MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 26, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:34 a.m., on Monday, March 26, 2001 and confirmed there was a quorum present. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Ms. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rusty McAllister, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada
Chief Steve Hanson, Clark County Fire Department
Chris Ferrari, Issues Manager, The McMullen Strategic Group, representing REMSA
Sean Gamble, representing Clark County Health District, Emergency Medical Services
Todd Moody, Family Law practitioner with Ellsworth, Moody & Bennion
Rick Perry, representing Southern Nevada Adoption Coalition
Chris Escobar, Family Law Practitioner with Pico & Mitchell, Ltd.
Todd Torvinen, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Myra Sheehan, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
W. Kathleen Baker, Family Law Practitioner, Member of Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
William Horne, Law Student
Liz Breshears, Family Programs Officer, Division of Child and Family Services
Wanda Scott, Social Welfare Program Specialist, Adoptions
Donald Winne, of the Attorney General’s Office
Benjamin Blinn, Individual
Chris Jensen, Organization of Women Law Students
Glen Whorton, Department of Prisons
Dr. Ted D'Amico, Medical Director, Department of Prisons
Robert L. Schofield, Psy.D., Psychologist III, Nevada Department of Prisons
Ed Flagg, President, Nevada Corrections Association
Steve Barr, Nevada Corrections Association
Richard Snyder, Nevada Corrections Association
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Assembly Bill 333: Prohibits person from interfering with certain emergency medical attendants while rendering assistance. (BDR 15-1061)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga introduced herself as representing Assembly District 35 and provided correspondence received from White Pine County EMTs (Exhibit C). A.B. 333 establishes that a person unlawfully interfering with an EMT rendering assistance to a sick or injured person could be charged with a Class E felony. She advised that paid and volunteer firemen and paramedics were already protected from that type of assault; however, EMT first responders were not covered and A.B. 333 would provide such protection. Assemblywoman de Braga referenced an amendment proposed by the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada (Exhibit D) and how it appeared to resolve issues affecting larger counties. She confirmed A.B. 333 would not affect transferring of patients to higher levels of care, nor would it apply when patients were transferred to a different controlling authority. Assemblywoman de Braga stated that she believed the amendment covered urban areas where more than one type of service was available, as well as rural volunteers.
Mr. Brower inquired what prompted A.B. 333 and requested a scenario be provided. Assemblywoman de Braga responded that there had been an incident in White Pine County where a private individual interfered with the care of a patient to the extent that the ambulance attendant was injured. Mr. Brower wondered over the logic behind the proposed amendment. Assemblywoman de Braga stated that the sponsors did not want a transfer to a higher level of care or to a different jurisdiction to be deemed interference.
Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada (PFFN), discussed the proposed amendment. One concern, especially in Clark County, was the franchise agreements in place that specified who was responsible on scenes for emergency medical care. Regarding on-scene disputes between a private ambulance company and fire department or between two private ambulance companies, he did not want someone being charged with a Class E felony. He admitted that there were confrontations at times since fire departments were performing more EMS transport. The amendment proposed that, in the case of a conflict, all parties would refer to the standing interlocal or franchise agreement in place. He did not want a fire fighter, EMT, etc. to be charged with a Class E felony where someone determined that state law would supercede county ordinance.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification of procedure when care was being provided prior to Mr. McAllister’s arrival on scene. Mr. McAllister responded pursuant to the franchise agreements in place in southern Nevada and stated that the fire departments had responsibility and discretion for scenes. He confirmed that appropriate treatment would not necessarily be disrupted. Mr. McAllister confirmed that the amendment was conceptually correct. Further, care would be turned over to a physician of relevant training who arrived on scene if that physician was willing to accept responsibility for care and ride in with the patient.
