MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 17, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 10:30 a.m., on Saturday, June 17, 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: Assemblyman Douglas Bache Assemblyman Dennis Nolan STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Treat, Nevada Judges Association Honorable Jon Tatrot, Nevada Judges Association Myla Florence, Nevada State Welfare Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Elana Hatch, Clark County Department of Juvenile Services Bill Cavagnaro, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Randal Munn, State of Nevada Medicaid Fred Hillerby, Washoe Health System Nancy Saitta, Attorney General's Office Susan McCurdy, State of Nevada Parole Board James Jackson, State Public Defender Bill Curran, Nevada Gaming Commission SENATE BILL 401 - Revises provisions governing regulation of gaming. William P. Curran, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission, testifying in support of S.B. 401, stated he has been on the gaming commission since 1989 and in his opinion, the gaming industry in Nevada has never been healthier. There are 14,000 new hotel rooms currently under construction throughout the state. Mr. Curran went on to describe the increase in hotels and casinos and change in the gaming industry. The state of Nevada is required to continually be open to new challenges since nearly half the states now have some form of gaming. Recognizing time commitments, Mr. Curran provided a photograph to show the committee just how their workload has increased. The materials in the photograph represent the material necessary to review for an average monthly meeting. The photograph is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Mr. Curran stated S.B. 401 provides for a pay increase for the gaming commissioners. Mr. Curran argued the job is much more complex now especially with the integration of electronic gaming. There are five commissioners who are all private citizens. Mr. Curran explained the Gaming Control Board handles daily activities in the gaming industry while the Gaming Commission makes the final decisions. Mr. Curran also explained he is a lawyer in private practice; however, due to his position as a commissioner he is precluded from taking a great number of cases out of conflict of interest. Mr. Curran concluded by urging the committee to provide the commission with the necessary financial ability to continue with their commitment to the best job they can in protecting the state's economic base and by supplying the best people for the job. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the commitment the commission provides regularly and perhaps their salary does not always commensurate with the skills and commitment devoted to these jobs. Mr. Curran added sometimes their duties include quasi-judicial roles wherein they hear contested matters whereby the board prosecutes and a lawyer represents another board and the hearing is held before the commission. Further, they have no secretaries or other support staff within the state budget. Upon Mrs. Monaghan's inquiry, Mr. Curran stated the last increase for the commissioners was four years ago adding their salaries do not get determined with the other unclassified salaries and this provides a better system by reporting to the Legislature regularly on what they are doing. Bob Faiss, legal counsel, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), stated S.B. 401 was requested by NRA to make possible continued innovation to retain Nevada as number one in gaming. Mr. Faiss stated other members of the panel would address proposed amendments to the Nevada Gaming Control Act, most of which are technical in nature. Those amendments are contained in the "Proposed Second Reprint of SB 401" attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Mr. Faiss introduced the panel of speakers to speak in support of S.B. 401. The prepared testimony of these speakers is attached hereto as (Exhibit E). Marc Rubenstein, Vice President General Counsel, Caesars, on behalf of the Nevada Resort Association (NRA) stated gaming technology has advanced dramatically in the past several years. Sections 1-11, 13, and 15-17 of S.B. 401 bring the regulatory apparatus in line with the development of technology. In addition, the bill fine-tunes the cashless wagering systems especially in relation to the electronic transfers of money. Currently the law allows these types of transfers but does not regulate the transfers and therefore S.B. 401 would provide a great improvement in this area. Mr. Rubenstein stated S.B. 401 would also prohibit the use of credit cards to initiate electronic transfers of money directly to a slot machine. Finally, the bill provides criminal penalties for the use of counterfeit items associated with cashless wagering systems. Mr. Rubenstein emphasized the Gaming Control Board is very cooperative in resolving regulatory issues; however, the guidelines lacking in the statutes has made this difficult. Ellen Whittemore, attorney at law, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, on behalf of NRA, stated Sections 2-6 of S.B. 401 define terms necessary for the implementation of the new cashless wagering system. Ms. Whittemore pointed out several of the terms in greater detail. Paul E. Larson, attorney at law, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, representing International Game Technology, (IGT) stated the amendment would add a new section to the bill, Section 9. This section provides no right of periodic payments may be assigned by patrons in whole or in part except to a deceased patron's estate or to the patron's ex-spouse as ordered in a divorce decree. This would minimize the potential federal income tax liability to the winning patron. Ms. Whittemore stated Sections 10-12 clarify the statutes to implement the cashless wagering systems. Section 14 is a new provision requested by the Gaming Control Board whereby if the board reveals confidential information to any public agency as a result of an information