QUESTION NO. 1
1. Public education is one of five major budget bills. According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, no budget can be closed prior to release of the Economic Forum's final report. This does not change. When budget bills are enrolled, education will be first.
2. The way the state budget is crafted does not change. The legislative workload is unaffected. The process becomes more logical when such a large component is dealt with first. The Legislature is responsible for managing its workload and adhering to a 120-day session. The status quo is more likely to result in special sessions.
3. Lawmakers not on money committees still participate. Issues are engaged in the same manner as now. Any impact should the Legislature not do its job as required by the state Constitution is its responsibility. Public health, safety, welfare and the environment are not compromised by Education First.
4. Adding pork will always be tempting. Education First does not make it easier. If checks and balances aren't done, regardless of where in the process, legislators would be derelict in their duties.
5. When public education is no longer the budget's sacrificial lamb, the process is brought into check, improving accountability and simplicity.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - No.
Approval of the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would have no adverse fiscal impact.
•••
QUESTION #2
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to require that the annual per-pupil expenditure for Nevada's public elementary and secondary schools equals or exceeds the national average?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create four new sections to Section 2 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would require the Legislature, commencing July 1, 2012, to ensure that in each fiscal year the annual per-pupil expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools equals or exceeds the national average.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 2 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 2
Question 2 asks the voters to amend the Nevada Constitution to require the Nevada Legislature to bring per pupil expenditures for K-12 education in Nevada to or above the national average beginning in 2012.
Nevada's ranking in the level of per pupil funding has fallen from 35th in 1993 to 45th in the nation today and there is no indication that this trend will reverse without passage of this petition.
Nevada's per pupil expenditures have declined, creating a negative impact on the ability to support class-size reduction, the number of available textbooks and classroom materials, as well as providing remediation and tutoring and the expansion of kindergarten programs. In addition, teacher's salaries are insufficient to keep or recruit the best educators. This has led to a critical teacher shortage in Nevada.
By supporting Question 2, Nevada's citizens will be making the importance of funding education to the national average a clear priority for the Nevada Legislature. The proponents of this petition believe that 8 years is a fair and reasonable length of time to implement this policy.
We ask the voters of Nevada to send a strong message to the Nevada Legislature in support of education funding. It is no longer acceptable for Nevada's children to so significantly lag behind the national average on this measure of educational expenditures per student.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 2
Already Nevada taxpayers fund our schools very near the national average. Yet money spent per pupil is not what produces superior educational results.
Consider New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. They all spend huge amounts. But their results-according to national measures of educational progress-are far inferior to low-spending states like Utah, which rank at the bottom of per-pupil spending.
Class-size reduction programs are no answer. They sound good, but research has shown them to make little difference. Twenty times more effective is providing students with skilled teachers who know their subjects. Blocking this in Nevada are current collective-bargaining agreements that ignore teacher performance and reward mere longevity.
State lawmakers have repeatedly approved funds specifically for books and classroom materials-only to find that school officials, in collective bargaining, have diverted these funds into salaries.
Nevada hires over 2,000 teachers per year, so our problem is not attracting teachers. Average teacher pay here is above the national average. It's Nevada schools' performance that is near the bottom.
Send a message to Nevada's educational establishment: Tell them you want systematic reform before you authorize another big increase in Nevada taxes.
Vote "NO" on this constitutional amendment.
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 2
This amendment would increase per-pupil spending in Nevada far above the national average. It would also require a tax increase of about $1,100 per year for a Nevada family of four. Otherwise, huge cuts in other important state programs-prisons, human services, mental health, etc.-will have to be made. A bill in the 2003 Legislature to meet the "national average" now would have cost taxpayers $1.135 billion biennially, so costs in 2012 would be much higher. This amendment prevents the billions of dollars that Nevada taxpayers pay for school construction and bond debt service from being counted in "annual per-pupil expenditures." This is unfair to Nevada taxpayers, who spend more for new schools than taxpayers in almost any other state in the nation-about twice the national average for both construction and debt service.
Approval of this measure would actually delay needed reforms to Nevada K-12 education. It would pour huge new taxpayer resources into the current wasteful system without requiring any new levels of performance, productivity or accountability. It would strengthen the hold on the system of the bureaucrats and unions who continually block the reforms that parents and teachers desire. This proposal will damage the ability of Nevada citizens to direct the education of their children. It does this by writing into the state constitution a blank-check commitment to whatever set of accounting definitions happen to be selected by federal government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Nevada voters will have to amend the state constitution to adjust these funding formulas. The proposal would also take even more of school funding decisions out of local hands. A "national average" approach is an extremely poor basis upon which to make important public policy decisions. The whole reason that Nevada has local school boards is because local needs are critically important and differ significantly. This measure would create a treadmill with no "off" switch for taxpayers. Yet it promises no improvement for Nevada students.
Vote NO on this proposed constitutional amendment.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 2
Revenue from tourism and businesses operating in the state generate the majority of tax dollars. Residents of Nevada contribute to education funding primarily through sales tax. Nevadans may well be called upon to pay more taxes if this amendment is approved, although it is misleading to suggest that this cost will be borne entirely or primarily by Nevada families.
Through the No Child Left Behind law and other legislation, the federal government and the Nevada Legislature have imposed strict accountability requirements on the public schools. But they have not provided the money needed to meet those standards, and this amendment will help fill that gap.
Nevada taxpayers spend more for new schools because we build more new schools than almost any other state in the nation. Unfortunately, we are failing to provide basic needs such as textbooks and technology.
There is no proof that the current system in Nevada is wasteful and if the public is paying for these increased costs, than the public will have a say in how the money is spent by communicating their priorities to their legislators. Additional funds can only improve a currently underfunded system.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Yes.
Because the average annual per-pupil expenditure of Nevada is currently lower than the national average annual per-pupil expenditure, it is likely the proposal would result in significant increases in the expenditures necessary to support public elementary and secondary schools in Nevada.
Using the latest projections of the national average per-pupil expenditures provided by the National Center for Education Statistics and projections of the average annual per-pupil expenditure of Nevada, it is possible to estimate the cost the proposal would have had for the current fiscal year if the proposal had been in effect. If the proposal were in effect for this fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2004-2005), the difference in the national average and the Nevada average per-pupil expenditures could be approximately $1,700 per pupil. Based on this projected difference, the cost to increase Nevada's average per-pupil expenditures to the national average in Fiscal Year 2004-2005 would have been approximately $681 million, which would have been an increase of approximately 25 percent from the projected Fiscal Year 2004-2005 expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in Nevada.
It is important to note that the proposal does not require Nevada average per-pupil expenditures to be equal to or greater than the national average per-pupil expenditures until the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2012 (Fiscal Year 2012-2013). The impact the proposal would have in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 depends on the extent to which Nevada's average per-pupil expenditures are below the national average at that time and, if Nevada's average per-pupil expenditures are below the national average at that time, the number of students enrolled in Nevada public schools at that time. Due to these variables, the financial impact of the proposal in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 cannot be determined with any level of certainty.
•••
Before Supreme Court Ruling
QUESTION #3
Shall Title 1 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing attorneys, and Title 3 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing actions for medical or dental malpractice and damage awards, be amended to limit attorney's fees and damages which a plaintiff may recover in an action regarding professional negligence?
EXPLANATION
If passed, the proposal would limit attorney's fees in actions against providers of health care based upon professional negligence. Professional negligence means a negligent act, or omission not to act, by a provider of health care that is the proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death. The proposal also would limit noneconomic damages, which are damages to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, and disfigurement, to $350,000. Further, joint and several liability of a provider of health care based upon professional negligence would be repealed. This means that a health care provider would only be liable to a plaintiff for that portion of a damage award which represents the percentage of negligence attributable to that particular health care provider, and not liable for the percentage of negligence attributable to another health care provider. The proposal also revises the statute of limitations for the filing of actions. The requirement that a lawsuit for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be filed more than 3 years after the date of injury remains in State law, but the provision that a plaintiff may file an action two years after the person discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury is changed to one year. The proposal also would allow a defendant to introduce into evidence benefits payable to the plaintiff, including those as a result of the injury or death, and makes changes to how damages are paid, including future damages. These damages include future medical treatment, care, loss of future earnings, loss of bodily function, or future pain and suffering, and periodic payments.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 3 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 3
Physicians continue to leave Nevada, and medical malpractice insurers continue to pull out of the Nevada market, at an alarming rate despite the medical malpractice litigation reforms passed by the Nevada legislature in 2002. Why? Because the 2002 legislation does not provide enough specific protection for doctors and their insurers from astronomical jury verdicts, making it impossible to plan for the challenges associated with practicing medicine. As a result, some Nevada doctors pay more than double for liability insurance compared to doctors in Los Angeles. (AMA press release, March 17, 2004). What does this mean to your doctors? They are having difficulty keeping their practices open. What does this mean to you? When you need a doctor, you may have difficulty finding one.
The Keep Our Doctors In Nevada (KODIN) initiative provides several protections to doctors, patients, and their insurers, while still allowing people who have genuinely been injured as a result of physician negligence to recover economic losses. First, KODIN ensures that a higher percentage of an award in a medical malpractice case goes to the injured person, not to attorneys. Second, KODIN provides that, if multiple health care providers are found at fault in a malpractice case, each provider is only responsible for payment of her own share of liability and can't be forced to pay anyone else's share. Third, KODIN stops "double-dipping" by informing juries if plaintiffs are receiving money from other sources for the same injury. Fourth, KODIN allows a health care provider who has been found negligent to make payments to the injured plaintiff over a scheduled period of time instead of all at once. Finally, KODIN sets a $350,000 limit on the amount a medical malpractice plaintiff can recover for noneconomic damages, like "pain and suffering." KODIN will help stabilize medical malpractice premiums-and help your doctor stay in Nevada.