Mr. Oceguera advised the subject matter fit his area of expertise and that he agreed with Mr. McAllister. Further, there was more to situations than first imagined. Someone had to be statutorily in charge of scene. Beyond patient care, there was also highway/street traffic flow, safety of patients, safety of crew and/or fire department and/or emergency medical technicians on scene. He felt the bill might not have gone far enough. He had reviewed NRS 475.070, interference with peace officer, fireman or member of search and rescue organization; disobedience of orders; penalty, and felt the bill could have gone further. He discussed his experience working in rural areas. He was concerned in an instance where a volunteer was providing care and refused to yield care to a paid ambulance upon its arrival.
Assemblywoman de Braga addressed the possible confusion of two issues: interference and assistance. Proponents were concerned with interference by private citizens in an ambulance attendant’s ability to provide care.
Chairman Anderson requested clarification from Mr. McAllister that the PFFN hoped to clarify who had control of a scene in the event of two competing ambulance companies unless transferring into a higher level of care. Mr. McAllister confirmed the Chair’s understanding. He reiterated that, in the case of a conflict, all parties reverted to existing franchise agreements to ensure that no fire department personnel were cited for a Class E felony.
Mr. Collins confirmed that many rural area services consisted of volunteers, so there would be no competition between service providers. He inquired whether A.B. 333 was to keep doctors from assisting, or just nonqualified persons. Assemblywoman de Braga confirmed that the purpose of A.B. 333 was to “add paid and volunteer EMTs and first responders to the bill that already covers paid and volunteer firemen.”
Chief Steve Hanson, Deputy Chief, Clark County Fire Department (CCFD), provided his written testimony (Exhibit E) and testified that A.B. 333 could create problems in southern Nevada. He confirmed the agreements created in southern Nevada were to prohibit problems between service providers. He referenced agreements and purposed going to control of scene, etc. He felt the proposed amendment would correct most of his concerns with A.B. 333 and he would support an amendment of that nature.
Chairman Anderson confirmed with Chief Hanson that there was a protocol (Exhibit F) that existed in the larger counties and that such protocol should be referenced and incorporated statutorily. Chief Hanson confirmed the Chair’s understanding.
Chris Ferrari, Issues Manager, The McMullen Strategic Group, testified on behalf of REMSA (Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority), the contract emergency service provider in Washoe County. He supported some aspects of the bill, but not others. REMSA supported assuring the best possible care to a patient in an emergency situation without interference from an outside individual.
Sean Gamble, representing Clark County Health District, Emergency Medical Services, addressed the additional issue of family and/or friends of the person being treated. Since they were anxious and their adrenalin was flowing, she was concerned they might be perceived as impeding. She would not want to see those individuals arrested on a Class E felony. Ms. Gamble suggested a distraught parent trying to get their child to stand up or move to the degree that they were in the way, even while an EMT was rendering medical attention.
Mr. Oceguera offered numerous examples of physical abuse he had received at the hands of distraught family members. He allowed that perhaps it was fear, but that those events took place more frequently than laymen would imagine.
Chairman Anderson called for further testimony before closing the hearing on A.B. 333. He suggested developing language referencing county protocols that facilitated relationships between service providers as well as language that would provide statutory authority to volunteer service providers, ensuring their protection under statute.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, advised that volunteers would be covered under A.B. 333 as long as they were licensed.
Having knowledge of someone being charged in such a circumstance, Mr. Manendo asked how easily should the felony charge apply when a parent was advising emergency medical providers of an existing medical condition.
Ms. Lang quoted language as to “obstruct, impede or prevent the attendant from rendering assistance.” She believed that simply advising the provider of a medical condition would not constitute “preventing” the rendering of care. Ms. Lang allowed that the matter could be pushed to the point it became one person’s word against another where the care provider said there was physical interference.
Chairman Anderson read numerous bill draft request numbers and descriptions.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
Requested by League of Cities and Municipalities.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
Requested by Attorney General’s Office on behalf of Judiciary Committee.
Requested by Department of Prisons.
Requested by Attorney General’s Office.
Requested by Human Resources and Mental Health and Development Services.
Requested by Human Resources and Child and Family Services.
Requested by Department of Motor Vehicles.