sharing agreement, that agency cannot further reveal the information without authorization. Section 16 is a technical clarification including the term "affiliates." Section 17 clarifies patron disputes. Anthony N. Cabot, attorney at Law, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, on behalf of Nevada Pari-Mutuel Association, discussed Section 18 of the bill which governs how casinos grant credit and the use of "markers." This provision would delete obsolete provisions. Ms. Whittemore stated Section 19 was a new section which would allow a licensee to deduct the cost of personal property won by a patron in a Keno or Bingo game. Section 20 expands the authority of the Gaming Control Board in regards to cashless wagering systems. Mr. Cabot stated Section 22 would allow Nevada Race books to keep pace with the growth of the pari-mutuel industry outside Nevada by establishing telephone accounts for out-of-state patrons. The details would be worked out by the commission and the board requiring regulatory amendments. They would like to add the following words after the word "except", "pursuant to regulations to be adopted by the Nevada Gaming Commission, off- track pari-mutuel wagers made over wire communication facilities from betters calling from within Nevada or from states in which wagering is legal." Ms. Whittemore concluded Sections 23 and 24 make corrections to the criminal provisions of the Gaming Control Act to incorporate new definitions in the statute. Ms. Buckley asked for a better understanding of the electronic transfers of money as to what is permissible in state law presently and how S.B. 401 would expand it. Ms. Whittemore stated the current statute allows the electronic transfer of funds to a gaming device but the statute was not explicit in how to regulate the transfer of funds. Ms. Whittemore provided information regarding the Caesars "Request" system, attached hereto as (Exhibit F). This allows for electronic transfers from an established account to a gaming device. The statute does not expand the current law but clarifies it. Ms. Buckley asked if someone could call from out-of-state and place a bet by using their charge card account number. Mr. Cabot replied the current regulations require a person to come into the Sports Book, establish an account, then they can place calls and have wagers placed onto their account for the race. That system would not change under S.B. 401 and is based on a cash account not a credit card. Mr. Batten stated the problem he had with the bill was in Section 13 regarding the pay increase which amounts to approximately a 33% increase. He acknowledged the commissioners work very hard and have not had a pay raise in four years but neither have any of the other unclassified employees. He concluded a 7% pay raise would be sufficient for the commission which is along the same lines of other unclassified employees. Upon Mrs. Monaghan's inquiry, Mr. Lerner, IGT, stated periodic payments will still be performed. Section 9 simply provides periodic payments cannot be assignable by the winning patron. Mr. Goldwater asked why IGT was concerned with the tax treatment of the patron. Mr. Lerner replied if it is assignable, the IRS could say it is an economic benefit realized. Further discussion was held pertaining to the assignability of winnings. Ms. Whittemore clarified Section 9 does not attempt to limit the ability of a patron to assign, it attempts to protect the patron who does not want to assign. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was an IRS ruling regarding these discussions. Mr. Lerner provided the "Economic Benefit Doctrine", IRS Rule 62-74 and Rule 83-25 addresses the issue. Presiding Chairman Sandoval asked Mr. Lerner to provide the IRS rulings for the record. Upon Ms. Buckley's inquiry into the definition of electronic transfers, Ms. Whittemore responded there was never any statutory reference but the concept was discussed at the time "cashless wagering system" was first defined. Those discussions included the use of a "SMART CARD" which is a debt instrument under the statute. Ms. Buckley expressed, from a public policy concern, gambling on credit cards may be too easy but acknowledged the limited access the state would have on what patrons chose to do while in a gaming establishment. Mr. Manendo commented his concerns with the bill dealt with the pay raise as he did not see this large an increase as justified. Ms. Whittemore concluded the Gaming Control Board fully supports S.B. 401 and they urge adoption of the same. William Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board, briefly stated the previous speakers correctly represented his working with them on the bill. He clarified Ms. Buckley's concerns stating currently you cannot activate a gaming device in Nevada with a credit card. S.B. 401 would allow the use of an ATM card to activate a gaming device but would prohibit the use of a credit card device. Throughout the casino floor you can use either cards to get a quick draw against your account or establish a line of credit on your credit card. Section 7 of the bill sets forth the uses of these cards. Mr. Bible stated with regard to Section 9 of the bill, the constructive receipt doctrines and he agreed with Mr. Carpenter in that the IRS has made it very difficult and there is current litigation involving IGT on this issue so he would not comment further. Ms. Buckley asked what the board's rationale was on ATM access for immediate activation of a game and what were the deliberations surrounding their rationale. Mr. Bible stated it was a policy consideration and Section 7 of the bill is a result of his negotiations for prohibition of the use of credit cards. Ms. Stroth asked if there were other commissioners within the state receiving salaries. Mr. Bible stated they all receive a salary. Ms. Stroth noted the tax commission receives a daily rate and per diem fee and asked why there was a different structure for the gaming commissioners. Mr. Bible replied the commissioners have always been set out differently. Chairman