MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 11, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, May 11, 1995, Chairman Humke 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: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: The Honorable Michael R. Griffin, District Judge, First Judicial District Court/Judicial Discipline Commission OTHERS PRESENT: (Continued) Mr. Dennis Myers, citizen Ms. Ande Engleman The Honorable Leonard Gang, Judicial Discipline Commission ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to place commission on judicial discipline in executive branch of state government. Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, District No. 31, advised the committee about the genesis of the bill. A.J.R. 33 is a constitutional amendment which would move the judicial commission from the direct control of the Supreme Court to the Executive Branch. To accomplish this, A.J.R. 33 would have to pass this session of the legislature, the 1997 session, and be approved by a majority of the voters in 1998. In essence this bill moves the power of the commission as currently structured from one department of government to the other. It makes the concept the real issue here and not the bill or the verbiage of the act itself. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern for the judicial department and confidence that people seem to have in this particular system of government. Soon the committee will look at the question of truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing parameters will be set for those proven felons and the way they will be treated. Concerns have been heard in this committee on victim's rights and lack of confidence that the public seems to have in the overall delivery of what happens to someone who commits crime. Central to this question, Mr. Anderson pondered was whether the judicial section is playing its role. The concern in this bill addresses the lack of confidence in that system. Mr. Anderson considered it essential that the commission have independence so there can be no appearance of impropriety in their action. Confidence must be restored. If the people who are most knowledgeable about the judicial system as users of the system, that is attorneys, are chilled in anyway from having the confidence to come to a commission and submit their concerns and to believe that their confidence and concerns will be heard, then we have in essence confidence in the system. How can the ordinary, average citizen, who enters the court hope to have a fair hearing of his issues. Mr. Anderson remarked he did not expect a long line of attorneys here today to support this piece of legislation. Indeed, Mr. Anderson is familiar with the kind of controversy that it creates for them. Mr. Anderson has had telephone calls, support from countless numbers of people who have asked whether he was going to put in this legislation. It was with some hope that there would be an easier way to approach the issue than the one he has chosen to take. A.J.R. 33 moves the question of should the public have the right to make a determination of whether the judicial commission should be placed in the hands of the executive offices of government and then, thus, allowing it to have the independence of action to scrutinize the entire judicial system or only one segment of it. It would be to include the Supreme Court in its discoveries. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 550 - Revises provisions governing commission on judicial discipline. Mr. Anderson requested permission to speak to A.B. 550 since it deals with the heart of the question. Mr. Anderson pointed out some of the strong features of the bill which need scrutiny. When the bill draft was requested a comparison was made of the Nevada judicial commission to other states to identify the problems our commission experienced. The purpose of this bill is not to focus on a particular case of judicial discretion or judicial discipline that had gained notoriety in the northern press. Although it would be strange to say that the case had nothing to do with the bill since it clearly brought to the attention of the public the problems in the judicial discipline area. Mr. Anderson drew attention to Section 3, l. 8, the commission is given the opportunity to investigate any matter brought to their attention. Currently the judicial commission can only investigate written complaints. It cannot listen to rumors. It cannot begin an investigation on its own. Section 3 of this bill would allow the commission to have this type of opportunity. Section 4, l. 12, gives the commission the opportunity on its own without judicial permission to issue subpoenas to acquire the necessary rules set forth in the supreme court in order for the commission to conduct itself as an independent body. It would need such parameters and ability. Those people who chose to ignore the judicial commission's rules p. 2, l. 16, Section 4, provides the opportunity to go to court and obtain a contempt of court order. With this important muscle the commission would have its own independent means of conducting investigations outside and away from the supreme court and other courts. Section 5 of the bill deals with one of the more difficult parts of the judicial commission. Mr. Anderson in particular drew attention to ll. 26-28 which needs amendment to reflect that the person who has been charged will have the opportunity to investigate or examine the discovered documents. However, they will not have the opportunity to discover the writings of individual commission members, only the documents that