Requested by Secretary of State.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 14-654, 16‑1327, 3-363, 2-1153, 13-1333, 3-1481, 41-531, 16-622, 3-480, 14-345, 16-537, 14-513, 16-609.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 298: Provides for establishment of registry of putative fathers for purposes of adoption of children. (BDR 11-490)
Assemblyman Tom Collins stated A.B. 298 was introduced by request of constituents and introduced Todd L. Moody, Rick Perry and Chris Escobar.
Todd Moody, of Ellsworth, Moody & Bennion, stated that his practice included termination of parental rights and adoption, and provided his handout outlining various issues within A.B. 298 (Exhibit G). Illegitimacy had been described as the single most important social problem facing today’s society. It was a driving force behind crime, poverty, illiteracy, welfare or homelessness. He stated that any solution needed to include an appropriate blending of the rights of mothers, fathers, children, adoptive parents and the state. Under Nevada law, a biological father was entitled to notice before his rights were terminated. In about 50 percent of the terminations Mr. Moody handled, notice was sent to a “John Doe.” Even if he knew the putative father’s name, unless he knew the father’s whereabouts, notice of that termination was served on him by publication. In southern Nevada that occurred through the Nevada Legal News, a little-read newspaper and not one that would realistically provide notice to a putative father. When mothers who knew who and where the putative fathers were but did not divulge such information, either by intent or mistake, routinely complicated the notice process. In those cases, where fathers, children and adoptive families were victims, fathers were in the best position to take action. The putative father registry made that possible. He felt the state had an interest in requiring unmarried fathers to take responsibility for their offspring. Upon sexual relations, unmarried fathers were deemed to be on notice that a pregnancy might take place and the child put up for adoption. Twenty-one other states have established putative father registries. Mr. Moody proposed that the Division of Health (DH) administer the registry instead of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). He suggested 72 hours instead of seven days, to coincide with the mother’s time to relinquish her rights. The search itself was to be the triggering effect rather than the filing of a petition for adoption. Also, that a registered father be given 30 days instead of ten to file a paternity action. Mr. Moody believed the current statutes did not satisfy a putative father’s right to due process.
Rick Perry, representing the Southern Nevada Adoption Coalition (SNAC), advised that SNAC was comprised of private adoption agencies of southern Nevada, including LDS Family Services, Jewish Family Services, Catholic Charities and New Hope. SNAC supported A.B. 298. Further, every judge, attorney, adoptive parent and birth parent that he had spoken with supported A.B. 298. The coalition had found that no relinquishment was signed by the birth father in 50 percent of the adoptions in southern Nevada. That put the child, adoptive parents and birth mother in a risky position and made termination of the father’s parental rights necessary. Until terminated, an unidentified father could disrupt the adoption proceedings. Adoptive parents were required to sign documents specifying their awareness that the child was not completely available for adoption. Mr. Perry discussed the publication process and how the judge reviewed matters to ensure that a father’s rights had been protected as well as possible. He discussed clear avenues for birth fathers to protect their rights and stated that A.B. 298 was not “anti-father.”
Chris Escobar of Pico & Mitchell, Ltd. discussed his family law practice and that he was also an adoptive father. He addressed the “never, never land” that adoptive parents were placed in while waiting for a “risk placement” child to become completely available for adoption. He confirmed their fear and heartache during the six months prior to an adoption’s finalization. He felt the birth father was usually unaware that a child had been conceived. Was notice published in a Las Vegas newspaper when a father had moved to California sufficient notice? Did he and his wife have to live on edge for six months, and even now, wondering if the father would show up? Mr. Escobar discussed a birth father who had assaulted and abandoned the birth mother when he learned she was pregnant. He told Mr. Escobar that he would sign the relinquishment papers six times but never did so. He used the relinquishment as a weapon against the birth mother. The adoptive parents, with whom the child was placed, were wondering whether they would be able to parent that child. Mr. Escobar confirmed that he supported A.B. 298.
