Opinions split on biannual sessions
by Mark LaPointe, Outpost Staff
|
In this package:
|
"I just sent out a legislative report and survey," he says, designed to increase his ability to have some "give and take" when he goes back to the Assembly, provided his bid for re-election in 1998 is successful.
Likewise, Rep. Brian Sandoval sees great benefit in going back to his community. "We take a lot of pride in being accessible," he says. "My home number is published right along side of my work number and anyone can call me anytime."
Because of this interaction and the ability it gives elected officials to be citizen legislators rather than professional politicians, Sandoval is a strong proponent of keeping the system exactly as is. "I am not a proponent whatsoever of annual sessions. The system we have works very well."
Rep. Jan Evans does not see it quite that way. Although she enjoys interaction with her constituents and meeting with local groups, she doesn't see the system as perfect. She is on a committee looking at making changes to the 1999 Legislative session. Evans says one change would increase the official session length from 60 to 120 days. She thinks the change would have a positive effect on the system. "Legislators are compensated for 60 days and they've been going for 160 days."
Under the new system, the session would not be allowed to go longer than 120 days. "What happens if you're not done in 160 days? If this legislation passes, you have to be done. No exceptions." Legislators, she says, will need to find ways to work more quickly, be more stringent on the number of bills brought before each house and possibly begin some of their work before they arrive at the Assembly or Senate chambers in January.
One reason Evans and others favor changing the length of Nevada's sessions has to do with the ability of most citizens to become elected representatives. Evans takes exception to the idea that Nevada's assembly is made up of "citizen legislators."
"We pride ourselves on the fact that we don't have professional legislators, but in reality, we probably have more people who are retired and financially well-off," she says. "We're a little top heavy. The people don't want to have a legislature filled with the rich and retired."
Sandoval and Hickey also recognize the difficulty of maintaining a citizen legislature that reflects the true make-up of the state. Sandoval sees the advantage in working as a partner in a small Reno law firm where his partners are supportive of his official duties. The system "excludes many people," he says. "Not many people have that flexibility." He says, even for him, there is a financial and time sacrifice involved in being a legislator in Nevada.
Hickey, who is owns a small paint business in Reno and is a graduate student at the University of Nevada, also recognizes the flexibility that he allows him to participate in the political process. But he is cautious when it comes to changing the system.
"Certainly, if the legislature were in session year round it would be more powerful, but it wouldn't necessarily be any better," he says. "Being there longer doesn't mean we'll do things better for citizens."
Like Evans, Hickey sees the possibility of change in how sessions are run in Nevada. But he doesn't think the change will come soon. The current system is "a reasonable way for us to do it in Nevada," he says. A small state, he maintains, can still support the idea of citizen legislators.
copyright 11/15/97 Nevada Outpost http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost