MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 28, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, April 28, 1995, Chairman Anderson presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Mark James STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Scruggs, Household Financial Group Stephanie Tyler, Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Robert Van Straten, Nevada State Archives Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group Sam McMullen, Attorney at Law Louis Ling, Deputy Attorney General SENATE BILL 90 (FIRST REPRINT) - Makes various changes to provisions governing destruction and admissibility into evidence of certain records of businesses and governmental agencies. SENATE BILL 91 - Makes various changes to provisions governing admissibility and maintenance of duplicates and copies of certain records. Chairman Anderson apologized to Senator Augustine, the primary sponsor of S.B. 90 and S.B. 91, for the rescheduling of the bills from a previous date. Senator Augustine, Clark County District 7, stated S.B. 90 and S.B. 91 are companion bills that apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. S.B. 91 is enabling legislation that allows for optical imaging of business records. S.B. 90 was amended in the Senate Judiciary. Those changes occur at page two in sections 4. There was some concern that electronic media continued to be a public record regardless of how it is stored. Senator Augustine introduced Ken Scruggs with Household Financial Group to present further testimony in support of S.B. 90 and S.B. 91. Mr. Scruggs stated both bills deal with the electronic storage of records. With the advancement of technology in recent years, it is now possible for companies and government agencies to store records that were formerly kept on paper. S.B. 90 adopts the Federal Rules of Evidence to allow an electronically reproduced document to be used as an original document in court proceedings. Two criteria have to be met before a company's records will be accepted as evidence. One, the transfer has to be made in the regular course of business and two, the reproduction has to be accurate and the medium has to be shown to be reliable for reproducing the original document. Mr. Scruggs stated questions that have arisen about this type of legislation focus around the security of the system. The responsibility for that lies with the people making the changes. For example, if Household Financial Group chooses to move to this type of record-keeping, then it is their responsibility to prove the medium in use is reliable. Mr. Scruggs informed the committee the questions the Senate Judiciary had surrounded access to the public records. There was a concern about destroying valuable public documents and that perhaps the public would not have access to documents that are now kept in filing cabinets. The provision addressing those concerns is on page two of S.B. 90. Chairman Anderson asked what increase in cost to the public, if any, would result in having to access and retrieve public records by a computer rather than simply making a copy of the document from the file cabinet. Mr. Scruggs stated he was not certain but he did not believe there would be much cost once the initial system was paid for and in fact, in the long run the cost in time and money would be less. Ms. Monaghan asked if there was something in place to assure that the document you have retrieved from the electronic medium, most likely a computer, is a reproduction of the original document. Mr. Scruggs stated there was nothing in the bill to address that issue. However, most likely during the discovery process in any form of litigation, establishing that the document was a reproduction of an original document, would come into play. Ms. Steel asked if it is the legislature that sets the cost of copying charges. Mr. Humke replied that county clerks and county recorders set their own fees for such items as copies. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Mr. Scruggs stated microfilm is one of the mediums that might be used under this legislation. Mr. Carpenter added that he thought the legislature set the fee for copying a microfilm at $1 per page. Mr. Neilander clarified the setting of fees for copying is "across the board" meaning some state agency fees are set by statute. However, the statute does not address every state agency or local government. In the case where it does not, the counties or state agencies will set their own fees. Mr. Neilander concluded there was a bill in the Assembly right now because this has been an area of contention for some time. Ms. Ohrenschall asked about the use of the word "facsimile" in S.B. 90 wondering if a law firm in another state found a document that could be used in a court case the following day, would that law firm be allowed to produce a facsimile to be admitted in the court case? Mr. Scruggs stated he would not be able to answer that question. Chairman Anderson noted Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, in the audience and asked him to come forward to perhaps reply to Ms. Ohrenschall's inquiry. Mr. Graham stated the intent in S.B. 90 was to facilitate transmission and the admissibility. However, he could not say for certain whether the facsimile would be admissible or not. Ms. Ohrenschall stated it would be a good idea if the bill were extended to include facsimile documents not necessarily previously electronically stored but simply because the document is in a different location. Mr. Graham replied he could see a problems with authenticity by allowing facsimile documents in court proceedings from law firms. Mr. Humke added most often if a facsimile is utilized in a court proceeding it is with the