Chairman Anderson confirmed with Mr. Escobar that he saw no loss of right to birth father through A.B. 298. He inquired how, considering the compressed time period, the bill benefited a father who was reluctant or unaware.
Todd Moody advised that A.B. 298 protected putative fathers. He could register with the state and know that a search would be conducted before that child was placed in an adoptive home.
Chris Escobar addressed the additional issue of a birth father that had been left out of the process. The registry provided an opportunity for him to register, if he was interested. The proposed legislation provides more protection for putative fathers than the current system. He confirmed that A.B. 298 provided the opportunity for involvement as well.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there was anything in the bill that required putative fathers to register. He did not believe many would register voluntarily. He inquired whether the birth mother could register the birth father.
Mr. Perry advised that there was no requirement to register. It was a choice he could make if he wished to be involved in process. If not, his rights would expire 72 hours after child’s birth.
Chairman Anderson readdressed the 72-hour period in which a birth father may act. Mr. Perry confirmed that the time frame was set to coincide with the three days the birth mother had in which to decide whether to give up her child.
Mrs. Koivisto asked about the change from DCFS to HD. Rick Perry admitted that their main concern was not with what agency administered the registry. They suggested the Health Department since it administered birth certificates, etc.
Mr. Carpenter wished to confirm that if a putative father did not register, that in and of itself was enough to negate his rights. He asked if that was constitutionally lawful. Further, could the putative father file a court action to be brought back into the process.
Mr. Escobar stated that he could provide case information from other states. He advised that it was constitutional pursuant to due process and notice.
Assemblyman Tom Collins confirmed the committee’s receipt of Judge Nancy Saitta’s e-mail of March 25, 2001 (Exhibit H).
Myra Sheehan, President of Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), introduced W. Kathleen Baker. She believed that she and Ms. Baker did more special-needs adoptions for the Department of Social Work (DSW) than any other attorneys in Washoe County. She felt the registry was very good in instances where a father wished to be involved and a mother did not want the putative father to know about the birth. She wished to work with the committee on amendments to A.B. 298.
W. Kathleen Baker, a Washoe County family law practitioner, supported expediting the adoption process. She was concerned that a putative father would not have the opportunity to be heard. She believed the mother usually knew who the father was and that those possible fathers should be identified. She felt children had a right to know their fathers and their rights to know their father were also being terminated. She did not necessarily believe that a man would register with a putative registry every time he had sexual relations with a woman. She believed that woman should assume some responsibility for locating the putative father. Current publication provision did not accomplish very much in actually providing notice to putative fathers but did fulfill due process requirement for notice. She was more comfortable with her adoptive parents living with six months of uncertainty rather than the possibility of a father appearing five years later and wanting the child.
Todd Torvinen, a Washoe County family law practitioner appearing on behalf of NTLA, addressed constitutional issues raised by A.B. 298. As he read, a putative father had 30 days to register before consent was deemed and notice was implied. He discussed last summer’s Supreme Court case, Granville v. Troxell, and how it was found that parenting was an individual’s fundamental right. Mr. Torvinen felt that notice was required; however, the current statute was a substitute for notice and was not actual notice. He believed Granville v. Troxell showed that A.B. 298, as well as the 21 registries, would not withstand constitutional challenge.
Myra Sheehan, NTLA, quoted Supreme Court case law on termination of parental rights that “termination of parental rights is the death sentence of family law”; it being the worst thing that could be done to a parent in the area of family law. Ms. Sheehan did not see the proposed registry as protecting fathers. As an avenue for an interested father to find a child and mother, it was viable. She allowed that the registry might work well if mothers bore the burden of identifying putative fathers. In that manner actual notice could be provided. Ms. Sheehan doubted the feasibility of having men register simply because they had engaged in sexual relations with a woman, in case a child was conceived and might be adopted out. Providing “good notice,” even on a shortened timeframe would be acceptable. A.B. 298 eliminated notice and was wrong. She discussed NRS 128.150 regarding “termination of parental rights of a father when child becomes a subject of adoption” and the specific instructions within. Ms. Sheehan felt the registry would not work as described and reiterated her willingness to work with the committee and sponsors.