have been provided along the way. This section grants the members of the judiciary who have been charged due process by providing the documents that have been submitted without opening up the private writings of the commission. Mr. Anderson commented this bill cannot be successful if we are going to broaden the ability of the commission to open up to almost hearsay evidence and then an investigation, if at the same time, the rights of the judge are not given the opportunity to examine the documents. In Section 6 of the bill the constitutional amendment was passed by the voters in the last election. Mr. Neilander referred to A.J.R. 33 with the provisions of the constitutional amendment under the text at p. 4, 5(b), was the language added and approved by the voters at the last general election. It expands the authority of the discipline commission to take actions other than censure, removal, or retirement. Mr. Anderson said in Section 6 the intent of the amendment was to set up a system for imposing the fine against the justice or judge, suspension, or periodic probationary period under conditions deemed appropriate by the commission, issuance by reprimand of justice or judge, requirement to attend additional training, and requirement of remedial course of action. At l. 34 it states other forms of discipline are not limited to the foregoing. Mr. Anderson referenced p. 3, ll. 3-4, Section 6, which prohibits someone from seeking public office. Mr. Anderson suggested this provision be deleted from the bill. At l. 36 it provides for the Attorney General to act as advisory counsel. At l. 46 it states the act becomes effective on July 1, 1995. Mr. Anderson recommended the effective date should follow the passage of A.J.R. 33 to avoid the question of separation of power. In regard to the effective date of A.B. 550 Chairman Humke confirmed with Mr. Anderson it should follow the effectiveness of A.J.R. 33 as a constitutional amendment. Chairman Humke asked Mr. Anderson's intent to put a method of killing A.B. 550 should A.J.R. 33 not pass. Mr. Anderson concurred; however, Section 6 presents concerns for review which are usually part of the judicial rules. Chairman Humke asked why it was appropriate for the policy change in A.J.R. 33 of placing the judicial discipline commission formally in the executive branch instead of the judicial branch resolving its own problems. Mr. Anderson replied it was the intent when the judicial discipline commission was initially established that it would be able to take care of its own problems. As evidenced with this commission and others it has not proven to be the case. In this particular area in order for us to allow the commission that sort of independence, the only way to accomplish it is to take it out of control of the very group to which it belongs. Mr. Anderson advised the reason for A.J.R. 33 is because it was the only solution he saw to restore a higher level of public confidence. It is not analogous to the public defender's office being located in the executive branch of government. Mr. Anderson remarked there are several issues that may come before the voters in the future relative to the judiciary, for example, whether the supreme court becomes an appointed system. The public and attorneys have to have an opportunity where they can come before a commission and have a fair hearing. This is currently not taking place. It gives a very chilling effect from the attorneys he has conferred with who feel reluctant to come to the commission under its current guise and rules. Chairman Humke stated earlier this week in elections and procedures committee Senator Wilson offered an amendment to the Nevada ethics commission statute. It is cleanup legislation in which he offered a policy change to allow the ethics commission to act on those incidents of alleged ethical breach for a person who did serve in an appointive or elective office but has now left that office. At that time Chairman Humke posed a question to Senator Wilson if this exists in the judicial discipline commission. In other words when a judge leaves the bench and some unethical alleged infraction comes to light, can the commission go after him or her. Senator Wilson's answer was no; but, Chairman Humke later found expert testimony off the record that no such provision exists in the judicial discipline commission. Chairman Humke asked how Mr. Anderson would feel about adding such a provision. Mr. Anderson pointed to p. 3 of A.B. 550, ll. 3-6, if this controversial issue was not deleted, then a liberty is taken away from someone being barred from holding that position. Mr. Anderson advised the public holds a concern when someone leaves office and incidents are discovered. In Section 6, p. 2, l. 34, Mr. Anderson suggested restitution provision be inserted. He further stated the commission would not be able to exercise criminal procedures on an offender. Chairman Humke noted public censure was very effective. Mr. Carpenter requested clarification on A.B. 550, p. 2, of the provision to compel someone to testify against themselves. Mr. Anderson responded the documents are public record. Since criminal sanctions are not open in these cases, Mr. Anderson advised those would have to be found in a secondary event. Mr. Anderson commented someone may be reluctant to come forward; but, a court clerk may have specific knowledge that is necessary for the judicial commission to act. Mr. Anderson advised the commission needs this type of ability in order to do its job. Mr. Carpenter stated they could be compelled to produce the records but not to testify against themselves. Chairman Humke commented at subsection 2 of Section 4, p. 1, l. 14, of A.B. 550, it says any witness. This leads one to believe it would be compelled testimony under subpoena. It permits the commission to enter into a petition. Mr. Anderson stated it was similar language of subpoena power given to judiciary, city councils, and county commissioners to make sure that documents are brought to them to make a determination on the record. Chairman Humke advised it could be a fine point. Obviously, the target has fifth amendment rights not to incriminate themselves; but, it can be cleared up. Mr. Sandoval requested clarification if it would allow investigation and complaint based upon rumor and innuendo. Mr. Anderson advised it does. The language in Section 3, l. 8, brought in any manner to the attention of the commission would be sufficient. Mr. Sandoval expressed this section is very troublesome that a judge would be subject to a complaint based upon rumor and innuendo which could be dismissed in a court of law. Procedurally, Mr. Sandoval stated it was quite a dichotomy. Mr. Anderson recognized this issue and seriously considered sending it back to the bill drafter. Then the longer Mr. Anderson listened to people's concerns about the issue of judicial discipline, the more he realized how essential it needed to be there. Unfortunately, Mr. Anderson reiterated the chilling effect to those people who are most knowledgeable in willingness to testify or sign an affidavit relative to whether the judicial commission should move forward. Mr. Anderson believed the commission itself will have to make the determination as to how strongly to base a rumor or innuendo that may come forward. If this problem is heard from five or six people, then one would have to eventually recognize a problem exists and investigate it. Mr. Anderson stated in any system with a commission of this type one must believe they will act in the best interest of what their responsibility is including providing due process to the judge. In reference to p. 1 Mr. Sandoval commented if, indeed, there is a written complaint that is filed the judge would not be allowed to investigate based upon the language at p. 2, ll. 26-31. Mr. Anderson responded the earlier section authorized the discovery and inspection of the documents of the commission dealing with their thought process within and not the investigation material they have collected. Mr. Anderson advised this section will have to be amended in order to maintain the due process rights. Again, Mr. Sandoval commented part of his concern was those investigations that turn fruitless as in A.J.R 33. Mr. Sandoval believed these matters should be open; however, p. 2, ll. 11-14, states if an investigation is based on rumor and innuendo and it is fruitless, in the meantime it will be made public. There is no accountability on the commission side, if indeed, an investigation or complaint is initiated based on innuendo and rumor. Mr. Anderson replied it is a recap of existing statute as it appears in the judicial section. Mr. Sandoval asked if it is new language that an investigation and complaint can be commenced by the commission on its own. Currently, Mr. Anderson advised they have to have a written complaint. It is consistent with A.B. 550. Ms. Steel commented as a legislator she tried not to take comments personally. When innuendos are made about attorneys, Ms. Steel stated attorneys are here to help people. They are not here to be the butt of every joke that comes along when it has to do with the law. Ms. Steel remarked she was getting a bit frazzled on that one. When a comment was made about most attorneys will not support these bills, it insinuates it is because it is not in our best interests. Ms. Steel does take offense at that. Mr. Anderson replied that was not his intent. Mr. Anderson pointed out there were not a lot of attorneys coming forward to support this bill for a very good reason. It is because of the telephone calls Mr. Anderson received. Mr. Anderson advised he is very sensitive about attorney jokes and very few are harmless. The point Mr. Anderson was trying to make is that the people who are most knowledgable about whether there are problems in the judicial discipline area are the attorneys. Mr. Anderson wants to make sure the attorney has confidence that when they come to the judicial commission that they will not receive retribution. Ms. Steel remarked if the two bills are enacted, constitutional challenges will result because of the separation of powers issue. Mr. Anderson affirmed that we are not tearing down or destroying the wall of separation of powers between judicial, executive, and legislative responsibility. In fact, we are leaving it open to the voters of this state as to whether or not in doing this it will make a stronger commission. There is a great deal of public concern about how much authority is given judges. This legislation has dramatically narrowed the scope of judicial discretion for the individual judges at all levels. The truth in sentencing bill soon to be reviewed is a reflection of lack of uniformity by the judges. On the separation of powers argument, Mr. Goldwater asked if the powers of enforcement lay with the judiciary or executive branch. Mr. Anderson advised subpoena power is usually given any of the three branches for discovery purposes only. Mr. Anderson advised enforcement powers normally belong to the executive branch of government; judiciary branch discerns the guilt or innocence. Even under the current system, Mr. Goldwater concluded there still would be as far as enforcement no change. Ms. Buckley expressed admiration in trying to change the constitution, so there is not a separation of powers problem. Assuming that the goal is correct in moving it from the judicial into the executive branch to ensure that complaints are more adequately heard and processed, there would still have to be witnesses to come forward to testify to any alleged improprieties. Those witnesses usually are those who witness abuse, i.e., attorneys, who are reluctant to testify against someone who may hold their fate and their clients' in their hands later. If the judge was dissatisfied with the result in the executive branch, the judge could appeal it to the judicial branch, so it would still go to the Nevada Supreme Court. Ms. Buckley asked how removing the commission from the judicial branch could more effectively provide judicial discipline. Mr. Anderson indicated as he previously mentioned, it was not surprising there were no attorneys to testify in support of A.B. 550 because they are concerned about their clients. Mr. Anderson stated that by moving it over to the executive branch, it would eliminate the reluctance of attorneys or others to appear before the commission. The bill is a hopeful attempt at restoring public confidence in the judicial system. Mr. Carpenter expressed reluctance to move the commission from the judicial to the executive branch. Mr. Carpenter wondered what would happen if the legislature made the rules of procedure and left the commission under the judicial branch. Mr. Anderson replied the legislature has the opportunity to offer those kinds of discussions to the supreme court. Mr. Anderson was reluctant to develop operating rules for a commission in which legislators do not sit. The members of the commission should set their own rules after it is given a parameter of powers with subpoena powers. Mr. Anderson noted it may have been easier to offer A.J.R. 33 by itself without A.B. 550. Then the next session of legislators would decide what the parameters of the rules would be. As pointed out no body of legislature is limited by a succeeding legislature. In reviewing A.B. 550 Ms. Steel commented a lot of this would work the way it now stands. Ms. Steel commended Mr. Anderson for good ideas. Ms. Steel wondered why hold the improvements back until later on. Mr. Anderson responded it would have been nice to move that way. Mr. Anderson advised the bill draft presented a level of problems that the legislative counsel pointed out. It creates the possibility of a constitutional infringement in the separation of powers, specifically that the supreme court shall establish the rules for processing. Ms. Steel asked if the bill could be amended to make it work with the commission without separation of powers. Mr. Anderson advised it does offer a good guideline and one that hopefully if problems continue in this area will be referred to the supreme court. Chairman Humke referenced p. 3 of A.B. 550, the Attorney General was left with the responsibility in investigation. Mr. Anderson noted as advisory counsel. Chairman Humke noticed some controversy with regard to Attorney General's participation in these matters and why the provision was included. Mr. Anderson explained it does broach one of the questions that is part of the more recent controversies of the commission. In Mr. Anderson's opinion the Attorney General needs to be included in order for the investigation to be commenced in an equitable fashion. The Attorney General would have the opportunity for review and it would be appropriate for that office to exercise its power. Mr. Sandoval requested clarification on p. 3 of the resolution, l. 14, describing the responsibilities of the discipline commission. One of which is to conduct an investigation. It was his perception the Attorney General would have nothing to do with the investigation. In preliminary screening of complaints the Attorney General shall advise the commission. Mr. Sandoval asked what the distinction was between investigation and preliminary screening. Mr. Anderson remarked it was a bill drafter type of question. Mr. Anderson noted the disciplinary commission has hired independent counsel to do those things. Mr. Anderson advised the intent was to continue that position. Mr. Anderson presumed the screening by the Attorney General would be to support such investigation. Mr. Sandoval questioned the need for Attorney General involvement in light of the responsibilities outlined in the resolution for the disciplinary counsel. In the future Mr. Anderson advised it may be more cost effective for the Attorney General to do the screening. In summary Mr. Anderson appreciated the amount of time and effort the committee has given to this particular question. Mr. Anderson considers it a controversial area and one that legislators have a responsibility to contemplate restoration of an essential element of the process. Chairman Humke declared a break at 9:23 a.m. Chairman Humke declared the start of a subcommittee at 9:35 a.m. A public apology was made for the Honorable Judge Griffin even though he departed for a jury trial for not calling on him to testify first. Mr. Dennis Myers, resident of Lockwood, Nevada, reporter for three publications and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists of Nevada, testified he was here today representing himself. Mr. Myers grew up hearing barber jokes; and one of the sayings was never let a barber decide if you need a haircut. Mr. Myers advised that is the situation we have here. Judges deciding whether or not to discipline judges. For many years Mr. Myers has been covering the activities of the discipline commission since the Manoukian-Gunderson investigation in the 1970's. During the aborted Whitehead investigation, Mr. Myers was able to bring before the public information about the activities of the judicial discipline commission including the initial disclosure of the very existence of the Whitehead case and the subsequent disclosure of the federal investigation. More information was brought into public view by A. D. Hopkins of the Las Vegas Review Journal. Mr. Myers informed secrecy and cronies were found in a situation where the judicial branch is in charge of investigating itself. Mr. Myers was concerned the legal community still holds the majority on the commission even under the proposed legislation. Mr. Myers recommended the only way to guarantee the independence of the commission is to take it out from under the judiciary. The supreme court has repeated its decisions in shutting down the Whitehead investigation on the status of the discipline commission as a judicial agency. Its status as a judicial agency has not been an instrument for judicial discipline. It has been a tool for prevention of judicial discipline. As for the separation of powers issue, Mr. Myers agreed that there is a problem; however, it is a problem with the existing arrangement with the judicial discipline under judiciary branch. Traditionally, policing of the judiciary has been the role of other branches of government. Mr. Myers supported A.J.R. 33, but has misgivings about A.B. 550. In conclusion, if the public is ever to know what is going on in judicial discipline that process needs independence from judiciary. Now, similar situations exist in congress with the congressional ethics commission with a result of secrecy, cronies, and wrist slapping. Chairman Humke declared a quorum was present at 9:40 a.m., and we are back to the full committee. Ms. Buckley asked even if it is moved to the executive branch, lawyers will still be needed to testify and it can still be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. Ms. Buckley wondered how much would it really be changed by the move. Mr. Myers advised the appeal would be the decision and not the process. Right now that point is never reached. The investigation was stopped in a preliminary stage. In essence you had a judicial body administering an executive function. They were involved in the day-to-day conduct of the commission. Along the same lines, Ms. Buckley noted there are many boards set up, for example, contractor's board, to police abuses within their own industry. Ms. Buckley asked how those type of bodies are different than the judicial commission as it is presently constituted. Mr. Myers agreed and said those are executive branch agencies. Mr. Myers said there are the same problems there. There is the same kind of in group protection and cronism going on. There is one big difference in that we are talking about the branch of government and a group of elected officials, not about an occupation. In addition, Mr. Myers advised those proceedings are conducted in public. Ms. Buckley asked about the separation of powers issue. If another branch of government got to investigate an abuse within the legislature and how much trouble would be caused by interference with the functions of the other branches. Mr. Myers stated that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about policing misconduct. In the past the legislative and executive branches have always handled judicial discipline. When Judge Claiborne was prosecuted, it was never determined it was a breach of separation of powers for him to be prosecuted. Ms. Ande Engleman, testified on her own behalf due to her involvement with the commission for the last three years. Ms. Engleman supported A.B. 550 and A.J.R. 33, with some amendment. First of all Ms. Engleman commended the Co- Chairman, Mr. Anderson for proposing both these pieces of legislation. Over the last three years Ms. Engleman has been asked to address many civic groups across the state on open government, judicial discipline commission and the supreme court. Ms. Engleman advised the question of separation of powers could be debated for months with no resolution. Ms. Engleman advised her concern is with the process and was not interested in participating with national television news programs addressing judicial discipline for individuals. Other states have found solutions by expanding the commission to where it is a preponderance of citizens not affiliated with the court or the judicial branch. In this manner it is not under the sway of the supreme court. Another state made the commission independent body unto itself. Ms. Engleman referred to handout, attached as (Exhibit C). Under Rule 6, any citizen who files a complaint with the judicial discipline commission is immediately issued a warning which states if you breathe one word of this, you can be held in contempt of court. That person can be jailed. The warning for confidentiality is never lifted and goes on forever. A U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled it unconstitutional twelve years ago regarding the grand juries. A lifetime gag order infringes on their first amendment rights and freedom of speech. Ms. Engleman provided a 1994 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Lind v. Grimmer case. It basically says it is a first amendment violation to require a person to withhold or to speak about a complaint they have made with any kind of body, i.e., judicial discipline, ethics, contractor's board, podiatrist board. The secrecy that is permitted by the constitution of Nevada needs to be changed. It is clearly unconstitutional. Chairman Humke requested clarification of confidentiality handout in (Exhibit C); and if it applies to the other bill Senator Wilson was speaking to, not to either of these bills, in elections and procedures committee. Ms. Engleman advised that was correct, and she was offering it as an example of what was handed out in the elections committee. It summarizes the legal ramifications of the Ninth Circuit Court decision. On p. 1, l. 14 of A.J.R. 33, Ms. Engleman recommended a different composition be considered for the commission perhaps by adding majority of lay citizens. On p. 2, ll. 11-12 Ms. Engleman recommended deletion of (a). Ms. Engleman advised the court has interpreted it to mean everything is secret. Ms. Engleman advised judges have been censored without public awareness even though our present constitution calls for it to be made public. Ms. Engleman advised the present constitution does allow for additional responsibilities as may be designated by the legislature. Two years ago the supreme court ruled the language was not constitutional and therefore they would not pay any attention to it. It needs to be clarified to both branches of government exactly what their responsibilities and powers may be. In A.B. 550, p. 2, l. 39, Section 6(d) Ms. Engleman requested to not have the issuance of private reprimand of the justice or judge included. Justices and judges in our state are elected and the public has the right to know whether or not they are responsible people. Our country is based upon having informed voters when they go to the polls to vote. If elected officials' actions are kept secret from the public, how are they supposed to make an informed decision at the polls. On p. 3, subsection (c), ll. 3-5, Ms. Engleman requested deletion of private resolution with the justice or judge. Judge Leonard Gang, general counsel and Executive Director, Judicial Discipline Commission, testified with some trepidation, so many questions have been raised and he does not profess to know all the answers. As a representative of the commission in regard to A.J.R. 33, the commission feels that there are potential constitutional problems in separation of powers problems with that joint resolution, but feels that it is an issue of policy for the legislature to determine. Therefore, the commission does not take a position in regard to that resolution. In regard to A.B. 550 Judge Gang informed the constitution as it presently exists grants to the legislature in Section 9 the right to determine what further powers the commission may exercise. Section 9(d) provides commission may exercise such further powers as the legislature may confer upon it. Judge Gang stated the legislature does have the power and authority to confer additional powers on the judicial discipline commission. Judge Gang expressed concern with Section 5, ll. 26-31, those provisions need further clarification. Chairman Humke announced the intention to assign A.B. 550 into a subcommittee. On p. 3 of A.B. 550, Section 6, subsection 2(b), Judge Gang recommended it be changed to letters of caution. Judge Gang suggested the addition of the commission be empowered to require the issuance of public or private apologies. In regard to concerns raised Judge Gang advised Senator Wilson is correct, as the commission does not have jurisdiction over judges once they are no longer judges. In regard to Mr. Carpenter's self-incrimination question, Judge Gang advised the power to subpoena and require persons to testify would in no way effect the right of individuals to decline on the basis of self-incrimination. Judge Gang advised some of the voiced concerns could be answered by passage of S.B. 369 which is presently in Senate finance committee. S.B. 369 would grant to the commission a judicial immunity. Judicial immunity frees the members of the commission to do those acts they feel are appropriate without fear of being sued either by judges or persons who bring complaints to the commission. At the present time some members of the court are of the opinion the commission is only immune from suits as long as they act specifically within their jurisdiction. If one makes a mistake and acts in excess of his jurisdiction, one is personally liable. Chairman Humke appointed a subcommittee of Mr. Carpenter as Chairman, Ms. Steel, Mr. Goldwater, and Mr. Anderson for A.J.R. 33 and A.B. 550. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34 - Urges Congress to pass Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 34. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. Under discussion Ms. Buckley was hesitant to support without testimony on the stop turning out prisoners act. Chairman Humke advised the motion will be temporarily held while Mr. Batten retrieves the paperwork, and if it does not resolve some concerns, it can be held over until tomorrow's work session. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WITHDREW HIS MOTION TO PASS A.J.R. 34. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WITHDREW HIS SECOND. Chairman Humke declared the motion is withdrawn. COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS: ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 11-1870. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 57-1736. ASSEMBLYMAN MONAGHAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Anderson advised he conferred with General Clark yesterday regarding the hour of return from Project Challenge in Phoenix, AZ. It is possible they may be able to return a little earlier and be back in the office at 2 p.m. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 11, 1995 Page