According to the AMA, Nevada is among a dozen states facing a "full-blown medical liability crisis." KODIN will stabilize Nevada's health care crisis and provide protection for both doctors and patients.
If passed, this initiative will have no impact on the environment. The committee has not identified any fiscal impact on the state budget. The health, safety, and welfare of the public will be improved because physicians of all specialties will be more likely to stay in Nevada to practice medicine.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 3
The Truth:
1. Doctors are not leaving Nevada. In the last 3 years, the State of Nevada has licensed 1,112 new doctors and 355 of those were licensed in the last 8 months! The number of doctors actively practicing in Nevada actually increased each year, including the number of OB/GYNs.
2. Reform of insurance laws is the only way to reduce doctors' insurance rates.
3. The initiative is unfair to patients and victims of malpractice:
* $350,000 is not fair compensation for being paralyzed, brain damaged, or killed by medical negligence.
* It is not fair to make the patient, or taxpayers through Medicaid, pay the cost of medical care for injuries caused by medical malpractice.
* It is not fair for insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers to make a patient wait years for money they are owed.
* It is not fair to tell the jury about the patient's insurance coverage, but not about the doctor's malpractice insurance. Current law already prevents "double-dipping."
* It is not fair to limit the fees for lawyers representing patients/victims of malpractice while allowing unlimited fees for lawyers representing doctors and insurance companies.
Protect your rights from being sacrificed for insurance companies and negligent doctors! Vote NO!!
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 3
If you or a family member are injured by medical malpractice, are you ready to limit your legal rights and access to the courts?
Are you ready to give insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers broad, new and unfair legal protections that would allow them to escape responsibility for injuries to you and your family?
As a taxpayer, are you ready to pay the costs of treating patients who are the victims of medical malpractice, while letting negligent healthcare providers and their insurance companies walk away from their responsibilities? If your answer to these questions is NO, then you should vote NO on Question 3 - because Question 3 substantially limits your current rights if you or a family member are injured by medical malpractice.
It's time to look at the facts:
Question 3 does nothing to solve the problem of high insurance rates.
Insurance rate reduction and reform of insurance laws are the only way to control the cost of insurance to doctors and patients.
Two years ago, the Nevada Legislature passed tort reform laws to put limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits, including a cap of $350,000 for pain and suffering awards, yet insurance companies have still not reduced doctors' insurance rates.
The insurance industry admits that tort reform measures have not resulted in lower premiums. While doctors have threatened to leave the state in order to persuade consumers to give up their legal rights, there are actually more doctors in Nevada than ever before. There were 335 new doctors licensed in Nevada between 1999 and 2002. A 2004 report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that many reported reductions in the supply of doctors around the country could not be proven.
This initiative shifts the costs of treating injuries caused by medical malpractice to the taxpayers and away from insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers. Healthcare consumers who suffer serious injuries and cannot work or afford to pay their medical bills will have to resort to Medicaid to pay for their care which is funded by taxpayer dollars.
Negligent healthcare providers and their insurance companies should pay for their mistakes, not taxpayers.
Don't give away your legal rights! Vote NO on Question 3.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 3
KODIN's opponents are incorrect in arguing that KODIN "shifts the cost of treating injuries caused by medical malpractice to the taxpayers." You don't give up the legal right to be compensated for your injuries if you vote YES on KODIN. Nothing in KODIN changes the rights of injured people to be compensated by negligent healthcare providers for their economic damages-their past and future medical bills, their time off work, their expected reduction in future income. KODIN only limits noneconomic damages, like those for "pain and suffering," to $350,000. KODIN also provides that, if a malpractice plaintiff has already undergone medical treatment paid for by a third party (like a health insurer), the jury can be told about those payments and use that information in deciding what to award to the plaintiff. Currently, Nevada law forbids attorneys from mentioning this information to the jury. This is unfair to defendants when a jury uses the plaintiff's medical expenses as a factor in determining the damages it awards, but the plaintiff may not have paid some or all of the bills. In conclusion, KODIN is a common-sense measure that protects injured people and their doctors, too.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Cannot be determined.
Although the portion of the proposal that would eliminate joint and several liability for providers of health care could potentially impact the State of Nevada's ability to recoup Medicaid costs, the amount of the reduction in recouped costs cannot be determined. Although the amount of the reduction cannot be determined with any level of certainty, it would appear that the reduction would not be a significant portion of the State's Medicaid budget, which is approximately $1.1 billion annually.
•••
Following Supreme Court Decision
QUESTION 3
Shall Title 1 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing attorneys, and Title 3 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing actions for medical or dental malpractice and damage awards, be amended to limit the fees an attorney could charge a person seeking damages against a negligent provider of health care in medical malpractice actions, limit the amount of noneconomic damages a person may recover from a negligent provider of health care in medical malpractice actions, eliminate joint liability of providers of health care in medical malpractice actions, shorten the statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions, prohibit third parties who provided benefits as a result of medical malpractice from recovering such benefits from a negligent provider of health care, and allow negligent providers of health care to make periodic payments of future damages?
EXPLANATION
If passed, the proposal would limit the fees an attorney could charge a person seeking damages against a negligent provider of health care in a medical malpractice action. Professional negligence means a negligent act, or omission to act, by a provider of health care that is the proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death. A provider of health care means a physician licensed under Chapters 630 and 633 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, a dentist, licensed nurse, dispensing optician, optometrist, registered physical therapist, podiatric physician, licensed psychologist, chiropractor, doctor of Oriental medicine, medical laboratory director or technician, or a licensed hospital and its employees. The law currently provides that a person seeking damages in a medical malpractice action is limited to recovering $350,000 in noneconomic damages from each defendant, with two exceptions. Noneconomic damages is money paid to the injured person to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, and disfigurement, while economic damages is money paid to compensate for the injured person's medical treatment, care or custody, loss of earning and loss of earning capacity. The two current exceptions to the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages allow an injured person to receive more than $350,000 if: (1) the wrongdoer committed gross malpractice, or (2) exceptional circumstances justify an award in excess of the cap. The proposal, if passed, would remove the two statutory exceptions to the existing $350,000 cap, and limit the recovery of noneconomic damages to $350,000 per action. Currently, damages that an injured person is allowed to recover in a medical malpractice action may be reduced by benefits the person received from a third party, such as Medicaid, private insurance, or workers' compensation. If passed, the proposal would not change the reduction of the injured person's damages, but the third parties would no longer be permitted to recover from the wrongdoer the expenses they have paid on behalf of a medical malpractice victim. One effect of this provision could be an increased burden on the state Medicaid fund, which consists of taxpayer dollars. Current law provides that each one of multiple defendants in medical malpractice actions is severally, but not jointly liable for noneconomic damages. This means that a single defendant among multiple defendants in a medical malpractice action is required to pay the injured person only the share of noneconomic damages attributable to that defendant's wrongful conduct and would not have to pay the share attributable to the wrongful conduct of another defendant. However, the current law treats economic damages differently, and provides that each defendant is not only severally liable, but also jointly liable for payment of economic damages; a defendant that is jointly liable could be required to pay the injured person for not only his wrongful conduct, but also for the wrongful conduct of all other defendants. The proposal, if passed, would change the current law by repealing joint and several liability for economic damages and treat liability for recovery of economic damages in medical malpractice cases the same as for noneconomic damages, such that defendants are only severally, but not jointly liable. This imposes the risk of nonpayment to the injured party if a defendant is not able to pay his percentage of damages, such as when that defendant has insufficient insurance or assets to pay his share. The proposal also revises the statute of limitations for the filing of actions. The current law that requires an injured person to file a medical malpractice lawsuit within 3 years of the date of injury remains unchanged. The current law also provides that if the injury was not immediately apparent, the injured person has 2 years from the time the person discovers or should have discovered the injury to file the lawsuit. The proposal would reduce this time from 2 years to 1 year. Finally, the proposal would make changes to how certain damages are paid by health care providers who have been found negligent, and provides for other matters properly related thereto. It requires that when an award equals or exceeds $50,000 in future damages, the court must allow the same to be paid in periodic payments instead of a lump sum, if requested by either party.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 3 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 3
Physicians continue to leave Nevada, and medical malpractice insurers continue to pull out of the Nevada market, at an alarming rate despite the medical malpractice litigation reforms passed by the Nevada legislature in 2002. Why? Because the 2002 legislation does not provide enough specific protection for doctors and their insurers from astronomical jury verdicts, making it impossible to plan for the challenges associated with practicing medicine. As a result, some Nevada doctors pay more than double for liability insurance compared to doctors in Los Angeles. (AMA press release, March 17, 2004). What does this mean to your doctors? They are having difficulty keeping their practices open. What does this mean to you? When you need a doctor, you may have difficulty finding one.
The Keep Our Doctors In Nevada (KODIN) initiative provides several protections to doctors, patients, and their insurers, while still allowing people who have genuinely been injured as a result of physician negligence to recover economic losses. First, KODIN ensures that a higher percentage of an award in a medical malpractice case goes to the injured person, not to attorneys. Second, KODIN provides that, if multiple health care providers are found at fault in a malpractice case, each provider is only responsible for payment of her own share of liability and can't be forced to pay anyone else's share. Third, KODIN stops "double-dipping" by informing juries if plaintiffs are receiving money from other sources for the same injury. Fourth, KODIN allows a health care provider who has been found negligent to make payments to the injured plaintiff over a scheduled period of time instead of all at once. Finally, KODIN sets a $350,000 limit on the amount a medical malpractice plaintiff can recover for noneconomic damages, like "pain and suffering." KODIN will help stabilize medical malpractice premiums-and help your doctor stay in Nevada.