At Mr. Carpenter’s inquiry, Ms. Sheehan confirmed that an adoption could go through if all noticing procedures were followed. She also voiced her belief that the State of Nevada, Attorney General’s Office was proposing adoption and termination proceedings move forward simultaneously. Mr. Carpenter did not believe he favored having the birth mother provide the identify of the putative father. He felt there was too much room for abuse of the process.
William Horne identified himself as a last-year law student in Las Vegas. Having had to fight to be part of his daughter’s life, having been served just before her second birthday, Mr. Horne advised that he would not have a daughter today under A.B. 298. He felt the spirit of the bill was good, if notice was provided. He agreed that many single fathers would want to be involved but did not receive notice.
Liz Breshears, Family Programs Officer, Division of Child and Family Services, introduced Wanda Scott, the adoption specialist for the state of Nevada, and Donald Winne of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). She confirmed that DCFS was neutral on A.B. 298 but was interested in any legislation that facilitated adoptions, especially special-needs children. DCFS requested inclusion in further efforts on A.B. 298. She agreed terminations were combined with adoption proceedings in some states. In Nevada, those two issues were separate. If someone was to challenge a finalized adoption, they would need to challenge the termination first. She felt A.B. 298 might create a hybrid situation.
Wanda Scott advised the committee that she agreed with many of the concerns voiced. She also was willing to work with the committee on A.B. 298.
Donald Winne requested Nevada’s termination and adoptions procedures be kept separate. He discussed cases of due process issues and children being returned to unknown, biological parents. The two separate procedures safeguarded against adoptions being overturned. He confirmed that he too would work with any subcommittee appointed.
Ms. McClain requested clarification where the six-month wait on an adoption was ending but the termination was not complete. Mr. Winne responded that he set deadlines for parents to assert their rights. If no action was taken, he proceeded with termination proceedings. He reiterated that a petition for adoption could not be filed until the child was with the adoptive parents for six months, which provided six months to process the termination. He advised that six months provided plenty of time for a termination and he discussed the procedure.
Benjamin Blinn, a private citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 298. He addressed Judge McGee’s involvement with programs that helped addict mothers, for example, get clean and keep their child instead of simply terminating her parental rights. He discussed the difficulties for biological fathers who were incarcerated. He believed many issues were kept quiet for the sake of the child’s reputation. Mr. Blinn discussed adopted children researching their biological parents and how those records were often sealed. He described how more work was being done to keep families together because of the ramifications and the costs of terminating and placing children for adoption.
Chris Jensen, of the Organization of Women Law Students (OWLS), testified in support of A.B. 298. She discussed her many years of experience with crisis prevention and unwed mothers. She testified that permanent, long-lasting homes were in children’s best interests.
Chairman Anderson stated that it was his intention to bring A.B. 298 back to committee. He would not process the bill as written, nor would he accept the amendments. Seventy-two hours was too small a timeframe to be acceptable. There were other concerns the Chair felt were unanswered. He acknowledged the various offers for assistance and set a deadline for readdress.
Assemblyman Collins advised he understood the direction for bringing individuals together and acknowledged the Chair’s concern with the 72-hour deadline. The Chair wished to provide the opportunity for readdress of A.B. 298. He felt there were opportunities for registration.
Chairman Anderson read a bill draft request number and description.
Requested by the Administrative Offices of the Court.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-514.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 330: Makes various changes concerning prisons and offenders. (BDR 16-662)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 330 and called Assemblyman Dennis Nolan to testify.
Assemblyman Nolan stated that A.B. 330 required convicted sexual offenders to participate in the prison system’s sexual offender treatment programs. The second aspect of the proposed legislation went to reducing drug traffic in Nevada prisons. He advised that many convicted sex offenders chose not to participate in treatment programs. A few of the reasons were:
Assemblyman Nolan advised that A.B. 330 would require all inmates convicted of sex-related crimes to participate in sex offender treatment programs. He then discussed structural elements of the program administration.