understanding the original will be forthcoming in a matter of days. In fact, other states that have statutes regarding this issue will set forth this as a requirement. Mr. Humke concluded this issue most likely would not be a part of S.B. 90 or S.B. 91 but rather a separate bill requiring a full hearing to determine the impact from the courts in accepting facsimiles. Ms. Ohrenschall agreed her requests for facsimile documents would be best served in another bill at another time. Mr. Neilander read from the Nevada statutes governing county recorders in how they can set copy fees, which generally are $1 per page. Stephanie Tyler, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), Washoe County stated a good deal of their funding comes from its bus fleet coming from the federal government which adds some additional requirements in terms of maintaining records. Currently, the RTC has a record service in Reno that makes a good deal of money from them for retaining their records. The passage of S.B. 90 would be a major cost savings for the RTC. In addition to public access to some of the older records, it would increase the public's ability to gain copies of those records in a more expedient fashion. Ms. Tyler informed the committee the RTC was involved in the amendment process of the bill on the Senate side. With regard to the facsimile concerns brought forth earlier, Ms. Tyler called attention to page 2, lines 2-4, of S.B. 90. Chairman Anderson stated this section almost apologizes for having the original rather than a facsimile. Ms. Tyler stated that portion of the bill was not her language and therefore she does not know the full intent behind that section. However, the Senate questioned this area of the bill also but perhaps Mr. Scruggs would be able to address that portion of the bill. Robert Van Straten, State Records Manager, Nevada State Library and Archives, stated it was his duty to help state agencies reduce the cost of storing records. Therefore, they support S.B. 90 as amended and S.B. 91. Mr. Van Straten stated currently in the United States, particularly in Nevada, 95% of all records kept are still on paper. Only 1% are stored on electronic media. He stated the storage cost would be reduced tremendously by facilitating electronic record-keeping. He added keeping records on paper is extremely costly. The average cost of a 4-drawer file cabinet kept in an office is over $3,000 per year. Ms. Buckley asked if a discussion came up in the Senate regarding exceptions to the best evidence rule whereby the exact document was required in relation to forgery of signature. Ken Scruggs returned to the testifying table to address Ms. Buckley's concern. Mr. Scruggs stated that question was not brought forth on the Senate side; however, Mr. Scruggs made inquiries into that area on his own. He replied some ability is lost in proving a forgery has taken place. That is a risk they accept as keepers of the technology. Speaking for Household Financial Group, he added that was a risk they were willing to accept. Ms. Buckley asked if they would have any objection to adding clarifying language that the entity who chose to destroy the records would bear the burden if there was a question of forgery or authenticity. Mr. Scruggs stated it was a model bill and he hated to change it very much. He added the language currently in the bill states the medium utilized for electronic storage must be reliable and accurate. However, if the committee felt so compelled to add specific language as suggested by Ms. Buckley, he would have no objection. In addressing Ms. Buckley's concerns, Mr. Van Straten declared in the Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 239, standards have been set for state agencies in accepting electronic records and optical imaging records. In those standards, there are certain criteria that must be met to diminish the chance for problems of forgery or tampering with the records. Mr. Van Straten suggested it should be left up to the private business to establish policy at their level to protect the record. Therefore, if there were ever a problem that came up in court regarding the authenticity, the company would have written policy to show what they have done to protect the record. Chairman Anderson asserted perhaps some language could be added to the bill allowing that the original be retained by a certain agency in particular instances, such as trust documents, wills, etc., where the original would be required for court filing. Mr. Van Straten added NRS 239.051 requires that if you place a record on a computer or destroy it, you must have a security back-up. That would diminish the possibility of tampering and also provide a security in case something happened to the original. Mr. Perkins stated during the interim he served on the Information Technology Advisory Board and had the opportunity to have conversations with legislators from other states. Many states and jurisdictions have already implemented similar statutes so Nevada would not be recreating the wheel in this area of legislation. In addressing Chairman Anderson's earlier comments, Mr. Scruggs pointed out lines 3 and 4 of S.B. 90 allow for the retention of originals if they are specifically required to be held by federal or state law. Mr. Humke informed Mr. Scruggs he did not believe the committee should move too quickly on S.B. 90 so a determination and study could be made on the possible impact on the rules of evidence. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion of S.B. 91. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 91. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Anderson appointed floor presentation of S.B. 91 to Ms. Monaghan. Having concluded the hearing on the bills scheduled on the agenda, the committee continued into a work session. Chairman Anderson informed the committee he received a letter from Justice Young and concurred by the chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, requesting a bill draft making a constitutional change to Article 6, Section 19 of the Nevada Constitution to add a section to perform other duties as assigned by the Supreme Court including supervision of volunteers and court clerks. This concern is as a result of the audit by the legislative commission. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST BASED ON THE LETTER FROM JUSTICE YOUNG. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Anderson announced the co-chairman requested a presentation from a representative of the insurance companies to explain to the committee concerns they may have relative to their practice in revoking and suspending driver's licenses in non-moving violation situations pursuant to current legislation. Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Company stated there are four bills the insurance agency has concerns with: Assembly Bills 92, 94, 374, and 393. Chairman Anderson remarked A.B. 92 was passed out of committee and testimony was heard from insurance groups and no specific concern was brought out at that time. Mr. Werbeckes asserted that he and Mr. Crowell had testified earlier on A.B. 92 because that bill does address a moving violation. Chairman Anderson interrupted to inform Mr. Werbeckes the committee would not be taking testimony regarding specific bills; but rather, his testimony should be general and informative only as to concerns the committee or insurance industry may have regarding reporting requirements for non-moving violations wherein the punishment has involved suspending or revoking a driver's license. Mr. Werbeckes stated if a driver's license is revoked for a non-moving violation, then the offender is later reinstated, there should be no surcharge on that individual. However, they will be reinstated as a new driver. In other words, as a parent, if your child's license is revoked for two years, you would want to contact the insurance agent to remove that child as a driver on the insurance policy so your cost of insurance is reduced. Mr. Werbeckes stated the only criteria used in rating purposes is that of a moving violation. The insurance industry's basic concern is insuring someone who does not have a license so they somehow need to get the information that someone's license was revoked or suspended. If it is not a moving violation, they would have no way of obtaining the information of such revocation. Upon Chairman Anderson's inquiry, Mr. Werbeckes stated affirmatively the insurance rate goes up just by adding another person with a driver's license even if they do not drive or have a car. In addition, Mr. Werbeckes confirmed the insurance rate would go down if that licensed driver loses their license for a non- moving violation and the insurance company is notified to remove that driver from the insurance policy. Mr. Werbeckes stated there should be no increase in fees to reinstate the driver; however, the individual would be reinstated on the policy as a new driver wherein a new driver rate is higher than a long-time insured driver. Mr. Werbeckes stated the insurance companies will not know the reason behind the open window of time that may show an individual was without a driver's license. The only way the insurance industry could obtain that information is by asking the individual personally or their parents. That could be eliminated if the Department of Motor Vehicles would note on their records why the suspension took place, graffiti, etc., then the information would be available to the insurance industry by running a Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) check. Ms. Stroth commented that where they have prohibited the reporting of the suspended license by the Department of Motor Vehicles to the insurance companies, it would be in the best interest of the insured to report the suspension to the insurance company in order to obtain a refund on their policy. Further discussion was held regarding the reinstatement of a driver's license after a revocation or suspension due to a non-moving vehicle violation and the reporting of such revocation. Mr. Werbeckes clarified Ms. Ohrenschall's comments, that reporting such revocations of lengthy times would benefit the consumer. Upon Mr. Goldwater's inquiry, Mr. Werbeckes confirmed the policy would not be lowered for limited driving such as only to and from work situations in that the entire policy would have to remain in place. Upon Mr. Sandoval's inquiry and Ms. Ohrenschall's earlier comments, Mr. Werbeckes stated there would be an exclusion in the policy if there was a driver whose license is suspended or revoked, whether or not the premium is paid. Mr. Werbeckes stated if an accident were to occur with this driver, they would not owe any claim. However, state law requires they pay the state minimum of 15/30. Mr. Sandoval asked if a child whose driver's license was revoked due to a non-moving violation, and the premium continues to be paid, and the child drives, without his knowledge, and gets in an accident, would the child be excluded by the language in the policy? Mr. Werbeckes stated they would be excluded up to the state minimum financial responsibility of 15/30 pay-out. Upon Ms. Monaghan's inquiry, Mr. Werbeckes stated a driver with a 20-year clean driving record who for some reason gets reinstated after having a revocation or suspension based on a non-moving violation would not have to be reinstated at the new driver rate. Chairman Anderson inquired if a juvenile's ability to obtain their driver's license was delayed due to a non-moving violation such as alcohol consumption at a party, would that juvenile be rated higher as a result of this pre-existing record. Mr. Werbeckes stated as long as there was no moving violation, they would be rated as a new 16 year old driver. There is nothing in the rating books for possession of alcohol at a party. Upon Mr. Goldwater's inquiry, Mr. Werbeckes stated he was speaking of course just on behalf of Farmers Insurance Company but he felt generally most insurance companies would hold similar rating policies as he described above. Chairman Anderson announced a break at 9:25 a.m. and the committee reconvened into a work session at 9:45 a.m. The co-chairman elected to allow Senator Mark James to testify on a bill that would be coming before the Assembly Judiciary Committee within the next week. Senator James stated the bill the committee will be considering is 163 pages which revises criminal sentencing in Nevada. The major components of the bill is that it provides a set of categories of felonies. For the first time in Nevada, all felonies are being placed into one of five categories: a) felony with a death sentence or sentence of life with or without the possibility of parole; b) term of 1- 20 years; c) term of 1-5 years; d) term of 1-4 years; and e) 1-4 years with mandatory suspension with referral to a community program. Those felonies in the e) category are possessory type drug offenses and non-violent charges in order to direct the offender out of the prison system. Senator James elaborated more on the other categories whereby the violent criminal has been addressed more substantially. In all categories above, the judge would be required to give a minimum and a maximum term of imprisonment. Senator James remarked further on the bill which would provide for the judge's requirements of minimum and maximum terms. Senator James briefly stated in addition to other provisions in the bill, it does address a new kind of parole release secured by a surety bond and a requirement that life without possibility of parole cannot be commuted to life with the possibility of parole. He also commented they have been working closely with the administration on the bill and its fiscal impact and will have that available to the Assembly along with a "sentence grid" which outlines the bill in short form. Senator James concluded the bill is a 100% truth-in-sentencing bill. Presiding Chairman Buckley thanked Senator James for his presentation and brought the committee back to a work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 374 - Creates crime of placing graffiti on or otherwise defacing property and provides various penalties. Mr. Neilander stated previous discussion of A.B. 374 involved whether the bill should extend to school districts and that has not been included in the bill as the committee decided that would not be a part of the bill. Mr. Neilander stated the insurance provisions relating to insurance are found at lines 28-29 at page four of the bill which would prohibit the reporting of the suspension or revocation of the driver's license to the insurance company. Lastly, Mr. Neilander explained the other area of discussion on the hearing on A.B. 374 surrounding the 15-day provision for abatement. Presiding Chairman Buckley addressed the above provisions with Ms. Steel, the primary sponsor of A.B. 374. Ms. Steel noted there would be no harm in the insurance company finding out about the license suspension since the testimony today reflects the individual's rates would not be raised except for a moving violation. Presiding Chairman Buckley asked for a raise of hands of the committee, with regard to the insurance issue only, as to who would like to see the bill remain as is. The hands raised indicated the committee would like to see the bill remain as is regarding that insurance provision. Ms. Steel stated with regard to the 15-day abatement provision, she would agree to the inclusion of such language "15 days or as soon as practicable." ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 374 WITH THE ABOVE LANGUAGE "OR AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE." ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN STROTH AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 40 - Revises provisions that prohibit employers from taking certain adverse actions against employees who serve as witnesses. Chairman Anderson stated several discussions have been held on A.B. 40 including subcommittee proposals and recommendations. Mr. Neilander stated the original bill had language about retaliatory conduct which was removed with an amendment. The amendment puts the statute back to the original form with the exception of adding administrative proceedings into the coverage. A second amendment has been brought forth which attempts to address the problem wherein an employee and an employer are involved in litigation. The following testimony has been transcribed verbatim at the request of the co- chairmen. Ms. Buckley, chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 40 reported: "The amendment which was passed out, Amendment No. 268 to A.B. 40, I believe we have an additional change to that amendment. Basically, originally it was called the `Steel Amendment' and it had the words `in which the employer is not a party.' The reason that was added was because if we were going to be more expansive and add employment discrimination cases, we were all concerned that there could be games played. Unfortunately, the way it reads now with those expansive provisions deleted, it affects existing law in that if an employer is a party, for example in a prevailing wage case, if they receive a subpoena in a judicial proceeding they now would not receive coverage under the statute and that, I do not think, was our intent. Mr. Neilander did a couple of attempts at amendments and that flaw was not able to be cured. So, in discussion with Ms. Steel, I believe we are ready to proceed with an amend and do pass on A.B. 40. The only change is that we would add coverage for administrative proceedings. So, the only change would be the addition of three words, "or administrative proceeding." Nothing else would be changed in the statute." Mr. Neilander referred the committee to Amendment No. 268 to A.B. 40 and pointed out the language "in which the employer is not a party" would be bracketed out. Chairman Anderson stated they would request a replacement amendment to Amendment No. 268 to A.B. 40. Chairman Anderson acknowledged Mr. Sam McMullen wishing to comment on A.B. 40. The following testimony was prepared verbatim at the request of the co-chairmen. "My name is Sam McMullen. There has been some question as to what the phrase `administrative proceeding' refers to. My guess is the committee wants that to broad. Does that mean any state and federal proceedings? There are some proceedings where . . . they are sort of employer/employee related that are not employment discrimination hearings like labor proceedings where even employees are supposed to act as the employer and there is some question marks . . . I'm not the expert on that . . . Bob Obstrovsky is downstairs but if we could maybe clarify what administrative proceeding means that would help us react to this." Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Buckley to clarify for the purposes of the amendment what the committee means by administrative proceeding. "Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the subcommittee hearing and on the previous hearing on this bill, we meant administrative proceedings to be state or federal proceedings and not internal employer/employee proceedings. I believe we discussed a possible laundry list and those included things like unemployment, pharmacy board, boards and commissions, and administrative proceedings like PSC things like that. So, they were meant to be formal state or federal administrative proceedings." Mr. McMullen: "Thank you." Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Ling from the Attorney General's Office to come forward and testify for the record if the above explanation of administrative proceedings conformed to his understanding. "For the record my name is Louis Ling. I'm a deputy attorney general and yes what Ms. Buckley stated was our understanding and our intent of this bill that this would apply to state and federal administrative proceedings, formal proceedings similar to court proceedings." Mr. Goldwater stated his notes reflected that Ms. Justice, of Clark County, brought up the issue of truthful testimony. Ms. Buckley interjected that there was a suggested amendment by Ms. Justice on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Department to include the words "as a consequence of his truthful testimony." However, that suggested amendment was also with regard to the expanded provisions because they were afraid that a police officer could present perjured testimony and then they would not be able to transfer him and that would be a problem because of sensitive positions. Because the laundry list and expansiveness has been deleted from the bill, Ms. Buckley believed the suggested amendment would no longer apply but that would be at the wish of the committee. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 40 WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AMENDMENT NO. 268 AS MODIFIED. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 396 - Restricts granting of probation to persons convicted of certain sexual offenses involving children. Mr. Perkins, as chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 396, reported the subcommittee, with the concurrence of the prime sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Sandoval, agreed to amend A.B. 396 by removing sections 1 and 2 of the bill and changing the age threshold in section 3, at line 43 from age 14 to age 16. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 396 AS STATED ABOVE. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. A discussion between Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Sandoval was held regarding the amendment to change the age threshold in the bill. Mr. Sandoval explained in addition to remaining consistent with other statutes, the amendment was also proposed because under Nevada law presently a person convicted of an attempted sexual assault upon a child has the ability to obtain probation. A.B. 396 will eliminate the ability of the court to provide a defendant probation if he is convicted of an attempted sexual assault on a child who is 16 and under. Mr. Sandoval elaborated the first two sections were eliminated after discussions with the prosecutorial community in that defendants convicted of attempted sexual assault upon a child between 14 and 18 would have the ability to obtain probation if they had been seen by a licensed psychologist and met certain criteria. Those discussions resulted in the fact that the deleted sections would not be workable and would be difficult to prosecute. Further discussion was held regarding the subcommittee's report and amendments. Chairman Anderson brought the motion back to the floor for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN STROTH, STEEL, AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL 134 - Revises provisions governing short-term tenancies. Mr. Goldwater, chairman of the subcommittee on A.B. 134 reported neither party was happy with the amendments set forth as a result of testimony on the bill and debates held in subcommittee. The amendment increases the number of days from two days of service to three days of service. It changed the length of tenancy for short notice from 90 days to 45 days, and it requires a landlord to post notice, mail notice, and have a constable serve notice within 48 hours. Mr. Goldwater declared if you believe a landlord does not have sufficient ability to remove people who do not pay in time, then you should vote for the amendment version of A.B. 134. However, if you believe Nevada already has a short enough time of service with the 5-day "nail and mail" which is one of the shortest time periods in the country, then you need to vote against the amended version to A.B. 134. Mr. Goldwater stated he would be voting against A.B. 134 even though he did participate in reaching a compromise because he believes the threshold of time for removing people from their home is already short enough at five days. Chairman Anderson stated having served on the subcommittee on A.B. 134 along with Ms. Stroth, Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Goldwater as chairman, it was difficult reaching a compromise. In addition, A.B. 134 is a resurrection of a bill vetoed in the last legislative session. Chairman Anderson stated the amendment was reached with much reluctance to the bill as a whole and the entire concept surrounding the bill. Chairman Anderson stated the discussion should be held to the amendment before the committee in order to take proper action on the bill today. Ms. Buckley disclosed she is an attorney with Nevada Legal Services and is on an unpaid leave of absence from that firm. Although she has no pecuniary interests in A.B. 134, because she lobbied against the passage of its predecessor, A.B. 687, to avoid even an appearance of a conflict she will be abstaining from voting. Mr. Carpenter, co-sponsor of A.B. 134, stated he believes the compromise reached in A.B. 134 is reasonable in that it adds more responsibility to the landlord. Mr. Carpenter added, after further thought into the bill, he would like to include that if a person comes in on this kind of tenancy they should be provided with notice of the law and what the ramifications and procedure would be should they fail to pay. He concluded by stating he is not for throwing anyone out on the street and he does not see the passage of A.B. 134 adding to the homeless situation. Mr. Neilander stated Mr. Carpenter's current comments were not discussed in the previous hearings on the bill and therefore create new subject matter. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Neilander if the committee could include that subject matter within Amendment No. 351 to A.B. 134 currently before the committee or if they would be required to re-post the bill for testimony. Mr. Neilander stated the committee could modify the original motion to have it be a motion to amend and do pass including Amendment No. 351 plus a notification by the landlord of a short term tenant to all prospective tenants that the law provides a 3-day notice to quit provision. The motion would be to amend the Amend Motion to make it an Amend and Do Pass. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND A.B. 134 TO A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 134 INCLUDING AMENDMENT NO. 351 AND LANGUAGE INCLUDING NOTIFICATION AT TIME OF POSSESSION OF THE 3-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Goldwater stated Mr. Carpenter was very conscientious in working out the compromises involved in A.B. 134 and he supports the added provision by Mr. Carpenter of the 3-day notice to quit language. Chairman Anderson brought the motion back to the floor for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. GOLDWATER VOTED NO. MS. BUCKLEY STATED HER ABSTENTION. Chairman Anderson appointed Mr. Carpenter for floor assignment of A.B. 134. Chairman Anderson announced the amendments on Assembly Bills 91 and 95 would be placed on the next work session and asked Mr. Neilander to provide a copy of the proposed amendments to Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office and Lieutenant Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department. ASSEMBLY BILL 353 - Increases penalty for commission of assault or battery against emergency medical technician. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 353. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter stated he understood the danger some of the people affected by A.B. 353 must be in but perhaps they are covered under other statutes. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see more discussion on this bill before indefinitely postponing it. Chairman Anderson stated he believed in some jurisdictions, EMT personnel are considered members of the fire department and as such would be covered by the provisions in the current law for emergency responders. However, since that has been broadened to include judges, it brings forth an interesting problem wherein private companies have certain personnel and employees that may escape current provisions in the law for this type of coverage. Mr. Batten stated he shared Mr. Carpenter's concerns and he too felt more discussion was needed on the bill. He added the rescue units often are private companies and therefore do not fall under the purview of the fire department or other city personnel. Those individuals have no other way to protect themselves other than having the police present. Mr. Batten concluded that he would like to have the primary sponsor before the committee again to speak in support of his bill. Mr. Humke withdrew his motion and Mr. Sandoval, the seconder, concurred. Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary April 28, 1995 Page