According to the AMA, Nevada is among a dozen states facing a "full-blown medical liability crisis." KODIN will stabilize Nevada's health care crisis and provide protection for both doctors and patients.
If passed, this initiative will have no impact on the environment. The committee has not identified any fiscal impact on the state budget. The health, safety, and welfare of the public will be improved because physicians of all specialties will be more likely to stay in Nevada to practice medicine.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 3
The Truth:
1. Doctors are not leaving Nevada. In the last 3 years, the State of Nevada has licensed 1,112 new doctors and 355 of those were licensed in the last 8 months! The number of doctors actively practicing in Nevada actually increased each year, including the number of OB/GYNs.
2. Reform of insurance laws is the only way to reduce doctors' insurance rates.
3. The initiative is unfair to patients and victims of malpractice:
* $350,000 is not fair compensation for being paralyzed, brain damaged, or killed by medical negligence.
* It is not fair to make the patient, or taxpayers through Medicaid, pay the cost of medical care for injuries caused by medical malpractice.
* It is not fair for insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers to make a patient wait years for money they are owed.
* It is not fair to tell the jury about the patient's insurance coverage, but not about the doctor's malpractice insurance. Current law already prevents "double-dipping."
* It is not fair to limit the fees for lawyers representing patients/victims of malpractice while allowing unlimited fees for lawyers representing doctors and insurance companies.
Protect your rights from being sacrificed for insurance companies and negligent doctors! Vote NO!!
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 3
If you or a family member are injured by medical malpractice, are you ready to limit your legal rights and access to the courts?
Are you ready to give insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers broad, new and unfair legal protections that would allow them to escape responsibility for injuries to you and your family?
As a taxpayer, are you ready to pay the costs of treating patients who are the victims of medical malpractice, while letting negligent healthcare providers and their insurance companies walk away from their responsibilities? If your answer to these questions is NO, then you should vote NO on Question 3 - because Question 3 substantially limits your current rights if you or a family member are injured by medical malpractice.
It's time to look at the facts:
Question 3 does nothing to solve the problem of high insurance rates.
Insurance rate reduction and reform of insurance laws are the only way to control the cost of insurance to doctors and patients.
Two years ago, the Nevada Legislature passed tort reform laws to put limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits, including a cap of $350,000 for pain and suffering awards, yet insurance companies have still not reduced doctors' insurance rates.
The insurance industry admits that tort reform measures have not resulted in lower premiums. While doctors have threatened to leave the state in order to persuade consumers to give up their legal rights, there are actually more doctors in Nevada than ever before. There were 335 new doctors licensed in Nevada between 1999 and 2002. A 2004 report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that many reported reductions in the supply of doctors around the country could not be proven.
This initiative shifts the costs of treating injuries caused by medical malpractice to the taxpayers and away from insurance companies and negligent healthcare providers. Healthcare consumers who suffer serious injuries and cannot work or afford to pay their medical bills will have to resort to Medicaid to pay for their care which is funded by taxpayer dollars.
Negligent healthcare providers and their insurance companies should pay for their mistakes, not taxpayers.
Don't give away your legal rights! Vote NO on Question 3.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 3
KODIN's opponents are incorrect in arguing that KODIN "shifts the cost of treating injuries caused by medical malpractice to the taxpayers." You don't give up the legal right to be compensated for your injuries if you vote YES on KODIN. Nothing in KODIN changes the rights of injured people to be compensated by negligent healthcare providers for their economic damages-their past and future medical bills, their time off work, their expected reduction in future income. KODIN only limits noneconomic damages, like those for "pain and suffering," to $350,000. KODIN also provides that, if a malpractice plaintiff has already undergone medical treatment paid for by a third party (like a health insurer), the jury can be told about those payments and use that information in deciding what to award to the plaintiff. Currently, Nevada law forbids attorneys from mentioning this information to the jury. This is unfair to defendants when a jury uses the plaintiff's medical expenses as a factor in determining the damages it awards, but the plaintiff may not have paid some or all of the bills. In conclusion, KODIN is a common-sense measure that protects injured people and their doctors, too.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Cannot be determined.
Although the portion of the proposal that would eliminate joint and several liability for providers of health care could potentially impact the State of Nevada's ability to recoup Medicaid costs, the amount of the reduction in recouped costs cannot be determined. Although the amount of the reduction cannot be determined with any level of certainty, it would appear that the reduction would not be a significant portion of the State's Medicaid budget, which is approximately $1.1 billion annually.
•••
QUESTION #4
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to add provisions governing insurance rates and practices in Nevada?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new Article of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment requires that: premiums charged for casualty insurance be rolled back to the amount charged on December 1, 2005, and reduced an additional 20%; insurers justify future rate increases to ensure rates are maintained at fair levels; insurers be subject to all laws applicable generally to other Nevada businesses, including consumer protection and antitrust; motor vehicle insurers provide a 20% good driver discount; any statute in effect on December 1, 2006 which limits compensation provided by juries to victims of medical negligence by certain health care providers are void unless insurance companies lower malpractice premiums as a result of such limitations; the Governor appoint an Insurance Commissioner for oversight and regulation of the industry, and; one or more persons be appointed to represent the interests of the Nevada public related to insurance.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 4 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 4
End excessive and unfair insurance rates.
If you're fed up with paying some of the highest insurance premiums in the country, now you can finally do something about it! Vote "YES" on Question 4 to bring your insurance rates back down to earth.
Question 4 was carefully drafted by experts. The same reforms have slashed rates in other states. Right next door in California, voters got $1.2 billion in premium refunds when they passed insurance reform in 1988. The average refund check was $171. The average automobile insurance premium actually dropped 22% between 1988 and 2001. Here in Nevada, it skyrocketed 37%! California's initiative has saved motorists over $23 billion, according to the Consumer Federation of America.
Consumers like you put Question 4 on the ballot to end excessive and unfair insurance rates. Insurance company lobbyists are simply too influential for politicians to take action on this issue so it's time for us consumers to take matters into our own hands.
Question 4 will save every consumer hundreds of dollars each year on insurance premiums. It will:
1. Cut automobile, homeowner and business insurance premiums by 20% and freeze them at the lower rate for one year.
2. Give safe drivers an additional, permanent 20% Good Driver Discount.
3. Force insurance companies to open their books to justify rate increases before they take effect.
4. Stop overcharging, waste and fraud in the insurance system that eat up over twenty five cents of every premium dollar you pay.
5. Force insurance companies to compete by eliminating their unfair exemption from the antitrust laws.
6. Require insurance companies to obey Nevada's consumer protection laws.
This law will even help keep our doctors in Nevada by making sure the insurance industry doesn't rip off Nevada's doctors, hospitals and patients. Limits on patients' legal rights were enacted two years ago to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. The insurance companies still haven't reduced the doctors' insurance rates. This law says they have to do so or the limits will be removed.
Best of all, Question #4 will cost taxpayers nothing. It requires insurance companies to pay a fee to cover its costs. And, by lowering the price of insurance, cities and counties will save taxpayers' money.
Beware of false advertising. The insurance companies will spend millions to defeat this initiative. Read the initiative and make your own decisions. Vote YES on Question 4.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 4
Personal injury attorneys are using the phony promise of insurance reform to repeal laws that helped keep doctors from leaving Nevada because of frivolous lawsuits.
Consumers ultimately pay the cost of unnecessary lawsuits and exorbitant legal fees when we pay our health insurance premiums. As those premiums increase, employers are forced to increase out-of-pocket costs, cut wages or drop coverage for their employees.
When the cost of medical malpractice insurance becomes intolerable, physicians move where they can afford to practice. OB-GYN and emergency room doctors are especially vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits, so women and trauma victims are the first to suffer from a doctor shortage.
That's what happened before, and that's what we can expect again if Question 4 passes. If personal injury lawyers really want to help doctors and small business, why would the Nevada State Medical Association, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and other groups oppose Question 4?
Question 4 is a cynical attempt to deceive voters into repealing sensible medical malpractice reforms. This proposal would add nearly 2,000 words to the Nevada Constitution and bypass public debate and scrutiny by Nevada's citizen legislature. Vote NO on Question 4!
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 4
Question 4 will not lower insurance rates. Federal courts declared a similar insurance rollback in Nevada unconstitutional.
Even though insurance rates would not be reduced, one part of this amendment would negatively impact the availability of healthcare. Buried deep inside Question 4 is language intended to wipe out reforms that were enacted to keep doctors in Nevada and protect our access to health care.
The purpose of Question 4 is clearly spelled out in a Nevada Trial Lawyers Association letter dated March 8, 2004, which states they wrote this Initiative, "…building a constitutional wall against (Question 3's medical malpractice reforms for) this election…"
This is a deceptive trick by personal injury lawyers. They know voters would not knowingly prohibit reforms to limit frivolous lawsuits, so the lawyers stuck that provision into this "insurance" question.
It wasn't that long ago when trauma centers closed and doctors were leaving Nevada. Emergency services were cut. Women's health was compromised by an exodus of OB-GYN specialists.
High malpractice insurance costs mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. Employers are forced to increase out-of-pocket costs that their employees pay, while some drop coverage altogether. Insurance for those who pay for it themselves becomes unaffordable.
That's what we can expect if the reforms passed by the Legislature in 2002 are repealed by Question 4.