Assemblyman Nolan stated that the remainder of A.B. 330 related to drug trafficking within the prison system. He listed those drugs available within Nevada prisons and discussed the Department of Prisons’ Summary of Statistics (Exhibit I). He advised that untreated drug offenders constituted the largest percentage of reoffenders and that reoffense frequently took place within days of release. Assemblyman Nolan then discussed his handout entitled, ADAM Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program in Clark County, Nevada (Exhibit J) and went over the arrest statistics. He advised that drugs within the prisons were used in a bartering system. Many prisoners who entered prison without a drug problem developed a drug habit while incarcerated. He discussed a videotape that was available for committee members’ viewing but which tape was very “raw” in nature. Assemblyman Nolan read from an e-mail received from a drug treatment counselor (Exhibit K) that described the flow of drugs into prisons through meeting rooms, guards, and “tossing.” He advised that for treatment programs to succeed, aggressive measures needed to be taken to keep drugs out of the prisons.
Assemblyman Nolan advised that, in his opinion, the negotiated state alcohol and testing program did not work. It was currently possible for addicts to hide their addition and gain employment with the prison system. Random testing, which had become a common occurrence and to which employees adapted, was not being performed on prison employees. He could not imagine a more important work environment in which a clean and sober work force was required. Approximately 30 states performed random drug testing of correctional officers. Assemblyman Nolan outlined suggestions on drug and alcohol testing (Exhibit L), including reference to an ion scanner (Exhibit M), and he confirmed that there was grant money available to cover the costs.
Glen Whorton, Department of Prisons (DP), felt Assemblyman Nolan’s concerns of drug usage within prisons were not exaggerated. He advised that inmates had confirmed that the primary access for drugs was through the visiting rooms. Also, drugs were introduced via vendors and prison staff. Mr. Whorton mentioned the previously undiscussed extortion that takes place when inmates force their family members to traffic in illicit drugs by bringing them into the prisons. He confirmed that the director was supportive of random drug testing for all state staff that came in contact with offenders.
Chairman Anderson requested an overview of actions taken to deter the inflow of drugs into prisons.
Mr. Whorton advised that process was secretive and providing “solid numbers” was difficult. He discussed the arrest, conviction and sentencing of a correctional officer for drug trafficking. The Department of Prisons had a very active inspector general’s office to investigate allegations. He advised that most staff members were not engaged in illegal activities and that those individuals needed to be protected. Mr. Whorton informed the committee that there were drug dogs at the major institutions but that those dogs did not work 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Technological and scientific means of detection would provide more solid coverage.
Dr. Ted D’Amico introduced himself as the medical director for the Nevada Department of Prisons. He agreed that sex offenders within the prison system should be identified. They should also be given the opportunity to obtain education and treatment regarding the issues of their incarceration. He discussed a pending bill that would give the Department of Prisons “ownership of the sex offender panel.” It would allow them to certify whether an inmate should even be considered for parole. Dr. D’Amico stated they were expecting the bill’s passage and were developing procedures accordingly. Their intensive treatment program was located at Lovelock but that maintenance programs would be run at satellite facilities. He requested language be changed to say that they “will provide treatment programs.”
Chairman Anderson inquired as to the status of another relevant piece of legislation. Dr. D’Amico confirmed the Chair’s understanding and, at Chairman Anderson’s question, confirmed that the bills were not in conflict. He emphasized the need for treatment programs with direct, continuous and objective observation of sex offenders before a panel should be implemented.
Robert L. Schofield, Psy.D., Psychologist III with the Nevada Department of Prisons, discussed the intensive treatment program at Lovelock. He advised it would entail several elements and each inmate in the program would attend group therapy sessions throughout the entire 14 months. Dr. Schofield stated five educational classes would deal with subjects including: relapse prevention, victim empathy, anger management, and cognitive distortions related to sexual issues. Further, that a 12-step program for sexual compulsives would be available.