Curran, Gaming Commission, replying to Mr. Manendo's inquiry, stated their last pay increase was four years ago from $24,000 to $42,000 per year. Mr. Manendo asked why there was such a substantial increase requested presently. Mr. Curran replied being a commissioner is not a regular hourly type job but rather a constant level of effort with an increased level of commitment. Secondly, the nature of the industry has changed tremendously as testified to earlier. In addition, Mr. Curran reiterated there is no allotment for secretarial support so when assistance is needed in that nature, they pay for it themselves. Mr. Manendo stated he was not in dispute as to the amount or type of work the commission does but was merely applying some fiscal responsibility in consideration of the other persons requesting pay increases this session, not to mention defending this kind of thing to constituents. Mr. Curran commented if you define the question as just a percentage increase then it may appear on the high end; however, if you define it as something vitally important to the gaming industry in the credibility of the commissioners with Wall street, then it is not. Mr. Batten commented he hears the argument for a 33% increase but compared it to the police officers who are lucky if they see a raise and wondered if they would consider a 7% increase. Mr. Carpenter asked how much of the commissioners' time is spent on the gaming commission. Mr. Curran stated the time fluctuates from month to month but it is never less than 50% of his time. Mr. Curran concluded if no pay raise came from this Legislation, the commissioners would still remain committed to their job. Upon Ms. Stroth's inquiry, Mr. Curran stated there were five commissioners. Ms. Stroth inquired if the pay increase is due to an increased workload, why not ask for another commissioner? Mr. Curran answered it does not work that way. ASSEMBLY BILL 666 - Revises provisions governing evaluations of certain offenders for abuse of alcohol or other drugs. Paula Treat, Lobbyist, stated A.B. 666 was a clean-up bill addressing items that should have been changed in the last legislation. Ms. Treat stated there was an amendment to the bill at page one, line 2 changing "county" to "township" and the same thing on page two, line 13. This provides a more simplified process for evaluations without having to have persons driving long distances for evaluations. Honorable Judge Jon Tatrot, Justice of the Peace, Carson City, on behalf of the Nevada Judge's Association, stated they support treatment for people convicted of drinking related offenses. Judge Tatrot stated in Reno and Las Vegas it works but in an area like Pahrump or Gerlach it is not practical so the bill amends the criteria for treatment center to something above 100,000. Ms. Steel expressed concern for the population threshold in that it specializes legislation and should be avoided. Mr. Carpenter stated he was very opposed to the bill because there is just as much of a problem of DUI in the rural areas as there is in the metropolitan areas so treatment is necessary for all. In fact, many justices are ordering evaluations already. Ms. Treat stated the bill is not attempting to alleviate the evaluation system. Judge Tatrot added he agreed and as a judge he orders counseling, treatment, and evaluations many times even for cases below the .18 blood alcohol level. Under A.B. 666 the treatment would still be the same. They would go to a counselor approved by the bureau there just would not be a treatment center. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Steel surmised the point of the bill was to get an evaluation but there are not treatment centers in certain areas. So, perhaps the language could be changed to read ". . . the court shall require the evaluation at a center or by a counselor, physician, or person whose been approved." Judge Tatrot stated a problem would exist regarding funding of the treatment and accounting situations. James Jackson, State Public Defender, addressed Mr. Carpenter's concerns by stating the bill does not reduce the requirement on justices to order evaluations in appropriate cases. The law is clear that they "shall" do it and it is not discretionary. Addressing Ms. Steel's concerns, Mr. Jackson recalled previous work on the bill whereby the justices did not want to send people all over the city but rather to the programs where funding was most available. The amendment specifically addresses the rural areas that may not find it cost effective to set up an evaluation center but there are people available to perform evaluations under the BADA guidelines. In that regard, he believes the bill expands opportunities for evaluations. Mr. Anderson noted in studying the state demographics, there are only three to wn shi ps in the sta te of Ne va da wit h a po pul ati on ov er 10 0, 00 0-- He nd ers on, Las Ve ga s, an d Re no. Ms . Tre at sta ted the y co uld ch an ge the po pul ati on thr es hol d to 30 ,0 00 wh ich wo uld en co mp ass the co nc ern s ad dre sse d by the co m mit tee . Chairman Humke asked when a person is sent for evaluation by the justice court, what is the percentage of those persons being evaluated, in-patient and out-patient care. James Jackson, State Public Defender, estimated in-patient evaluations are approximately 5% and out-patient 95% with follow-up treatment. ASSEMBLY BILL 621 - Makes various changes concerning support of children. Myla Florence, Administrator, State Welfare, testified in favor of A.B. 621 and provided the committee with a handout of materials (Exhibit G) attached hereto. Chairman Humke stated Ms. Florence met with the chairmen individually because of misgivings pertaining to A.B. 621 and those misgivings have been entirely resolved. Ms. Florence stated most of the changes proposed to A.B. 621 were the result of requirements from OBRA 1993. She informed the child support enforcement program is funded 66% by federal participation with the balance coming from collections and incentives received by the federal government. Ms. Florence remarked A.B. 621 attempts to strengthen the paternity establishment requirements of OBRA 1993 and to allow for increased enrollment of Medicaid eligible children. In addition, Ms. Florence provided prepared testimony, a section by section analysis of the bill, a reprint of the bill containing specific federal citations, and proposed amendments to the bill, attached hereto as (Exhibit H). The first amendment is to Section 1, line 5 pertaining to parentage of the child and establishing support. The language suggested thereto is as a result of the case of Hedlund v. Hedlund, 111 Nev. Adv. Opn. 18 (March 2, 1995). Secondly, in Section 3, line 43, they recommend the language be changed to remove the Nevada State Welfare from acting as guardian ad litem in certain matters. Ms. Florence concluded by going through the bill section by section. Ms. Steel asked if the child support adjustment could be an increase or decrease and how that would affect the supporting party without counsel. Ms. Florence replied the support could be adjusted up or down. Upon Ms. Monaghan's request for clarification, Ms. Florence stated Section 13 is a "relaxation of federal requirements" regarding case processing. Ms. Florence informed the federal law has been reduced to 75% completion within six months after service of the notice of proceedings. The National Child Support Program has certain standards for the states to meet for timely processing and those standards have been relaxed so the bill brings Nevada in compliance with the federal standards. Mr. Leland Sullivan, acting chief, Child Support Program, intercepted and stated the counties have been able to meet the compliance areas most regularly. Upon Ms. Monaghan's further inquiry, Ms. Florence confirmed the state can have sanctions imposed for going below the standards. Ms. Buckley stated the bill is very important but she had two concerns. Page four, line 13, she has a concern with service of process by mail and would prefer service pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, regarding the amount the counties can charge as set forth on page six, line 34, the language appears ambiguous regarding the "per action" charge. Ms. Florence replied that probably would not include correspondence and telephone calls. Ms. Florence commented presently all counties are overwhelmed with the amount of cases in the child support program. There are many difficulties to overcome since they often deal with interstate complaints. Ms. Florence advised the child support program collected over $56,000,000 in revenue and support for Nevada's children and they continue to strengthen and further those efforts. Elana Hatch, Clark County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hatch pointed out they provide a public service to the community and provided particularities on the cases she sees through that office. Ms. Hatch expressed concerns to Section 1 of the bill because if a person is current with their child support payments even if the order is as low as $50 per month, the petitioner in a non-welfare case cannot access the court for an increase or adjustment of that support amount. Their office is interested in the children, of course, but also the petitioners and respondents, by allowing proper access to the courts. Ms. Hatch stated currently in Clark County they have 34,000 open cases with 115 employees and six attorneys staffing those cases. Last month, they collected approximately $3,800,000.00. Ms. Buckley asked about the $20 charge for the review and adjustment of a case. Ms. Hatch stated they do accept telephone calls as well as letters. Fred Hillerby, Washoe Health System, the holding company not for profit that owns Washoe Medical Center and a couple insurance companies, stated Section 18 sets forth requirements for the hospital which, as a public policy issue in establishing parentage and coverage, they believe it is worth whatever minor headaches it may cause the hospital and therefore support the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 621 UTILIZING THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AND THOSE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FORTH BY MS. BUCKLEY AT SECTION 4 AND SECTION 10 WHICH HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY MS. FLORENCE OF THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Humke asked if the amendment included service for paternity actions. Mr. Neilander provided the specific language in that regard. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN PERKINS, SANDOVAL, SCHNEIDER AND BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Humke appointed Mrs. Monaghan for floor assignment of A.B. 621. The committee recessed at 12:45 p.m., and reconvened at 1:40 p.m. ASSEMBLY BILL 640 - Revises provisions governing unlawful taking of vehicle. Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Clark County District 11, stated A.B. 640 came as a result of a constituent who loaned his car to a friend with a verbal agreement the vehicle would be returned within 24 hours. The car was never returned. Three days later he attempted to file a complaint with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department but the complaint was refused because of the verbal consent. A week later the vehicle was found abandoned in Florida. Mr. Bache stated A.B. 640 would clarify the auto theft laws and clear up a gap in the law. There being no questions from the committee, Chairman Humke entertained a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS A.B. 640. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT. * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED AMEND & DO PASS. S.B. 401. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Manendo expressed his concern for the raise increase at such a large percentage. Other than that, he likes the rest of the bill. Mr. Batten requested the increase be 7% rather than 33% reiterating his previous testimony. Mr. Schneider commented the entire bill should pass as it is critical to the industry which is the mainstay of our state. Further, Mr. Schneider stressed the importance of retaining qualified individuals on the commission. Ms. Ohrenschall agreed the part time workers on the commission bear a large burden but looking at a budget where there are not enough funds to secure proper public safety they must balance between tough justice and smart justice so she cannot justify such a large rate increase at this time. Mr. Anderson concurred with Mr. Schneider and reminded the Commissioner Chairman gives up much revenue due to a conflict of interest he has in being on the commission. Mr. Carpenter acknowledged the concerns brought forth by the committee adding the commissioners' salaries must be commensurate with what is paid in the industry. Mrs. Monaghan called for the question which passed and the motion was brought back to the floor. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN MANENDO AND BATTEN VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Mr. Manendo stated he was in favor of the bill just not in favor of the section involving rate increase so he will be coming forward with a floor amendment. Mr. Batten stated he agreed with the bill as a whole but was opposed to Section 13 and will be making an attempt to place the bill on the chief clerk's desk to add an amendment. The committee went into a work session at this time. ASSEMBLY BILL 633 - Revises provisions relating to offers of judgment. Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, announced A.B. 633 went to subcommittee with Ms. Buckley and Ms. Steel as members. Ms. Buckley stated two amendments came as a result of the subcommittee from the Nevada Trial Lawyers and from Lionel, Sawyer & Collins which are contained in the Work Session Document (Exhibit I) hereto. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 633. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. Committee discussion ensued pertaining to the amendments. Chairman Humke brought the motion back to the floor. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL 632 - Limits costs which are recoverable by landlord who enforces lien for unpaid rent. Mr. Neilander explained this bill went to a subcommittee with Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Buckley as members. The subcommittee agreed to an amendment that would allow recovery of limited attorneys' fees after the notice of sale has been filed but the fees would not be recoverable to cure a deficiency before the notice of sale. The proposed amendment is in the Work Session Document (Exhibit I) hereto and Mr. Neilander detailed it further for the committee. Ms. Buckley stated the amendment proposed is as a result of discussions with Joe Guild, Esq. and Washoe Legal Services and they both are in agreement thereto. Ms. Buckley further detailed the amendments. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 632. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN GOLDWATER AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 534 - Makes various changes regarding protection of children from abuse, neglect and abduction. Mr. Neilander explained this bill was original Indefinitely Postponed by the committee and deals with parental abduction cases. He stated the original law in this regard prohibits abandonment activity but does not provide a penalty. The proponents viewed this as an oversight and they request the bill be reconsidered. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 534. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN GOLDWATER AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT. Mr. Humke noted there was an amendment to A.B. 534 proposed by the Attorney General's office in the Work Session Document (Exhibit I) hereto. Ms. Buckley asked what the penalty would be. Mr. Neilander stated the penalty was one to six years or by a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 or by both fine and imprisonment. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if language "without good cause" could be included in the bill and defined particular situations which may benefit such language. Mrs. Monaghan declared that language was present in subsection 8. Mr. Anderson stated it would be a drafting question. Mr. Neilander stated if that language was clarifying rather than redundant he would check with the bill drafter in that regard. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 534 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED ALLOWING FOR DISCRETION OF THE BILL DRAFTER AS WELL. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN GOLDWATER AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL 565 - Revises provisions governing granting of probation or parole to person convicted of harassment, stalking or crime constituting domestic violence. Mr. Neilander outlined conceptual amendments present in the Work Session Document pertaining to the electronic monitoring circumstances involved in these types of crimes and additional provisions. In addition, a new section would be added to the bill which authorizes the courts to order electronic monitoring for misdemeanor offenders which would allow law enforcement to utilize private entities for purposes of installation or operation of the electronic monitoring program. Mr. Batten confirmed the amendments as outlined by Mr. Neilander. Mr. Batten announced there is a current system set up in Clark County Municipal Court, and that same company would be brought in to monitor the program. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 565. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN GOLDWATER, PERKINS, AND SCHNEIDER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Humke appointed Mr. Batten for floor assignment of A.B. 565. ASSEMBLY BILL 363 - Revises provisions governing number of justices of the peace in townships. Mr. Neilander explained this bill would modify the mandatory creation of justice of the peace positions based on township populations. A.B. 363 would provide that if the township transmits a letter stating there has been no increase, then the justice position would only be approved if the Legislature approves it rather than an automatic appointment. An amendment has been suggested to change the population qualifier on line 11 to 150,000 rather than 100,000 and then delete the remainder of the amendatory language. Mr. Anderson provided a handout regarding the population demographics throughout the state, attached hereto as (Exhibit I). Mr. Anderson discussed a letter he received from the county commission assuring that both Henderson and North Las Vegas townships will receive the additional second justice of the peace even though they will not meet the new 150,000 requirement but there is a need in those two townships. Ms. Steel reiterated her concern expressed during earlier testimony on the bill in that the law should remain as is and any change may raise their jurisdictional amounts which will increase their workload. Mr. Humke clarified the increase made was to the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court, not the general jurisdiction. Upon Ms. Buckley's inquiry, Mr. Anderson stated he received a letter from the Clark County Commissioners indicating they have already allocated funds for the inclusion of two justices for Henderson and North Las Vegas. Further discussion was held pertaining to A.B. 363 and the proposed amendments thereto. ASSEMBLYMAN MONAGHAN MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 363. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN, GOLDWATER, AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Humke appointed Mr. Anderson for floor assignment of A.B. 363. ASSEMBLY BILL 650 - Requires court to designate country of habitual residence of child in custody decree and authorizes court in custody case to require parent with significant commitments in foreign country to post bond. Nancy Saitta, deputy attorney general, and Childrens' Advocate, thanked the committee for allowing her to testify on A.B. 650 again. Ms. Saitta provided a proposed amendment to the bill, attached hereto as (Exhibit K). Ms. Saitta stated the amendment has changed the language in the bill to reflect the parties to a divorce where there are significant commitments to a foreign country agree to designate the United States as the place of habitual residence and then upon that agreement the court can so order. She added this would serve two purposes: 1) everyone would be on notice as to what they can or cannot do if they have significant ties to a foreign country and 2) it creates an opportunity for the court and litigants to be educated in the requirements necessary for taking or removing the child from the United States. Ms. Saitta continued the bond provision has been removed from the bill and more clearly defined "significant commitment." ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED AMEND & DO PASS A.B. 650 INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY MS. SAITTA. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN, GOLDWATER, AND PERKINS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL 292 - Provides for disposition of certain pension or retirement benefits upon dissolution of marriage. Mr. Humke stated the subcommittee came back with an amend and do pass on A.B. 292; however, when the amendment came back there remained one outstanding issue. Mr. Neilander explained the committee needed to address the effective date of the amendment. The amendment revises the way pension plans and retirement benefits are divided upon divorce. The question that arises is should cases currently pending be affected by the bill or should only those cases filed after the effective date of the act be subject to the new provisions of the bill. Chairman Humke stated the amendment came back with a statement that the bill would apply only to cases filed on or after the effective date of the bill. Personally, he added, there was good cause shown by the proponents for a position whereby the bill would apply to all cases in the pipeline and that is how he feels as well. Ms. Steel concurred. Ms. Buckley expressed her concern for those persons who have hired lawyers under the premise of the law as one way and now their case is on appeal and then we come along and change the rules in the middle of the game. Ms. Buckley stated she would be voting towards all cases filed on or after the effective date of this act. Chairman Humke maintained case law and statutory law affects cases in the pipeline all the time and this would be in compliance with the Supreme Court. Further discussion ensued by the committee in regards to the effective date of the bill and the retroactivity application. Mr. Sandoval expressed a concern for retroactivity however he was able to make a distinction between A.B. 292 and Senate Bill 474 which dealt with retroactivity as well. Chairman Humke asked Valerie Cooney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, to come forward to discuss the amendment. Ms. Cooney stated few litigants understand the complexity of pension plans and retirement issues. The Legislature has never decided any of these issues and the courts have little or no guidance other than the case Gemma v. Gemma which adopted a rule out of the state of California which in reality is not well-suited to Nevada. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO CLARIFY THE EFFECTIVE DATE IN THE AMENDMENT TO A.B. 292 MAKING IT EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE AND APPROVAL THEREBY APPLYING TO CASES IN THE PIPELINE. ASSEMBLYMAN STROTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, MANENDO, MONAGHAN, SCHNEIDER, ANDERSON, AND CARPENTER VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BATTEN, PERKINS, AND GOLDWATER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE. Chairman Humke announced A.B. 292 may be reconsidered when an entire committee is present. ASSEMBLY BILL 595 - Revises provisions governing award of custody or guardianship of child to person other than parent. Ann Andreini, Governor Miller's Office agreed the proposed amendment contained in the Work Session Document was correct. In addition, one of the concerns about A.B. 595 is that the third party enumeration may be too broad and the step would be to begin more slowly by narrowing it down to a step-parent or guardian this session. Ms. Andreini acknowledged her conversations with Valerie Cooney of the Nevada Trial Lawyers wherein there are cases where grandparents or other family members have the children living in their homes and should be one of these enumerated parties. As a result, her recommendation was the language read, "a parent, step-parent, guardian, or grandparent in whose home a child has been living in a stable environment may file a petition." Ms. Andreini concluded either one of the above proposals would be acceptable to her. Valerie Cooney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated she has had several conversations with the sponsor of the bill, Assemblywoman Freeman and her concerns were most of the persons calling her were grandparents. Ms. Cooney stated there is already the ability to accomplish the goals of A.B. 595 in the current statutes. Ms. Cooney acknowledged, however, the specific problems that may arise to where this bill would apply. Ms. Cooney also stated she was concerned about granting these rights to step-parents and the potential for abuse in the bill. Further discussion was held regarding the use of guardian in the bill and the necessity of the bill. Ms. Andreini added one of the provisions under the guardianship statutes is that parents are preferred over all others even though any third party can petition the court. Ms. Andreini requested the record reflect that Mr. Ghiglieri, the person bringing a case forward to which A.B. 595 would directly apply, has also worked very hard on the bill. Mr. Ghiglieri is a cousin of Ms. Andreini's husband; however, her office began working on the case in January, 1995. Ms. Andreini acknowledged Mr. Humke's concerns for including grandparents in Section 1 and further agreed with Ms. Cooney's statement that the current guardianship laws would protect grandparents. Chairman Humke announced the committee would not be voting on the bill today due to lack of members at this time. Mr. Sandoval stressed if A.B. 595 were to pass, it may lead to a tremendous amount of child custody litigation and a lot of bad feelings within families. Ms. Cooney described a child custody case pending in her office presently and stressed the problems that are occurring presently in this area of the law and A.B. 595 would only open the door to more problems. ASSEMBLY BILL 288 (FIRST REPRINT) - Makes various changes affecting state board of parole commissioners. Chairman Humke announced a previous work section amended the bill and drew attention to the First Reprint of the Bill. Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, stated Section 2 of the bill sets up the Oversight Committee including the procedural aspects, meeting requirements, and membership. Section 3 of the bill sets up the special personnel board which has been modeled after a provision contained in the Reno City Charter. Section 4 is a conflict amendment. Section 5 establishes the additional qualifications necessary before appointment. Section 6 of the bill requires training which relates back in part to Section 5. Section 7 of the bill addresses the existing NRS 213.133 regarding the number of members eligible to vote and concur in decision made by the board and creates a higher standard for those who have committed more serious crimes. Section 9 is a conflict amendment. Section 10 is the operative provision requesting an additional member on the board. Chairman Humke pointed out Section 3 appears the cities mentioned have the authorities to select the civil service commission members and wondered if it would be better to have the Governor make the selection based on the special personnel board recommendation. Further, it was his understanding the special personnel board would serve as a group providing due process for a proposed removal of a state parole board member but it does not appear in the reprinted bill. Mr. Anderson reminded the intent of amending the bill was to re-post to afford a full public hearing. Chairman Humke agreed and opened the hearing. Lt. Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department introduced Curtiss Kull from the Reno Police Department and Ann Andreini of Governor Miller's office came forward to present testimony pertaining to the First Reprint of A.B. 288. Lt. Galeoto, utilizing the chalkboard, drew a diagram depicting the scene of a recent tragic event resulting in the death of a police officer. Lt. Galeoto stated he was present not specifically because a police officer was killed but because they have been aware of a problem long before the recent tragic event. Over the last 13 months, three people have died as a result of repeat offenders being released from the prison system by the parole board. Lt. Galeoto stated 13 months ago the Reno Police Department provided the parole board with a lengthy internal document outlining eight individuals not recommended for release. Lt. Galeoto went on to describe the incidents that occurred as a result of three persons being released in the past 13 months. Lt. Galeoto stated his original amendment to Section 3, line 15 was "the Governor, or the Governor in participation with any special board he so appoints, may at any time remove a member of the parole board or the parole board staff without cause." Although he thought that language was appropriate the reference to cause was deleted. In addition, two items are definitely necessary in this bill: 1) the Oversight Board made up of professionals dealing with these types of issues independent from any other board who meets and reveals their findings to the Governor. Lt. Galeoto stressed these points further. Chairman Humke asked if this was a 2-tier system with two separate boards. Lt. Galeoto stated no not exactly going on to discuss his views pertaining to this section concluding the provision allows the Governor to have the ability to choose someone or a board to help him with the selection or removal of members of the parole board. Chairman Humke expressed his concern with parts of the bill in that eventually persons will not want to serve on the parole board. Ms. Steel stated she was not in support of the bill and pointed out a discrepancy in the bill. Further, Ms. Steel added she does not want to add another commissioner. Mr. Neilander pointed out Ms. Steel's concerns pertaining to apparent discrepancies were bill drafting requirements which dealt with the effective dates and the inclusion of another member. Ms. Andreini, addressing Mrs. Monaghan's inquiry, stated the ability for panels to sit as one was not removed from the First Reprint even though it was requested. She recommends the board be required to sit in panels of three on all hearings with one board member physically present and the other board members may be linked by teleconferencing considering travel factors. Lt. Galeoto discussed "career criminal" adding the amended bill should have addressed and defined that term but for some reason it was left out of the reprint. Ms. Stroth commented with the increased awareness of victim impacts, she was disappointed a victim representative was not included in the Oversight Committee or the Board. Lt. Galeoto stated a victim representative was included and somehow it did not make it back that way from the bill drafter. Chairman Humke stated he has attempted to set out certain issues involved in A.B. 288 and although he may have missed some, he outlined the following: 1) repeat offender treatment versus minor offender; 2) methods of processing cases; 3) a coordination between the board and the parole and probation department; 4) qualifications of board members; 5) shall there be a personnel commission to conduct inquiries and shall there be an Oversight Committee. Lt. Galeoto added the coordination and communication between the parole board and the parole and probation is a large issue with them but perhaps it is a policy issue and does not need to be discussed with this committee. Ms. Andreini commented they have a concern that a bill needs to get through, considering the hours before sine die and perhaps large structural changes may delay the bill and no improvement will be realized. Her recommendations would be to 1) establish qualifications of board members this session; 2) look at the number of members of the board; and 3) decide the ability of dismissing a board member with or without cause. Ms. Andreini informed there is a blue ribbon task force empaneled by the Governor to take a look at the parole board and the Department of Parole and Probation and report back to the Governor. In addition, Senator Raggio has requested an interim study on this issue. Chairman Humke asked if there was a break-down in the way in which the parole board processes cases dealing with repeat offenders and minor offenders. Lt. Galeoto read a portion of an internal document dated February 28, 1994 from the supervisor of the Repeat Offender Program (ROP) to the Chief of Police. ". . . since February, 1992, ROP has sent 30 letters to the State Parole Board requesting certain repeat offenders not be granted early parole. The parole board has disregarded eight of those requests. Subsequently, six of the eight granted early parole have already been arrested on a variety of felony charges . . . " Further, Lt. Galeoto announced the Reno Police Department constantly sends information on the "worse of the worst" to the parole board and it is their impression they do not distinguish between the normal offenders and the serious repeat offenders. Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary, State Parole Board, discussed amendments to the bill and responded to earlier comments. Ms. Steel asked what the difference was between an appointed board member and a hired hearing representative. Ms. McCurdy stated a hearing representative has the same duties as a commissioner when reviewing a case file. A commissioner will get 15 cases per day for example and so will a hearing representative and the qualifications for both are the same. The hearing representatives apply for the position and are hired by the Board of Examiners. Further, most of the hearing representatives have some sort of law enforcement background and are now retired. They receive $100 per day plus per diem travel rate of pay, and no benefits. Tony Angelini, a private citizen, stated she is a victim as her father was brutally murdered five years ago by a repeat offender. Ms. Angelini is in favor of A.B. 288. Even though her father's murderer was sentenced to life she knows he will get out. Ms. Angelini stated a change is absolutely necessary and she would like the committee to know the impact of a victim. Further, she expressed her disappointment and appall at how long it took the committee to hear her testimony since she had been in the hearing since 9:00 a.m. Chairman Humke apologized and acknowledged although not an excuse, they do have a crushing workload. Further, he informed Ms. Angelini as a practical matter nobody stays in prison for life, pursuant to his discussions with prison officials in recent years. The goal this legislation, he assured Ms. Angelini, is to make the worst offender stay in the longest. Mr. Schneider pointed out the cost of keeping inmates incarcerated versus the cost of educating children. Mr. Anderson pointed out the judiciary committee has been very supportive regarding victims' rights issues and they have positively implemented and supported much of the legislation. Mr. Anderson acknowledged Ms. Angelini's loss and apologized for the delay and explained the bill has been heard three times and the bills heard earlier in the day were their first hearing and they appreciated the length of time she spent waiting for A.B. 288 to be heard. Ms. Angelini stated she did not mean to infer they were not working or doing anything. Chairman Humke emphasized citizen impact is very important to the committee as a personal note is brought forth and that is what gets the committees' attention. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 17, 1995 Page