Question 4 also creates a huge new state bureaucracy. Insurance companies are supposed to pay fees to support the new bureaucrats, but nothing in Question 4 prevents them from passing on those costs to consumers. California passed a similar regulatory scheme and the size of its Department of Insurance grew over 500 percent. The last thing Nevada needs is more bureaucrats!
It is wrong to clutter Nevada's Constitution with a hodge-podge of provisions such as these. With approximately 2,000 words, Question 4 is the longest constitutional amendment in Nevada history. It has not been subject to thorough public debate and scrutiny in the way that most laws are.
Any mistakes or unintended consequences of Question 4 will be locked into our constitution where not even the governor or legislature can fix them.
Insurance reform is not the real objective of the personal injury lawyers backing Question 4. Killing common sense legal reform is their objective. Stop personal injury lawyers from using the Nevada Constitution to line their own pockets at the expense of Nevada consumers. Vote NO on Question 4.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 4
The greedy insurance companies don't want you to vote for Question 4. The reason is simple: Question 4 will force these East Coast corporations to lower your insurance rates by 20%.
Question 4 is based on reforms passed by California voters sixteen years ago and upheld by the courts as constitutional - reforms that have saved every Californian thousands of dollars.
Question 4 will lower the cost of health care in Nevada. The California law forced insurers to refund over $75 million to doctors. It blocked $45.6 million in rate increases for physicians and hospitals last year alone.
Question 4 also reinforces the malpractice caps passed by our legislature. It will force the insurance companies to return money that belongs to doctors or patients.
No new government bureaucracy will be necessary - none. Just a new set of rules that create a competitive marketplace and prohibit insurance companies from charging excessive rates. Question 4 won't cost taxpayers anything.
Question 4 was put on the ballot by Nevadans fed up with excessive insurance rates. Don't buy the insurance industry's lies - they're designed to protect the insurance industry's excessive profits that cost us all.
Please vote YES on Question 4.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Yes.
If the proposal is approved, holders of casualty insurance policies could see their premiums reduced by 20 percent beginning December 1, 2006. Holders of automobile insurance policies who qualify for a good driver discount may also see their premiums reduced by an additional 20 percent beginning December 1, 2006. Because approval of the proposal could result in a decrease in insurance premiums, the proposal could result in a significant loss of revenues received by the State from the Insurance Premium Tax. If the proposal has the intended impact on insurance premiums, revenues from the Insurance Premium Tax could be reduced by approximately $40 million in the first full fiscal year after the mandatory reductions in premiums go into effect (Fiscal Year 2007-2008). This compares to Insurance Premium Tax collections of approximately $194 million in Fiscal Year 2003-2004.
The proposal would also place additional duties on the Division of Insurance of the Department of Business and Industry. The increased duties of the Division would include: reviewing and approving rate filings for casualty insurance; levying and collecting an assessment on insurers to cover the costs of the proposal; and determining whether recently imposed medical malpractice damage limitations have reduced medical malpractice claims and medical malpractice premiums. Additionally, the proposal would require the Legislature to provide by law for the appointment of one or more persons to represent the interests of the public related to insurance. The new duties set forth in the proposal would result in significant increases in personnel and operating expenses for the Division and in increased state expenses for the new positions representing the interest of the public related to insurance. Although the proposal provides that these increased expenses would be funded through a fee upon each insurer that conducts business in this State, the cost of the fee could possibly be passed on to policy holders through increased premiums once the rates are allowed to increase under the terms of the proposal.
•••
QUESTION #5
STOP FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to penalize lawyers willfully involved in vexatious and frivolous litigation, and to prohibit certain changes to limits on recovery of monetary damages?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment provides that a lawyer willfully involved in vexatious and frivolous litigation is personally responsible for attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses of an aggrieved party, in addition to any other sanction that may be imposed. "Vexatious and frivolous" means filing or defending a lawsuit solely to harass the opposing party or to seek economic gain unrelated to the merits of the lawsuit. The amendment also voids any changes made to Nevada law between January 1, 2004, and December 1, 2006, that decrease the dollar amount of damages persons may recover for losses and harm caused to them as a result of the negligent or wrongful conduct of another person. The amendment does not prohibit the Legislature from: (1) increasing the amount of monetary damages a person may recover caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of another; or (2) repealing laws which limit damages. Any other changes to such laws are deemed void.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 5 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 5
For years, insurance companies have said that "frivolous lawsuits" cost consumers astronomical increases in their insurance premiums. Solution? Stop frivolous lawsuits. A "YES" vote on Question 5 will do just that. Vote "YES" on Question 5 and the Nevada Constitution will be amended to hold the lawyers and corporations who file frivolous lawsuits directly responsible for the financial cost of their unfounded lawsuits.
By directly punishing the lawyer or corporation responsible for actually filing the lawsuit, two things are accomplished: (1) the real cost burden is placed on the party truly responsible for the frivolous lawsuit - the lawyer or corporation, and (2) imposing these financial burdens on the responsible parties will publicly discourage other lawyers and corporations from pursuing other frivolous lawsuits.
As a result of passing Question 5, the insurance companies will not have to pay for frivolous suits against them and their clients and the savings will be realized in reduced premiums for consumers.
Question 5 provides that any lawyer who knowingly participates in perpetuating a frivolous lawsuit or defending a lawsuit for frivolous reasons will be held personally liable for the attorney fees, court costs and expenses incurred by the other side in defending against that vexatious or frivolous lawsuit.
Question 5 also makes it clear that every citizen will continue to have the right to pursue real, legitimate claims. Individuals should not be restricted or curtailed in any way to pursue their legitimate claims.
Just as an insurance company has a right to file legitimate claims, so should individuals. Just as an insurance company has a right to hire any attorney they want to hire, so should any citizen have that same right in order to seek justice under the law, without government interference.
These are the rights of every Nevadan and Question 5 recognizes these rights.
Question 5 is a pro-consumer measure designed to protect an individual's right to pursue legitimate claims while placing the financial responsibility for frivolous lawsuits directly and exclusively on those who pursue frivolous lawsuits.
Question 5 protects your rights - and the rights of all Nevadans. Vote YES on Question 5.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 5
Nevada's personal injury attorneys say they qualified Question 5 to put an end to frivolous lawsuits.
Who do they think they're kidding? They're the ones who FILE frivolous lawsuits!
Lawyers collect nearly one-half of all the money awarded in lawsuits, which explains why there are so many frivolous suits. Question 5 would prevent the legislature from ever correcting this injustice. Question 5 also prohibits judges from reducing outrageous jury awards or cutting attorneys' fees to make sure the victim's lawyer doesn't walk off with more money than an injured party.
Existing law already allows judges to punish attorneys for bringing frivolous lawsuits. This proposal would actually make it easier for attorneys to file these lawsuits because it makes it harder for a judge to declare them frivolous.
Nevada has been plagued with a host of problems related to unnecessary lawsuits against contractors, cities, counties, schools, non-profit organizations, nursing homes, hospitals and doctors. Question 5 was put on the ballot to stop lawmakers from doing their job of preventing consumers and taxpayers from being gouged by frivolous lawsuits.
Don't use our constitution to give lawyers a blank check. Vote NO on Question 5.
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 5
Nearly one-half of the money awarded in lawsuits goes to pay lawyers and legal expenses. Question 5 locks this unfair practice into the Nevada constitution, preventing the legislature from ever limiting excessive attorneys' fees or court awards. Personal injury lawyers win. Consumers lose.
Do personal injury attorneys really expect voters to believe they paid to put Question 5 on the ballot because it will limit frivolous lawsuits?
Question 5 does exactly the opposite. It encourages frivolous lawsuits because it adds a provision to the constitution that only cases determined to be 100% frivolous are subject to sanctions. A lawyer cannot be sanctioned for filing a lawsuit that is only 95% frivolous.
Isn't it just like the personal injury lawyers to write something that does the opposite of what they claim?
Here are the facts about Question 5:
Legal fees and jury awards have driven the cost of malpractice insurance in Nevada to among the highest in the nation. As a result, doctors have left the state, and Nevada ranks near the bottom nationally in number of doctors per resident. This shortage will grow as our population grows. With fewer healthcare providers, people cannot get medical treatment they need.
Higher medical malpractice costs mean higher healthcare costs for everyone. Fewer employers will be able to provide healthcare coverage to their employees; out-of-pocket costs for employees increase; fewer people will be able to afford coverage for themselves.
What's the real reason personal injury attorneys put Question 5 on the ballot? In 2002, the state legislature capped the fees that attorneys can collect in medical malpractice cases. To make certain their hefty fees are never limited, personal injury lawyers qualified Question 5 for the ballot.
Question 5 also prohibits judges from reducing grossly inflated jury awards or attorneys' fees. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling coffee in her lap? If Question 5 becomes part of our constitution, there would be nothing a judge could do to reduce outrageous awards or excessive attorneys' fees. If Question 5 becomes part of our constitution, lawyers can walk away with more money than the person for whom the award was intended.
Lawsuits already cost each and every Nevadan $809 per year. Question 5 will result in fewer doctors, higher healthcare costs, less access to healthcare, more lawsuits and higher attorney fees. It has no place in the Nevada Constitution. Vote NO on Question 5.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 5
Why are the big East Coast insurance companies and other special interests lying about Question 5?
Because they don't want a fair and impartial system of justice.
They want to take away your right to protect yourself when they rip you off.
Example: If you have fire damage to your home, and your insurance company "low-balls" you by refusing to pay in full, you can take your insurer to court and a jury can order the company to pay. But insurance companies say that such lawsuits are "frivolous." They are lobbying the politicians to eliminate your legal rights -- -- even your right to hire a lawyer!
Question 5 improves Nevada's legal system by punishing bad lawyers and truly frivolous lawsuits. But it also preserves your right to bring a legitimate case before a jury - a right that's been in the State Constitution since 1864.
Question 5 safeguards your right to:
Hire an attorney without interference from the government;
A fair trial before a jury of your fellow citizens;
Full compensation for injuries cause by negligent corporations and individuals.
Defend Nevada's Constitution against the greedy special interests. Please vote YES on Question 5.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Cannot be determined.
Although the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would provide that a lawyer willfully involved in vexatious and frivolous litigation is personally responsible for attorney's fees, court costs and expenses of the aggrieved party, the financial impacts, if any, of this proposal on a particular individual or business willfully involved in vexatious and frivolous litigation cannot be determined.
•••
QUESTION #6
RAISE MINIMUM WAGE
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to raise the minimum wage paid to employees?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would require employers to pay Nevada employees $5.15 per hour worked if the employer provides health benefits, or $6.15 per hour worked if the employer does not provide health benefits. The rates shall be adjusted by the amount of increases in the federal minimum wage over $5.15 per hour, or, if greater, by the cumulative increase in the cost of living measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with no CPI adjustment for any one-year period greater than 3%.
The following arguments for and against and rebuttals for Question 6 were prepared by a committee as required by NRS 293.252.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 6
All Nevadans will benefit from a long-overdue increase in the state's minimum wage through a more robust economy, a decreased taxpayer burden and stronger families.
Low-income workers who do not currently earn enough to cover the basic costs of living for their families - housing, health care, food and child care - will clearly benefit. Many low-income Nevada families live in poverty even though they have full-time jobs. A Nevada worker at the current minimum wage for 40 hours per-week - every week, all year - makes only $10,712. If the minimum wage had been increased to keep up with rising prices over the last 25 years, it would now bring in $15,431 per-year - not $10,712. At the current $5.15 an hour, many minimum wage workers in Nevada have incomes below the federal poverty line. We want to encourage people to work and be productive members of society. It's economic common sense.
Taxpayers will benefit as an increased minimum wage allows low-income working families to become more financially able to free themselves from costly taxpayer-provided services such as welfare, childcare and public health services.
Our state's economy will benefit as we develop a workforce that will earn more spendable income and put dollars directly into local stores and businesses.
Raising the minimum wage one dollar affirms Nevadan's beliefs that we value work, especially the difficult jobs performed by nursing home employees, childcare workers, and restaurant employees.
Minimum wage workers are not just teenagers working part-time to pay for movies, CDs and fast food. The vast majority of minimum wage workers in Nevada are adults (79% are 20 and older). Most work full-time. Six out of 10 minimum wage earners are women. Twenty-five percent are single mothers. And altogether they are the parents of 25,000 children. The paycheck these workers bring home accounts for about half of their families' earnings.
No matter what special interests and big corporations who oppose a fair minimum wage tell you, virtually every reputable economic study has found that workers don't get fired when minimum wages are passed or increased. In fact, employment increases. Eight of the eleven states that had a minimum wage above the federal level in 2003 are producing more jobs than the United States as a whole.
Raising the minimum wage makes sense for all of Nevada. Cast a vote for Nevada working people, Nevada taxpayers, Nevada values and a stronger Nevada economy.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF QUESTION NO. 6
Contrary to claims by those eager to change Nevada's constitution, the most credible economic research for over 30 years has shown that minimum wage hikes hurt, rather than help, low-wage workers.
A recent example is the study, The Effects of Minimum Wages Throughout the Wage Distribution, by David Neumark, National Bureau of Economic Research; Mark Schweitzer, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; and William Wascher, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - Division of Research and Statistics: "The evidence indicates that workers initially earning near the minimum wage are adversely affected by minimum wage increases…. Although wages of low-wage workers increase, their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes is a decline in earned income." National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 7519, 5/8/2000. The same year, Stanford University's Thomas MaCurdy & Frank McIntyre showed that the effect of a minimum wage increase is very similar to a "sales tax levied only on selective commodities" and conclude: "… three in four of the poorest workers lose from shouldering the costs of higher prices resulting from the wage increase. When these benefits and costs are considered, the minimum wage is ineffective as an anti-poverty policy."
ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 6
This constitutional amendment would actually increase poverty in Nevada, rather than fight it. Suffering the most would be single mothers with little education, and other unskilled workers who are just entering the job market. Today, such entry-level employees are paid not just with wages, but also the chance to learn new job skills. With those new skills-and the work habits they learn-they are able to climb the job ladder and make better lives for themselves and their families. But if government forces entry-level wages artificially higher, fewer businesses will be able to hire these unskilled workers. That's because their total cost to the company-their pay, plus their training costs-will often be greater than these workers contribute to the company. So some workers will be let go, and others will never be hired. Nevada has long been known as a state where businesses enjoy economic opportunities they cannot find elsewhere. But this constitutional amendment would end all that. It would suddenly place Nevada at a big economic disadvantage to many other states-states without these high wage requirements. Under this amendment, wages paid in Nevada must, from now on, exceed the federal minimum wage by about $1 an hour. This would seriously damage Nevada businesses-especially small mom and pop businesses, which usually have fewer resources to work with.
This proposal also would discriminate against non-union companies-which means against the great majority of small businesses in Nevada. It would give labor union officials the power, under the law, to permit union companies to hire new employees at rates below the new minimum wage. This is unfair to both companies and union members. It is also a virtual invitation to union corruption. The key to fighting poverty-and to achieving higher wages for all workers-is long-term economic growth. Artificially higher wages imposed by government will only obstruct such growth. This proposed constitutional amendment should be rejected.
Fiscal impact: Negative.
Environmental impact: Neutral.
Public health, safety and welfare impact: Negative.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST QUESTION NO. 6
Raising the minimum wage in Nevada will decrease poverty as it increases people's participation in the State's economy. If increased wages actually made people poorer - as the special interests opposed to this amendment ridiculously claim - nobody in Nevada would ever ask for a raise.
Single mothers, as well as anyone else working a minimum wage job, will see an increase in their wages that will actually allow them to pay for housing, healthcare, food and childcare.
All available economic studies show that everyone wins when the minimum wage is increased. Low-income workers earn more, become less dependent on welfare and other public programs which eases the burden on taxpayers, and have more money to spend on local goods and services -- which strengthens the economy and generates more jobs.
There is nothing in the amendment to raise the minimum wage that would exempt union companies - it's a federal minimum that all companies must follow.
Raise low-income workers' wage. Spur Nevada's economic growth. Generate more buying power to support Nevada businesses. Create jobs. Move low-wage workers away from dependence on public programs and ease taxpayers' burden.
You can achieve all of these goals by voting YES on the minimum wage amendment.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Cannot be determined.
Although the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to increase the minimum wage in Nevada could result in additional costs to Nevada's businesses, the impact on a particular business would depend on the number of employees working at a wage below the new requirement, the amount by which the wages would need to be increased and any actions taken by the business to offset any increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.
The proposal would, however, result in beneficial financial impacts for employees who receive a wage increase as a result of the proposal and who are not impacted adversely by any actions taken by the business to offset the increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.
In addition, if the proposal results in an increase in annual wages paid by Nevada's employers, revenues received by the State from the imposition of the Modified Business Tax would also increase.
•••
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #3
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 71st Session
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to change the provision that prohibits an "idiot or insane person" from voting to refer instead to "a person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity" and to repeal a provision relating to the election of United States Senators by the Legislature that was made obsolete by the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution?
EXPLANATION
Currently, the Nevada Constitution provides that no "idiot or insane person" shall be entitled to vote in Nevada. The proposed amendment would change this language to provide that no person "who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity," shall be entitled to vote in Nevada. A "Yes" vote is a vote to remove language from Section 1, Article 2 of the Nevada Constitution referring to an idiot or insane person and replace it with language referring to persons who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent and not restored to legal capacity. A "No" vote is a vote to allow the language of this provision to remain unchanged.
Section 34, Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution provides that the Legislature shall elect Nevada's United States Senators in joint convention of both Houses of the Legislature. This section also states that a vacancy in the office of United States Senator must be filled by the Legislature in a joint convention. The provision was nullified in 1913 with the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides for the direct, popular election of United States Senators and the filling of vacancies in the office of United States Senator through a vote of the people. A "Yes" vote is a vote to repeal this provision. A "No" vote is a vote to allow the language of this provision to remain unchanged.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
The use of the terms "idiot" and "insane" is inaccurate and archaic and may be offensive to those individuals suffering from a brain disorder or mental illness. This terminology is no longer recognized in modern legal and medical contexts. Other States have removed this language from their Constitutions.
The second part of the question concerns the election of United States Senators through joint convention of the Legislature. This provision in the Nevada Constitution is obsolete because the election and replacement of United States Senators by direct, popular election is provided for in the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This provision in the Nevada Constitution should be removed because it is erroneous and confusing.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
Amendment of the Nevada Constitution should be a rare undertaking and constitutional language should not be changed simply to respond to uses of terminology which may be outdated or go in and out of favor over time. Although the use of the terms "idiot" and "insane" could be seen as objectionable by modern standards, the use of this language was nevertheless acceptable at the time the provision was written, and the meaning of these terms is still clear. A change to this provision may also result in the State creating a legal classification of "mentally incompetent" for the purpose of voting. This legal classification could apply to persons whose mental conditions do not affect their ability to vote.
Although the Nevada Constitution provides for a different method of electing United States Senators, the direct, popular vote of United States Senators pursuant to the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution has occurred since 1913. There is no need to repeal Section 34, Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution because that provision is obviously superseded by the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - No.
The proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would revise the terminology of certain provisions governing the right to vote and repeal provisions concerning the election of United States Senators by the Legislature. Approval of this proposal would have no adverse fiscal impact.
•••
SALES TAX
Amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 Assembly Bill No. 514 of the 72nd Session
Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to revise the exemption from the tax for the sale or use of used vehicles; to provide exemptions from the tax for the sale or use of prescription ophthalmic and ocular devices and appliances, farm machinery and other agricultural equipment, works of fine art for public display, and professional racing vehicles and parts; and to revise the exemption from the tax on the sale or use of aircraft and parts of aircraft used by commercial air carriers?
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 would exempt from the tax: (1) the value of any used vehicle taken in trade on the purchase of another vehicle and remove the exemption from the tax for occasional sales of vehicles except where such sales are between certain family members; (2) the sale or use of ophthalmic or ocular devices or appliances prescribed by a physician or optometrist; (3) the sale or use of farm machinery and equipment employed for the agricultural use of real property; (4) the sale or use of works of fine art for public display; and (5) the sale or use of engines and chassis, including replacement parts and components for the engines and chassis, of professional racing vehicles that are owned, leased or operated by professional racing teams. The proposed amendment would also revise and clarify the criteria used to determine which aircraft and parts of aircraft are exempt from the tax, including removing the requirement that an air carrier must be based in Nevada to be eligible for the exemption, and providing an exemption for certain machinery and equipment used on eligible aircraft and parts of aircraft.
The proposals set forth in the question may not be voted upon individually. The exemptions and other provisions listed in the above explanation apply to the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level (currently between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent), but do not apply to the portion that is distributed at the State level (2 percent). (See NOTE TO VOTERS on page _XX__ regarding the Streamlined Sales Tax Project and Nevada's sales tax.)
A "Yes" vote approves all of the proposals set forth in the question. The exemptions and other provisions will apply to both the local portion and the State portion of the Sales and Use Tax.
A "No" vote disapproves all of the proposals set forth in the question. The exemptions and other provisions will not apply to the local portion of the Sales and Use Tax and will be deleted from the State portion of the Sales and Use Tax.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
If this proposal is approved, all of the exemptions and other provisions listed above will be added to the State portion of the Sales and Use Tax Act provisions. The Legislature has previously enacted laws to include the exemptions and other provisions listed above in the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level. In providing these exemptions and other provisions at the local level, the Legislature determined that those exemptions and provisions served an important social and economic purpose. Therefore, these provisions should be extended to apply to the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level.
In addition, only through the passage of this proposal will those who are currently receiving the exemptions from the local portion of the Sales and Use Tax continue to receive them.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
If this proposal is not approved, the exemptions and other provisions will be deleted from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level. The revenue available for distribution at the local level, including revenue distributed for the support of local schools, may be increased.
Although the Legislature has already granted these exemptions from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level, legislation that enacted those provisions either did not require the submission of a question to the voters regarding including the identical provision in the state portion of the Sales and Use Tax, or the legislation required the submission of a question to the voters and the question was not approved.
In addition, passage of this proposal will reduce sales and tax revenues available to State government. Although State law already contains several exemptions from the Sales and Use Tax, if the reduction in revenues from exemptions becomes significant, the need to collect those revenues from other sources may result in an increased tax burden for those who are not eligible for an exemption.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact - Yes.
Regardless of the outcome of this proposal, government revenues will be impacted in some manner. According to data provided by the Department of Taxation from Fiscal Year 2003, State government revenues will likely decrease by more than $8.5 million if the proposal is approved. Conversely, if the proposal is not approved, revenues received by local governments will likely increase by more than $22.1 million.
The table below indicates the increase or decrease in revenue that could result from each of the proposals described in the above explanation:
Subject State Revenue Loss if Question is Approved Local Revenue Gain if Question is Not Approved
Motor Vehicle Trade-Ins and Occasional Sales -$6,636,000 $17,440,000
Ophthalmic or Ocular Devices -$1,338,000 $3,485,000
Farm Machinery and Equipment -$440,000 $1,013,000
Works of Fine Art for Public Display Indeterminate Indeterminate
Aircraft and Aircraft Parts and Machinery -$69,000 $171,000
Professional Racing Vehicles and Parts -$4,000 $12,000
Total -$8,487,000 $22,121,000
The impact of the question on the average voter would depend on the extent to which the voter participates in transactions affected by the proposal. An explanation of the manner in which each proposal could impact voters is set forth below:
Motor Vehicle Trade-Ins and Occasional Sales
Currently, a person who applies the trade-in value of his vehicle to the purchase of a new vehicle is required to pay the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level (2 percent) on the entire sales price of the new car without a deduction for the trade-in allowance. However, that person is authorized to deduct from the sales price the trade in allowance for the purposes of the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level (currently between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent). If the question is approved, the purchaser of a new car will be able to deduct a trade-in allowance from the sales price of the new car for the purposes of the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level and the portion that is distributed at the local level. If the question is not approved, the purchaser of a new car will be required to pay the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level and the portion that is distributed at the local level on the entire sales price of the new car without a deduction for the trade-in allowance.
Currently, the purchaser of a motor vehicle that is sold by someone who is not in the business of selling such vehicles may be exempt from the requirement to pay the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level (2 percent); however, such a purchaser would be required to pay the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level (currently between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent) unless the vehicle is a used vehicle and the sale is between certain family members. If the question is approved, occasional sales of vehicles would be exempt from the State and local portions of the Sales and Use Tax only if the vehicle is a used vehicle and the sale is between certain family members. If the question is not approved, occasional sales of vehicles would be exempt from both the State and local portions of the Sales and Use Tax regardless of whether the vehicle was used or whether the sale is between family members.
Aircraft and Aircraft Parts and Machinery
Currently, gross receipts from the sale or use of aircraft, aircraft engines or component parts of aircraft or aircraft engines and machinery, tools and other equipment and parts used to repair or remodel aircraft are exempt from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level (currently between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent). In comparison, only the gross receipts from the sale or use of aircraft and major components of aircraft are exempt from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level (2 percent). If the question is approved, the aircraft exemption would be expanded to ensure that the component parts of aircraft engines and machinery, tools and other equipment and parts used to repair or remodel aircraft are exempt from both the State and local portions of the Sales and Use Tax.
Other Proposals Set Forth in the Question
Currently, the gross receipts from the sale or the use of the following items are exempt from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level (currently between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent), but are not exempt from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the State level (2 percent):
* Ophthalmic or ocular devices or appliances prescribed by a physician or optometrist;
* Farm machinery and equipment employed for the agricultural use of real property;
* Works of fine art for public display;
and
* Engines and chassis of professional racing vehicles that are owned, leased or operated by professional racing teams.
If this question is approved, the exemption would be expanded to include the portion of the tax that is distributed at the State level and would decrease the cost of those items by 2 percent. If the question is not approved, the exemption would be eliminated from the portion of the tax that is distributed at the local level and the cost for these items would increase by between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE TO VOTERS
Streamlined Sales Tax Project
Ballot Question No. 8 seeks to simplify the state and local tax base by making it uniform as required by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The Streamlined Sales Tax Project was created by state governments throughout the United States, with input from local governments and the private sector, to standardize and modernize sales and use tax collection. The goal of streamlining the tax base is to facilitate the collection of sales and use taxes for out-of-state sales and sales over the internet and to ensure that the tax revenues that support state and local governments are not reduced as a result of an increase in such sales.
Currently, certain exemptions from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed to the State differ from the exemptions from the portion of the tax that is distributed at the local level. If Ballot Question No. 8 is approved, the exemptions from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed to the State will be amended so that they are identical to the exemptions from the portion of the tax that is distributed at the local level. If the question is not approved, the exemptions from the portion of the Sales and Use Tax that is distributed at the local level will be amended so that they are identical to the portion of the tax that is distributed to the State. Regardless of whether the question is approved or not approved, the exemptions for all portions of the Sales and Use Tax will become identical as required by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project.
Sales and Use Tax
Nevada's statewide sales tax consists of three separate parts levied at different rates on the sale and use of tangible personal property in the State. The current combined rate that applies to each county within the State is 6.50 percent. In addition to these three parts, each county also may impose additional taxes subject to the approval of the voters or governing body in that county. These additional taxes have, in nine counties, increased the rate of the sales tax above the 6.50 percent rate imposed statewide.
The tax includes:
Tax Rate
1. The State Sales and Use Tax 2.00 percent
2. The Local School Support Tax (LSST) 2.25 percent
3. The City-County Relief Tax (CCRT) 2.25 percent
4. Optional local taxes-currently not more than 1.00 percent
The State Sales and Use Tax may be amended or repealed only with the approval of the voters. The Local School Support Tax (LSST) and the City-County Relief Tax (CCRT) may be amended or repealed by the Legislature without the approval of the voters.
Nevada's Children Not Measuring Up: National Group Says Nevada Last
Some Say Funding The Big Problem
Others Condemn Top Heavy Administration
by Johnny Gunn
Following the less than stellar position the national "Leave No Child Behind" standings provided us, another national group, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education has placed Nevada's education attempts in the basement. At this time there are two citizen initiatives dealing with school funding that will appear on the November ballot. If either or both succeed, they will have to be passed by the electorate a second time before becoming law (See Ballot Questions, this issue).
For a complete look at how the Center for Public Policy and Higher Education ranked Nevada, see the attached pdf file. The report grades state's educational policies the same as students are graded, that is A through F. Overall, Nevada received a D in how the state prepares students for college, and worse, the state received an F in affordability and completion.
Although Nevada is quick to point to the Millennium Scholarship program, the $10,000 grants for university students are merit based, not need based. There is no need based program funded by the state that would lead a scholar into higher learning. In Nevada, only about 28 percent of those in the college age group, 18-24 attends college. According to figures made available to The Observer, many states have about 40 percent enrollment.
Besides a lack of financial backing from the state for education, many complain of the over abundance of administration in almost all the state's school districts. "If they eliminated so much of the redundant administration positions, there would be considerably more money available for the classroom," one teacher unwilling to be identified said.
The legislative leadership has begun looking at potential education bills for the upcoming session that begins in February, 2005.
The report from the Center for Public Policy is issued every two years, and according to the current report, Nevada has fallen in its overall standing in this two-year period, particularly in a lack of college preparation in K-12 classes.
Most high school graduates attempting to begin a higher education program must first pass remedial classes to bring them to university standards. On the bright side, of all the freshmen in college in Nevada, some 73 percent do return for their second year.
To see the complete report on Nevada, in pdf file, click here.
To see the complete web page, go to http://www.highereducation.org.
Tally From Primary Election Correct According To Officials
Secretary of State Dean Heller has received the final post-election audit reports comparing the electronic and paper record results from all seventeen Nevada counties, and that each of those reports show no variation in tabulation results. According to officials around the state, there were no problems with counting the vote, analyzing the paper trail, or faulty machines. There were some problems with the people charged with running the election, not with the machines.
“The purpose of the addition of the voter-verifiable paper audit trail (V-PAT) printer on our touch-screen machines was to assure Nevada voters that our electronic voting systems recorded their votes accurately, thereby increasing voter confidence,” Heller stated. “Although the audit was not a statutory requirement, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, I wanted to assure all Nevadans that, in fact, voting results in the Silver State are the most accurate, most secure and most valid in the nation.”
Nevada is the only state in the nation that has a paper audit trail printers attached to electronic, touch-screen voting machines. Many observers from the federal level and other states watched this election in Nevada closely. Some states have said they feel the addition of the paper trail potential is too expensive while others have questioned its reliability. Heller says Nevada's Primary Election should have answered most questions.
Heller had mandated that each County Clerk/Registrar of Voters conduct a post-election audit comparing the electronic voting total with that of the paper record. The total machines to be audited ranged from a minimum of three machines or three percent of the total number of machines used in that county (whichever is greater) in smaller counties (population under 100,000) to 20 or two percent of the total number of machines in larger counties (populations over 100,000). Machines to be audited were randomly picked by Clerks/Registrars. In all, the reports compared a total of 116 machines statewide, encompassing 5,981 total ballots cast. Clerks/Registrars reported no variations on the electronic voting and paper record totals.
“This is another historic day for all Nevadans as we continue to lead the nation and set a shining example of how the V-PAT printers can be used to increase voter confidence and accuracy,” Heller added.
The ballots for the Primary Election were much smaller than what voters will be facing in November, but with virtually no problems reported during the September election, Heller doesn't anticipate any problems during the General Election.
•••
"I'm Not Resigning" Says State Controller Despite $15,000 Fine, Possible Impeachment
Forcing her state employees to do election campaign work on the state's dime might lead to the state's first impeachment of a high-ranking office holder. Controller Kathy Augustine was found guilty of misuse of her office, fined $15,000, and is looking at possible impeachment proceedings from the next legislature. There have been calls from political leaders around the state for Augustine to resign her office, she has two years to go, but she says, "No."
Augustine did apologize following the 90-minute closed hearing before the state ethics commission. Augustine served in the state assembly and senate before running for Controller. She is in her second and last term.
According to the commission, Augustine will pay her fine in three annual $5,000 payments.
•••
Las Vegas Mayor, His Son, Investigated For Elder Abuse
Following a relatively quick investigation, Las Vegas Police have dropped any further investigation of a land deal involving Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman's son Ross, his partner Louis Palazzo, and an 85-year-old woman. However, a complaint has been filed with the State Ethics Commission involving the same land deal, and as usual including the mayor.
Christina Von Sturm, an elderly woman whose daughter claims may be mentally unable to care for herself or make rational decisions, owns land next to parcels the city is developing as part of a redevelopment project. Ross Goodman and his partner made an offer on the land, and initially the offer was accepted, however, when Von Sturm's daughter, Christina DeMusee intervened, the offer was refused. DeMusee claims the partners were trying to take advantage of the older woman, and their offer of $1.4 million was more than $1 million below the property's valuation.
The mayor's chief of staff, Stephanie Boixo is engaged to Eric Goodman, another son of the mayor, and has recused herself from the committee reviewing redevelopment projects on the adjacent land, but has also turned in her resignation. Reports from city hall also indicate that Ross Goodman has been leaked redevelopment project information dealing with land that might be involved.
Between civil suits, ethics investigations, possibly further police involvement, this case will be in the news for months to come.
•••
Those Radio Blues Just Keep Coming
Following the rather hefty fine CBS may have to pay the Federal Communications Commission for what is called "nipple-gate," the Nevada Highway Patrol might think about lighting a fire under whoever is in charge of their communications systems. At last report, the NHP is still operating on illegal frequencies, their multi-million dollar radios aren't working properly, and the department says, "we're still testing" to find the bugs.
One report out of Washington puts fines for illegal frequency use at $10,000 per use. That would indicate that every time a trooper keys his mic, add $10,000 to the upward climbing fine. And, there appears to be no serious effort to make things work properly.
According to reports from Las Vegas, at least three officers were unable to use their radios during traffic stops recently. The patrol had said the system would be up and operating by March of 2004.
•••
Taxicab Authority Meetings To Discuss Cameras In Cabs
As this issue of the Nevada Observer goes to press, the Nevada Taxicab Authority is discussing what their posted agenda says is "safety items." According to a source within the Authority who wishes to remain anonymous, the discussion will center on cameras in taxicabs. No vote is scheduled following the discussion according to the posted agenda, however, another meeting is scheduled for October 26 during which a vote on cameras in cabs is expected to take place.
The Nevada Taxicab Authority is a strange name for a governor appointed body that only has jurisdiction in Clark County. The taxi authority is a division of the state Department of Business and Industry. Taxicabs in the rest of Nevada are under the authority of the state Transportation Services Authority (TSA), a group that is a spin-off of the Public Utilities Commission.
Cameras in cabs has been a heated discussion in Clark County for a number of years, but boiled to the surface recently when a cabby was burned to death during a robbery attempt. A vagrant, James Scholl was arrested and is in jail with no bail, awaiting trial. Pairoj Chitprasart, the cabby, died on August 24, just days after the incident. There have been deaths during crimes against cabbies in the north as well.
For complete information on the taxicab authority, go to http://www.taxi.state.nv.us. To contact by phone, call 702-486-6532, or drop them a line at 1785 East Sahara Avenue, Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89104.
The web site for Nevada Transportation Services Authority is: http://www.tsa.nv.gov. In northern Nevada call 775-688-2800. In the south, call 702-486-3303.
Regarding the question of cameras in taxicabs TSA chairwoman Sandra Avants said, "We will be following closely what the Nevada Taxicab Authority in Clark County does." Avants said she hasn't received any comments at all from taxicab companies or cab drivers regarding the installation of cameras in cabs. In Clark County, a poll indicates strong support for cameras.
Following the death of a cabby in Washoe County, some cabs had Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) units installed, to be used to monitor the exact position of a cab at all times. It was felt at the time that this would be good for the safety of drivers. According to an anonymous source, many of those devices, if not most, have been removed from Washoe County cabs.
The man who was arrested and charged with the murder of a Clark County cabby had told friends that he had threatened cabbies before with being drenched in gasoline if they didn't give up their money. He has been arrested for robbery of cabs and other businesses in the past as well.
All gaming businesses, most convenience stores, all banks and financial institutions, and many general merchandise outlets have camera surveillance in place. It is a deterrent to thieves and those who might just want to cause trouble, and has probably saved lives in the past. Just recently, there was an attack by a person on others in southern Nevada caught on tape. The young person was swinging a baseball bat, and in order to keep from being filmed, one of his targets was a surveillance camera. His swing destroyed the camera, but not before it got some wonderful full face shots for the cops.
Since cabbies are so vulnerable to criminals, it's amazing that their safety is taken so lightly, by the state, by their own employers.
Water Wars, Water Woes, It's Still Called A Desert
Lincoln County may become a water highway to extend from White Pine County south to Clark County, if federal legislation is finalized. Meanwhile, those in White Pine County may not be in a position to stop county water from being shipped south. The decision will be made in Carson City by the state water engineer, not by the county commission.
A pipeline across several counties and mostly on federally controlled land is being developed, pending that federal legislation, and Clark County sources are ecstatic they may finally have a water source other than the Colorado River and Lake Mead. Mead currently provides about 90 percent of the drinking water for the Las Vegas Valley.
In the world of water rights, the State Engineer makes the decisions on whether or not rights can be filed on or for, whether or not rights can be bought or sold, and how all of that fits in with existing treaties, federal plans, and political jurisdictions.
For the pipeline being discussed in the south, federally controlled land in Lincoln County had to be manipulated in such a manner the pipeline could even be considered. More than 700,000 acres of land needed to be released from 'wilderness' designation, and the Bureau of Land Management will probably need to sell as much as 90,000 acres.
Land will need to be leased from the federal government for a corridor for the pipeline and other utility users. Some of those users might include energy or communications companies.
Among the beneficiaries of the pipeline project are builders and developers in Lincoln and Clark Counties. There have been proposals of multi golf courses and home developments near the border of the two counties, as well as continued mega-growth in Clark County.
In the north, a Water Management Plan is being discussed by water users and providers that include the City of Sparks, City of Reno, Washoe County, Sun Valley GID, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, and Washoe County Water Conservation District.
Most of the Reno-Sparks drinking water comes from the Truckee River and ground water wells. In the last issue of The Nevada Observer, we mistakenly said those who waste water will be charged with a fine starting at $75. Our report should have said, the water wasters will be charged with a penalty that can carry fees up to $75.
The new Washoe County water plan should set priorities for nine and ten year periods. Growth in Washoe County has continued unabated during the current five-year drought, including a proposal for a 7,000 home development near Cold Springs, some 20-miles north of Reno. The developers have been quoted as saying they haven't looked into the matter of water availability for the project.
•••
Fears Of Catastrophic Fires At Lake Tahoe Fan Changes
The Alpine waters of Lake Tahoe define the borders of California and Nevada along the crest of the Sierra Nevada range, and when first time visitors are finally able to voice a thought, words like beautiful, sensational, magnificent, aren't enough to capture what they are seeing. Mark Twain was enraptured by his first vision of the lake in the sky, and today, besides hundreds of thousands of visitors for year 'round pleasures, there are also hundreds of thousands of year 'round residents. And this worries the devil out of fire officials.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the regional bi-state group that holds sway in the Tahoe Basin is in the middle of updating its fire suppression and fire planning to incorporate a ten-year plan that would include considerable thinning of the forests around the lake, and clean up of debris that spreads wildland fires.
There are at least seven local fire agencies around the basin and they are working to consolidate their efforts toward keeping a catastrophic fire from getting started. Following the extremely costly waterfall fire near, actually in Carson City this past summer, wildland officials have taken close looks at the Tahoe Basin because of the number of homes and businesses, and the massive amounts of under brush and over growth of the forests.
According to one fire official, "It's a disaster waiting to happen." The five-year drought has not helped, and many trees in the basin are also suffering from beetle damage. The Nevada side of the lake is home to parts of Douglas, Carson City, and Washoe Counties, and also to considerable gaming enterprises, while the California side is filled with homes and businesses. "A wildfire like what took place in Carson City, or southern California this year, would be an ecological and monetary disaster unequalled in our time," the official said.
The Buzz Around the Silver State
From our Correspondents
The Capital (The Silver One)
PUC Schedule for October, November, December, 2004.
(Carson City) --- All meetings listed refer to the Southwest Gas Purchased Gas Adjustment Case, Docket 04-6001.
October 4, Rebuttal Testimony Due
October 11-14, Open Hearing
November 10, Estimated Decision due
December 1, Proposed Effective Date
For more information on all activities at the Public Utilities Commission, go to http://www.puc.state.nv.us.
•••
PUC APPROVES REGULATIONS TO ASSIST
DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLES
(Carson City) --- The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved new regulations that assist renewable energy developers in obtaining financing for new projects in Nevada.
The Temporary Renewable Energy Development Program (TRED) was created through a collaborative effort of representatives from the Governor’s Office, renewable energy developers, Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power companies, and the PUC staff.
“The TRED program is an important step in advancing the development of renewable energy projects in Nevada as well as fulfilling the requirements of the Renewable Portfolio Standard,” said Carl Linvill, PUC Commissioner and presiding officer.
Under the TRED Program, a predetermined allocation of funds collected by the state’s electric utilities will be placed in a third party trust that will disburse payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity sold to the utilities. By creating an independent trust, project financiers are guaranteed payments regardless of the financial situation of the utility.
The impaired credit rating of Nevada’s electric utilities has made it difficult for many renewable energy developers to obtain financing for new renewable projects that are mandated under Nevada’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). As a result, Nevada’s electric utilities have not been able to meet the quota set by the RPS.
Upon request of a renewable energy developer who has a contract with one of the electric utilities, the Commission shall determine which projects are eligible to participate in the TRED program. In order to be eligible, the developer must show that the impaired credit rating of the utility is impeding his ability to obtain financing.
•••
NEVADA DAY FESTIVITIES IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Sarah Winnemucca Statue On Display
(Carson City) --- On public display for the first time, the larger-than-life statue of Sarah Winnemucca will be sculpted in Carson City through the Nevada Day weekend celebration. The statue was commissioned to be one of Nevada's two sculptures to be displayed in Washington, D.C. For many years, only the statue of Senator Pat McCarran has been on display in the National Statuary Hall.
Winnemucca, daughter of Paiute Chief Winnemucca, was a leader of her Native American culture, taught school at a time when Native Americans were shunned across the continent, and was looked on by both the American and Native American cultures as being a powerful spirit.
Each state is given the opportunity to have two statues in the Capitol's National Statuary Hall in Washington, and the Winnemucca statue should be in place by the spring of 2005. Sculptor Benjamin Victor will be doing the clay model of the statue, in public during this month of October, and says he will personally bring the piece to the foundry where it will be cast in bronze.
"I think the power she held was not in physical stature," Victor says, "but in her powerful spirit." The sculpture stands about six feet tall, and Victor says this illustrates an important part of her story.
In 2001, Nevada's legislature passed a bill designating Sarah Winnemucca as the state's second statue in the collection. A committee then determined that Benjamin Victor would be the sculptor. The committee is made up of chair Carrie Townley Porter, vice-chair Mary Lee Fulkerson, Debbie Allen, Richard Hooker, and Steven High. Nevada First Lady Dema Guinn serves as Honorary Chair.
Victor will be doing his work, all on public display, in the exhibit hall at Nevada State Library and Archives, 100 North Stewart Street. The archives building sits directly behind the grand Capital building.
•••
A Parade And Mining Contest
(Carson City) --- Nevada Day will be celebrated on Saturday, October 30 this year, with a massive parade down Carson Street beginning at 10:00 a.m. Among other highlights of the three-day festival is the World Championship Rock Drilling contest, an annual affair that draws thousands to the Carson Nugget west parking lot.
Drilling chairman and many times World Champion Fred Andreason says purse money is well over $5,000 and that rock drillers from many states are expected to vie for the championship. Andreason also said that long-time announcer Johnny Gunn will again be on hand with his wit and wisdom.
The contest has its roots in mining history. Before mechanization of mining, men had to drill holes in the hard rock by hand before explosives could be laid in and the rock blasted. A four-pound hammer called in the mines a Single Jack is used to pound a chisel bit piece of steel. The drillers each compete for ten minutes, and whoever drills the deepest hole in that time is the winner. The contestants will be drilling into a piece of Sierra Nevada Granite that was quarried in the mountains east of Fresno, California.
Nevada became a state on October 31, 1864 when President Abraham Lincoln signed the statehood proclamation passed by Congress. Previously, Silver State was Nevada Territory from 1861, and prior to that was part of Utah Territory. It was the discovery of the Comstock Lode in 1859 that put the area on the map so to speak.
•••
Storey County
Governor's Ball At Piper's Opera House
(Virginia City) --- John Piper's original opera house burned to the ground during one of Virginia City's many conflagrations, and he built the one we know today alongside the Storey County Courthouse on B Street. It's an elegant building that is in the midst of a many millions of dollars restoration, and will be hosting the Governor's Admission Day Grand Ball, Saturday, October 30. Nevada will be celebrating 140 years of statehood during that weekend.
Period dress is recommended, and music from the Victorian Age will be the order of the day. According to sources at Piper's Opera House, the Grand March will begin at precisely 8:00 p.m. Log onto http://www.pipersoperahouse.org for more information. Tickets are $35.00 per person.
•••
Buzz Not Related To Nevada Day
Douglas County
A New City? First For Douglas
(Indian Hills) --- A group of landowners in the Indian Hills subdivision of Douglas County have voted to ask the 2005 legislature to approve their charter for a new city in the county. Indian Hills is at the northern extreme of Douglas County, nestling up to the Carson City line. There is opposition to the plan, but at a recent meeting of the Indian Hills General Improvement District, the members voted unanimously in favor of the project.
The project must still go to a vote of the people, and then be accepted by the legislature.
•••
Washoe County
Another New City In The Making?
(Incline Village) --- There has been considerable talk over the last several years about the Incline Village area along the north shore of Lake Tahoe breaking away from Washoe County and becoming its own county. That talk has now turned to the area becoming city within Washoe County. Incline Village is a community of very wealthy people, and the population numbers about 9,000. Although only representing some three percent of Washoe County's population, the area brings in about ten percent of the county's property tax.
Under previous proposals to become a separate county, sources have estimated the property tax would drop about $0.40 per $100 of assessed valuation while under the current proposal to create the city of Incline Village, property taxes might rise $0.24.
The way the law works for an area to become an incorporated city, about one third of the registered voters in the district would have to sign a petition in favor of the incorporation and the papers would have to prove fiscal feasibility. Following an election, the legislature would then have to accept the proposal.
There has been considerable support in the past for breaking away and forming a separate county, and supporters of the city proposal say that support has been transferred to their plan.
•••
Lots Of Really Old Stuff Turning Up
(Reno) --- During this month of October, Nevada will be celebrating 140 years of statehood, and sometimes we forget that people have lived in the Great Basin for thousands of years. In Reno, currently, as work progresses on the lowering of the railroad tracks through town, it was discovered that there was a considerable human population in what is now downtown Reno, some 4,000 years ago.
This significant archaeological find is being hailed as the first of its kind in the Silver State, and through various agencies as much as $600,000 is being spent to complete the dig. The Washoe Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, and the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony are participating in the project.
Among the features of the find are what's called a house pit, hearths, rock alignments, pits, and other indications of human occupation.
As Pappy Smith used to say, "All roads lead to Reno."