Mr. Carpenter asked how many individuals could be treated so that they were then safe to reintroduce into society. Dr. Schofield responded that approximately 280 inmates could be treated in the intensive program. He admitted his uncertainty whether Mr. Carpenter had addressed the effectiveness of the program of the sheer number of individuals treated. At Mr. Carpenter’s clarification, Dr. Schofield advised that one could not simply look at a specific individual and determine whether they would reoffend. He referred to a 2000 study by Canadian correctional researchers and discussed their findings. In their review of programs that had been successful, they found that, without treatment, 17 percent reoffended; with treatment, only ten percent reoffended.
Chairman Anderson inquired whether there were different percentages of reoffending for different types of offenses. Dr. Schofield advised that rapists had the highest level of reoffending and he discussed various offenders and their likelihood to reoffend. He discussed outside treatment for parolees and advised that treatment and maintenance continued with parolees as long as they were under the supervision of the Department of Parole and Probation (DPP). He advised that, without follow-up treatment within the community, the prison system treatment program was of little value; with treatment within the community, parolees’ prospects were very good.
Dr. D’Amico advised that even with the lower result rates for treating sexual offenders, an intense program of education and treatment would have a beneficial effect over an inmate’s sentence.
Ed Flagg, President, Nevada Corrections Association (NCA), agreed with Section 1 of A.B. 330. With respect to Section 3, he acknowledged that drugs passed into Nevada’s prisons and reiterated that it was not just staff responsible for the inflow. When staff was caught trafficking, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He stated that random drug testing of officers was already taking place, that officers were tested upon entering prison system and at an annual physical. Mr. Flagg advised that the Department of Prisons had a problem with just that one section of A.B. 330. He then discussed costs involved in the random drug testing suggested.
Steve Barr of the Nevada Corrections Association reiterated that testimony showed agreement over visitation as primary source of drugs in prisons. He pointed out that A.B. 330 did not address that problem. He reiterated that drugs were brought in through vendors and that A.B. 330 did not address that issue either. Mr. Barr suggested use of the ion scanners and that he preferred more passive forms of testing.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 330 on behalf of individuals employed within the correctional and prison system. He opposed A.B. 330, particularly Sections 3, 10 and 11. He stated that Sections 10 and 11 wiped out current drug testing law with respect to prison employees and excluded them from coverage afforded by that law. Correctional employees had been harassed. The Department of Prisons was not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and was not required to give adequate notice, publish, or adopt regulations in the same manner other agencies were required. Mr. Gagnier quoted and discussed NRS 284, and reminded the committee that it had been adopted by open, public hearing. He stated that A.B. 330 would repeal the law with respect to one group of employees and subject them to a different standard, not for on-the-job activities, but for purposes of law enforcement. In closing, he said that no one had shown that the current law regarding drug and alcohol use by correctional officers was not working.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Gagnier if not for Sections 3, 10 and 11, would he otherwise support A.B. 330. Mr. Gagnier responded that he would. The Chair then inquired further that Mr. Gagnier’s opposition was due to what was current in statute. Mr. Gagnier confirmed the Chair’s understanding.
Assemblyman Nolan advised that, in Section 4, A.B. 330 made it possible to extend the search of visitors and vehicles entering the property. Although the negotiated state of Nevada substance abuse program was begun ten years ago, Assemblyman Nolan felt the documentation presented (Exhibits I through M) indicated that the system was not working in the Department of Prisons. New hires were still getting past the relatively loose preemployment drug screening process. He discussed the document handed out where names and case numbers had been redacted. He advised it clearly showed that the subjects were persons employed in the prison system and who slipped past the initial screening. Assemblyman Nolan felt the committee was dealing with a serious policy issue.
Chairman Anderson brought A.B. 330 back to committee. He then addressed BDR 7-15.
Requested by Judiciary Committee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 7-15.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: