Sisolak vetoes four bills including ethics measure

Gov. Steve Sisolak has vetoed four bills including the measure that would have turned ethics investigations within the legislative branch over to lawmakers instead of the independent statewide Ethics Commission.

He said he supports most of the sections in AB65, many of which were designed to streamline and clarify the duties of the state commission. But he said an amendment to the bill late in session converted the measure from a housekeeping bill into a significant policy change.

That change would have created three separate legislative ethics commissions: one for the Senate, one for the Assembly and one for legislative staff.

Sisolak said that while he understands the constitution gives each house of the Legislature the exclusive authority to discipline its own members for misconduct related to legislative functions, the Nevada Supreme Court has held the Ethics Commission can and does exercise jurisdiction over lawmakers for conduct not related to core legislative functions.

He said the statewide Ethics Commission is an existing, independent body that has the responsibility to address complaints against public officials and employees.

Before 1985, there were separate executive and legislative branch ethics commissioners but they were consolidated in that year and Sisolak said he believes the costs and potential benefits of reversing that action should be studied before a change is made.

SB254

Sisolak also vetoed SB254 saying that, as written, it would impose substantial restrictions on a landlord’s ability to choose who rents his or her property. He pointed to the sections prohibiting landlords from refusing to lease to an applicant with a criminal record except in cases where the applicant was convicted of specific violent or sex offenses. He said it would prohibit denying a rental to some one convicted of first-degree arson if that conviction was more than a year old.

“This is a very serious offense that can result in numerous deaths and cause untold property damage,” he said. “Forcing landlords to rent to such arsonists would create an unacceptable danger to other tenants.”

In addition, he said SB254 would align Nevada’s housing discrimination laws to the federal housing discrimination laws. But in the process, he said it would put Nevadans in the position of paying for the free fair housing enforcement they currently receive through federal government. It would also put the Nevada Attorney General’s office in the position of paying legal costs the federal government now provides

AB368

He vetoed AB368 originally designed to improve reporting on the uses of taxes collected within tourism improvement districts. He said that is a laudable goal but the bill would also prohibit all cities and counties outside of Clark County from creating tourism improvement districts.

He said those districts are used in smaller counties to finance infrastructure projects and improvements like flood controls, streets, parking, utilities and fire protection. He said with that language, AB368 is “contrary to the goals of restarting our economy, improving our infrastructure and creating jobs.”

“When many Nevadans are still struggling, now is not the time to remove any of the tools that local governments can use to encourage and generate economic development,” he said.

SB391

Finally, he vetoed SB391. He said he supports provisions expanding tele-dentistry but not the part creating a new committee to make rules for dentists administering medical care during an emergency. He pointed out that new committee would have to meet twice a year even if there is no emergency. In addition, he objected to the fact the new committee would be entirely exempt from the Open Meeting Law even if the emergency had nothing to do with the practice of dentistry.