MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 24, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 2:55 p.m., on Saturday, June 24, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Honorable Bob Rose, Supreme Court Justice Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Ben Graham, Esq., Nevada District Attorneys Association/Clark County District Attorney's Office Ms. Carole Lefcourte, Deputy Secretary of State for Commercial Recordings John Fowler, Esq., Chairman, Business Law Section, State Bar of Nevada Mr. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Chairman Humke announced Assemblymen Ohrenschall, Goldwater, Steel, Perkins and Humke are present and the other members are serving on other committees at this time. Chairman Humke stated this constitutes a subcommittee of the judiciary committee for purposes of hearing as many of the bills as possible. Chairman Humke advised when a buzzer is heard, they will return to the Assembly floor. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24 - Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to require establishment of commission on judicial performance. The Honorable Bob Rose, Supreme Court Justice, testified in support of S.J.R. 24 which passed the Senate and is a constitutional amendment to permit the Legislature to create a commission on judicial performance. Justice Rose advised one of the recommendations of the workload assessment commission was in part funded by the Legislature and unanimously endorsed by the Nevada Supreme Court. The policy behind this bill Justice Rose informed was to inform the public concerning the judges who will be running for election and re-election and judicial accountability. Justice Rose stated it would provide the voters with reliable information as well as a tool for judicial evaluation, accountability and for future planning. Justice Rose stated it would complement a Nevada plan or Missouri plan if they are enacted by this body. All the constitutional amendment does is permit the Legislature to establish a judicial performance evaluation commission to review the performances of Supreme Court justices and district court judges. Justice Rose advised the commission set forth a workable format and set up a ten member commission comprised of lay people, two Assemblymen and two Senators to review all judges prior to their running for office. The judges would privately receive the commission's recommendation and if the judge chose to run then the information would be made public. Justice Rose stated it adds accountability and gives greater information to the public. Justice Rose remarked it was a positive measure and it was unanimously passed by the workload assessment commission and by the Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Goldwater asked if this would be a political committee whereby it could be in anyway biased politically or might give good assessments to your friends. Justice Rose stated no and it would defeat the very purpose of the commission. Justice Rose said it would be hopeful to get a broad base of the community with more non- lawyers than lawyers as it would be non-political to include the entire spectrum. Justice Rose advised two appointments were given to the Governor, two appointments to the court, two appointments to the bar and four to the Legislature. Ms. Steel asked how often it would interact with judicial races and if they would have any power to interfere or come in when a race is underway. Justice Rose explained the assessment commission was envisioned it would not be a referee on the fairness of elections. Justice Rose advised this would be an evaluation of every judge coming up for election to determine whether or not to retain, no recommendation and an explanation. If it is on the Missouri type plan and it is not in place yet, Ms. Steel inquired if it was premature. Justice Rose replied although it was meant to dovetail if that comes in, it certainly would be very effective in the present situation. In Justice Rose's opinion it does not necessarily have to interact with a special election process. Justice Rose advised it will work well in the elective process as well as in a merit selection. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the commission would be limited to evaluating the judge strictly from the moment he steps into the courtroom to the moment he steps out and removes the judicial robe or would there be an evaluation of anything beyond what is seen in some elections? Justice Rose responded the primary concern would be courtroom conduct. However, the performance of a judge must also comply with the judicial canons of ethics; so, if a judge was habitually drunk in the evenings or carrying on in an inappropriate way, there may be some comment made of that. Justice Rose hoped the commission would primarily keep the rating to what he or she does in the courtroom because judging a person's social, private and religious life is usually off bounds. Chairman Humke advised a vote will be taken as soon as a quorum is present. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 595 - Revises provisions governing award of custody or guardianship of child to person other than parent. Mr. Anderson informed the proponents of A.B. 595 have requested the bill be withdrawn. It was brought to Assemblyman Freeman's attention this bill might impact a pending case and it was not fully disclosed to her that it might be of personal interest. Since the litigation is currently pending and is not good public policy, she has asked the Chairmen to withdraw the bill. In accordance with Ms. Freeman's wish, the Chairmen confirmed A.B. 595 would be withdrawn. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 687 - Makes certain provisions of classified service applicable to certain agents of state gaming control board for certain purposes. Mr. Anderson announced A.B. 687 was requested earlier in the month. The proponents of the bill have pointed out with the limited time remaining this session and the need for full discussion of this important topic, it would be in their best interest to withdraw this piece of legislation and this would be a courtesy to the Assembly as well. Chairman Humke, hearing no comments, declared A.B. 687 withdrawn. SENATE BILL NO. 433 - Makes various changes relating to corporations, limited-liability companies and partnerships. John Fowler, Esq., Chairman, Business Law Section, State Bar of Nevada, testified for the last two years it has labored to bring to fruition S.B. 433. Mr. Fowler advised this bill, for various legal reasons, was not formally supported by all committee members of the State Bar. However, members of the executive committee of the State Bar Business Law Section and the business entities and securities committee individuals do support S.B. 433. Mr. Fowler advised the bill was passed by the Senate with very little changes submitted by the State Bar Business Law Section and he gave a general overview of the bill section by section. The first portion of the bill adds a new chapter pertaining to mergers to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Mr. Fowler noted corporations are permitted by statute to merge and add to the entities which are allowed to merge: limited liability companies, limited partnerships and other entities. In modernization of NRS the other entities were added to allow them to merge. In Chapter 7 it was realized it would be repetitive in many different chapters in Title 7; to save the bulk of wording by adding a chapter to address mergers of all entities to state it once. He continued, Sections 2-59 of the bill attempt to add a chapter on mergers and provides a procedure whereby corporations have the dissenter's rights in existing statutes. The merger chapter also allows general partnerships, limited liability companies and non-profit corporations to merge with each other and with foreign entities of any of those types when the statutes of a foreign state governing is for an entities also permits merger. Mr. Fowler stated they felt it was about time limited liability companies could merge if that was the new entity that was permitted for the first time in 1991 and that entity is now permitted to merge with limited partnerships corporations, non-profits and others. The next portion of the bill, starting with Section 60 allows special rights for amendment to certificates of designation of stock, blank check card stock. Mr. Fowler advised blank check preferred stock occurs when the articles of incorporation of a corporation permit a corporation to issue preferred stock but does not provide the articles when originally filed what all the rights are. Mr. Fowler remarked preferred stock is often like a loan except in the form of stock. To set forth an advance trying to think through all the rights that a particular financial institution would insist in order to buy preferred stock is probably impossible. So a blank check preferred stock provision and articles allow the board of directors to designate what the rights are when it comes time to obtain the money through preferred sale of preferred stock and there is no provision for last minute changes. Mr. Fowler continued Section 60 allows the corporation to make last minute changes to the certificate of designation and even make changes after the certificate is filed and the preferred stock is issued without having to go to a vote of the common stockholders. Also, this Section sets forth changes to the certificate of designation if the holders of that particular stock permit it. The provisions get fairly complex and allow additional freedom for Nevada corporations to make last minute changes to their financing transactions with the least amount of effort. Further, common stockholders already know preferred stock can be issued that will be paid dividends ahead of them because the articles of incorporation permit preferred stock to be issued, so common stockholders are not hurt by not having the right to vote on these changes. Mr. Fowler informed Sections 61-73 deal with minor changes to Chapter 78 of NRS. He added it was decided to define registered office and resident agent more uniformly throughout the chapters and the uniformity was composed in Chapter 78 with some of the changes that refer to resident agents. Another technical change in Section 62 clarifies the application of which chapters of statutes will apply to what corporations. Section 63 allows persons to establish a corporation to incorporate which means other corporations could incorporate and become incorporators of corporations. Section 64 allows other entities other that resident agents. Section 65 clarifies working with respect to resident agents and clarifies any person or any kind of entity can serve as resident agent. Section 66 sets forth a resident agent can be fired by any officer of the corporation. Chairman Humke asked if he said that any entity may now be a resident agent. Mr. Fowler replied in the affirmative in that a limited liability company, limited partnership, natural person, corporation and general partnership. Mr. Fowler noted the word "person" is defined in the statutes and must include a physical address while also allowing a separate post office box address. Mr. Goldwater noted banks are allowed limited liability status and this seems to have a massive effect on that. Mr. Goldwater asked if a foreign bank could become a resident agent and also could a foreign bank merge. Unless it was a national bank, Mr. Fowler advised a foreign bank coming to do business in the state of Nevada serving as resident agent would have to be qualified for doing business in the state of Nevada. If it was a foreign state bank, they would need permission from the financial institutions division before they perform their services as a foreign bank. If they came in and served only as a resident agent, they would have to qualify to do business in the state of Nevada. Mr. Fowler commented the question is whether the bank would have to be regulated by the financial institutions department. Mr. Goldwater asked in what other ways. Mr. Fowler remarked it was unlikely a foreign bank would come in just to do that kind of business. Mr. Goldwater inquired what other ways this bill will affect banking now that banks can deal with limited liability. Mr. Fowler was of the opinion that it does not affect banks at all. Mr. Fowler advised banks who do business here now are corporations, so any bank could serve as resident agent if they wanted to for another corporation or limited liability company. It has been Mr. Fowler's experience that banks seldom wish to do that but it is something they could do if permitted by the banking statutes, whether or not banking statutes permit banks to act as resident agents. Ms. Steel inquired how a limited liability company signs its name. Mr. Fowler advised a limited liability company would sign a document the same as a corporation can now act as a resident agent. Rule 4 of Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) Mr. Fowler advised allows an office to be served by serving anyone at the office of suitable age and discretion. In limited liability companies the equivalent of an officer is a manager, Mr. Fowler noted the company is free to give titles of general manager, assistant manager and anyone in charge of the office can accept service of process. Ms. Steel asked who would be able to fire a resident agent. Mr. Fowler responded any officer of a corporation would be able to fire a resident agent. Mr. Fowler explained a resident agent only exists for the purpose of accepting service of process in lawsuits and it is not an important administrative job in the company. Thus, Mr. Fowler said there was no reason why any officer could not change resident agents. Ms. Steel questioned if it had been a big problem for it to be addressed now. Mr. Fowler advised it used to be the board of directors used to meet to change resident agents which is not a big deal in corporations. Mr. Fowler continued and stated changes to NRS Chapter 78 are mostly of the nature he previously described. Chapter 68 changes Chapter 78.195 to omit language which is carried into the new section for the amendment to certificates of designation. A conforming change was made in Chapter 70 making reference to the new merger statutes. Mr. Fowler went on to state Section 71 of the bill changes amended and restated statutes in NRS Chapter 78 to allow the names and addresses of present directors to be listed in restated articles rather than the old original directors. Section 74 of S.B. 433 clarifies a foreign corporation organized to render a professional service cannot render the service in this state unless licensed to do so by the appropriate regulating board. Section 75 makes a provision in Chapter 80 allowing all types of business entities to act as resident agents. Section 76 of the bill clarifies language changes the word, "certified" to "signed" because no one knows what certified by an officer really means. Mr. Fowler stated Section 77 allows all kinds of persons and any kind of business entity to be a resident agent in the case of Chapter 81 corporations. Sections 78 and 79 make the same conforming change. Section 80 makes necessary references to the new merger chapter, referring to Sections 2-34. In Section 82, non-profit corporations are allows any business entity to become a resident agent. With regard to NRS Chapter 86, Mr. Fowler asserted many technical changes were made regarding limited liability companies. Returning to S.B. 433, Section 84 through the remainder of the bill makes changes to limited liability companies. In that regard, Section 84.5 adds a new definition called "majority interest" which allows a majority rather than 100% of the owners of limited liability companies to vote to allow major changes, giving them greater freedom of action. Chairman Humke announced a quorum was present at 3:23 p.m. Mr. Anderson remarked the subject of resident agents has always caused him a great deal of concern in that non-attorneys passing themselves off as resident agents may allow for greater or lesser latitude. Mr. Fowler responded any natural person can be a resident agent. However, S.B. 433 would also allow limited liability companies, general and limited partnerships, and all other business entities to be resident agents as well. In terms of bonding requirements, Mr. Anderson asked if they have to meet a criteria. Mr. Fowler answered there is no provision for bonding resident agents. Mr. Fowler, in response to Ms. Steel's question, advised the duty of the resident agent is ministerial to accept service of process in that a resident agent accepts service of process of a lawsuit. Mr. Anderson asked if the secretary of state's office would have more direct dealing with those people representing themselves or entities either corporations in whole or in part as resident agents. Mr. Fowler replied the secretary of state will not have any more contact because of this bill. Chairman Humke commented there has been news coverage on Mr. Anderson's concern of resident agents acting outside their scope of authority in representing themselves as something they are not, whether that be investment advisor or security analyst. Ms. Buckley offered "thief." Mr. Fowler commented they tried to stay out of controversial areas withholding recommendations in either direction. The intent of the State Bar Business Law Section was to make recommendations of a technical nature to allow greater freedom of entities to comply with the tax code and to do business in a manner that is not too encumbered by the statutes. Mr. Fowler concurred the committee is not the right place to do a bill where some controversy might be engendered. Mr. Fowler declared the majority vote of a limited liability company is allowed to admit new members and to continue the business of a limited liability company if a dissolution occurs. Continuing with the bill, Sections 85-87 provide for uniformity of language pertaining to resident agents throughout Title 7 chapters. Sections 88-89 clarify the rules governing limited liability companies when dissolution occurs and to govern distributions. Section 92 simplifies the items that must be contained in the articles of organization of a limited liability company and no longer requires the term to be 30 years but does require the initial articles state the date on which the company dissolved. In Section 93 terminology is changed to delete the requirement that the name of a limited liability company must not contain a word or phrase it is organized for a different purpose. Mr. Fowler explained this portion was removed because of difficulty in determining how to govern anything by that language, as it does not exist in any other type of business entity. Moving to Section 94 of the bill, resident agent was changed from agent for service of process. Mr. Fowler recited Section 95 clarifies when articles must be amended and how they must be amended. Section 96 provides for certificate of amendment, no longer requiring two duplicate originals to be filed with the secretary of state. He noted this was discussed thoroughly with the secretary of state's office before making the changes. Mr. Fowler stated Section 103 clarifies when a member may resign and the significance of the resignation. Section 104 changes the provisions of Chapter 86 stating the owners of a limited liability company have limited liability which was as a result of recommendations by the small business administration (SBA). The existing statute did not allow guarantees to be enforced against owners of limited liability companies which meant limited liability companies would not be able to receive many SBA loans. Whereby, changing the wording of the statute made it clear to everyone that members of limited liability companies could guarantee their obligations and enforce those guarantees. Mr. Fowler went on to address Sections 105 and 106 of the bill which clarify dissolution provisions of limited liability companies. Sections 107 and 108 do away with the necessity of filing a statement of intent to dissolve before a certificate of dissolution is filed. In Section 110, a limited partnership can change its resident agent by a simple filing. Mr. Fowler commented for the first time in Chapter 88 the terminology of resident agent is used and the following changes make it uniform across the various business entity chapters. In addition, Section 119 allows the resident agent to be anyone or any entity. Further NRS Chapter 89 clarifies existing wording and the definition of the word, "license," is added and it is used in the statute to indicate an entity becoming a professional corporation must be licensed by a Nevada regulating board and not of another state to do business in Nevada. Likewise, the term "professional service" is used to clarify the meaning of Chapter 89 to make sure that professionals are duly licensed. Finally, Mr. Fowler stressed, most of the repealed statutes in the various existing chapters, Chapters 78, 82, simply mean they are not put in a separate chapter. Mr. Fowler concluded the bill will greatly benefit lawyers and business people in the state. Ms. Ohrenschall requested clarification in abolishing notice of dissolution and allowance of a simple certificate and asked if the notice was preceded by any time. Mr. Fowler replied it was always unclear what the notice was for. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if it was designed the way it is in bankruptcy to allow people to bring their claims forward. Mr. Fowler replied no, it was simply a document filed in the secretary of state's office not designed to spread the word around about the dissolution. Mr. Fowler stated it was an old provision of the limited partnership act. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if there was a difference in timing. Mr. Fowler answered the notice of dissolution was supposed to be filed after the decision to dissolve was made and the certificate of dissolution was to be filed after the company was dissolved. Mr. Fowler commented no other entity, however, at least corporations, have ever had notice of dissolutions. Mr. Fowler added if they filed dissolution then would wind up a corporation after a dissolution certificate was filed. Mr. Fowler stated the committee decided there was no reason for a limited liability companies to have a different kind of procedure. Chairman Humke complimented Mr. Fowler on his two well-behaved sons in attendance. Noting a quorum present, Chairman Humke asked to take a vote on S.J.R. 24., heard earlier in the day. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS S.J.R. 24. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, BATTEN, MONAGHAN, SCHNEIDER AND STROTH WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Chairman Humke announced the assistant sergeant at arms advised the committee members are needed on the floor and declared a recess at 3:46 p.m. Chairman Humke reconvened the meeting at 4:15 p.m. with a subcommittee present. SENATE BILL NO. 435 - Revises provisions governing testing of certain arrested persons for human immunodeficiency virus and any commonly contracted sexually transmitted disease. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, testified in support of S.B. 435. Mr. Graham's prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Mr. Goldwater asked if Assembly Bill 405 was similar to S.B. 435. Mr. Graham replied no they do not cover the same areas. Mr. Goldwater asked if the alleged perpetrator is exposed, does he have the right to ask that the officer be tested. Mr. Graham replied if he is a victim, he would say yes. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in support of S.B. 435 and its amendments. Lt. Olsen related one police officer was attacked by an individual who bit the officer's cheek off and they were not allowed to test the individual for any diseases he may have had. In that regard, S.B. 435 would be very helpful to law enforcement. Mr. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, commented the association supports S.B. 435 and its amendments. SENATE BILL NO. 464 - Makes various changes to provisions governing incarceration and custody of parolee who violates condition of parole. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified in support of S.B. 464 and was involved in the agreement with parole and probation. Lt. Olsen explained they house 68 parole violators a day at a cost of $73 per day per prisoner and are not reimbursed by the state. The agreement would house male violators for 5 days before billing commences. Lt. Olsen advised female parole violators are held without billing since there are no facilities in southern Nevada. SENATE BILL NO. 462 - Makes various changes to provisions governing corporations and other business associations. Ms. Carole Lefcourte, Deputy Secretary of State for Commercial Recordings, testified in support of S.B. 462. Ms. Lefcourte's prepared testimony is attached as (Exhibit D) hereto and details S.B. 462 section by section. Ms. Lefcourte stated the purpose of S.B. 462 is to clarify confusing interpretations and standardize language particularly pertaining to NRS Chapter 7. She added this bill goes along with S.B. 433 and they have worked closely with the State Bar on both bills. Ms. Steel requested clarification in regard to the $250 fee referenced on page one. Ms. Lefcourte explained in NRS Chapter 80 there is language similar to this which provides if a resident agent wants to register with the secretary of state in order for them to provide his name to a foreign company to use as a resident agent, they may register with the secretary of state and remit a $250 fee. The secretary of state would make that name available to a foreign corporation who asked for a list of resident agents to contact. By moving this provision to the front of title 7, Ms. Lefcourte stated it will make that service available to all of their customers. There are five or six different types of corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships. Ms. Steel requested assurance that a mom and pop shop would not have to pay $250 to be their own resident agent. Ms. Lefcourte replied absolutely not, and it is basically a publicity function that the secretary of state serves for those people who are willing to pay the fee. Ms. Lefcourte cited one example since fees are a big number with people, currently the fee in her summary statement is corporations are charged $15 for certificate of good standing while other types of entities are charged $10.00. Ms. Lefcourte informed S.B. 462 provides fee schedules whereby corporations are charged $50 to reinstate their charter if it has been revoked while limited partnerships pay $75 for the same. These are the kinds of things that were standardized at the lower rate so that they are equal across the board. In reference to penalties if an annual list is not filed timely, Ms. Lefcourte advised it was changed reflect a penalty of $15.00. There being no further questions for Ms. Lefcourte, Chairman Humke brought S.B. 433 back to committee for a vote. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 433. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, MANENDO AND STROTH WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO LATER REQUESTED TO BE SHOWN IN FAVOR OF S.B. 433.) Returning to S.B. 435 heard moments ago, Chairman Humke asked Mr. Graham to come forward for the benefit of members who were previously not in attendance in the earlier portion of the meeting. Mr. Graham explained this bill is intended to allow the board of health to establish a procedure whereby persons who are responsible for exchange of bodily fluids onto a victim to provide for a blood test for determination of any disease. In reference to subsection 2, page 2, Mr. Anderson inquired if the arrested person could request the test. Mr. Graham submitted only if a person exchanged bodily fluids may they request a test and the board of health will establish the guidelines. Chairman Humke consulted with Mr. Anderson and asked that the bill be set aside for clarification and perhaps seek an amendment. Ms. Ohrenschall commented if the statute would be aimed at preventing proliferation of communicable diseases, then anyone who has been a victim of potential exposure would have standing on any party to be tested. Ms. Ohrenschall stated the intent of the statute is a health measure. Chairman Humke stated it is a good argument and additional clarification is needed if it can be performed through a letter of intent as additional clarification is needed. Chairman Humke stated the bill will be set aside for the time being. Chairman Humke announced a work session of this committee would be held upon adjournment from the Assembly Floor on June 25, 1995. Chairman Humke brought S.B. 462 back to the committee for a vote. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 462. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, BATTEN AND STROTH WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Floor assignment was given to Mr. Manendo. SENATE BILL NO. 229 - Provide specifically for personal service of summons in civil action upon party who is outside State of Nevada. Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, described the bill briefly and stated it was an amendment to the long arm statute to include a procedural provision. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS S.B. 229. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, PERKINS AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Floor assignment was given to Mr. Anderson. SENATE BILL NO. 475 - Provides for release of pre-sentencing reports to Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice. Mr. Neilander described the bill briefly and recalled the video tape viewed. Mr. Neilander stated the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) agents and Washoe County testified together to provide for disclosure of reports of presentence investigations to INS. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS S.B. 475. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, PERKINS AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Floor assignment was given to Mr. Batten. SENATE BILL NO. 468 - Provides for certain post-retirement increases in benefits of surviving spouses of supreme court justices and district court judges. Chairman Humke advised on the date of initial hearing a vote for do pass failed. Chairman Humke stated this is the type of bill that will be re-referred to Ways and Means and asked those members who did not vote in favor of the do pass motion to reconsider. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED DO PASS AND RE- REFER S.B. 468 TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. Upon discussion, Mr. Carpenter referenced a news report of Senate voting for an increase in judges' salaries which will probably come to this house. If that happens, Mr. Carpenter asked if it would increase their retirement. Chairman Humke advised testimony was heard that this retirement system is not precisely tied to the salary paid to the judicial member. Chairman Humke advised the pension benefits and increases thereon take place by statute change and not like a state employee. Chairman Humke stated a vote for this motion does not bind a member's vote on the floor if it passes the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired into the possibility of considering a simple motion to rerefer without consideration of motion to do pass. Chairman Humke agreed that process would work as well. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND MONAGHAN VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, PERKINS AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) SENATE BILL NO. 424 - Revises provisions governing deposits held in joint tenancy. Mr. Neilander, Research Analyst, gave a brief synopsis of S.B. 424. Mr. Neilander advised this bill came about because of a recent Supreme Court decision which essentially created uncertainty as to what happens to joint banking accounts and whether they are held in joint tenancy. Mr. Neilander stated the bill provides for accounts held as joint tenancy with right of survivorship and attempts to clarify the concerns raised in the 1994 Supreme Court opinion, Starr v. Rousselet. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED DO PASS S.B. 424. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Carpenter expressed if persons knew they were in joint tenancies, there should be an explanation or a box to check when applying for an account. Otherwise, there will be major problems in this area. Mr. Goldwater declared he was previously a bank teller and in that regard, he believes not passing this bill will cause more trouble than passing it and S.B. 424 is a very necessary piece of legislation. Ms. Ohrenschall commented since the Starr decision most people were under the impression when opening joint accounts in banks they were in fact creating a class of joint tenancy. Ms. Ohrenschall stated it would be conforming to the general routine with passage. Ms. Steel announced she has reviewed the bill since the first hearing and feels comfortable proceeding with it at this time. Chairman Humke inquired if Mr. Carpenter had an amendment to offer. Mr. Carpenter stated instructions should be available to persons when instituting a joint account. Chairman Humke commented if there is a need for a form or signature card it could be done by amendment and the Co-chairs would be happy to hold the bill. John Sande, attorney at law, Nevada Bankers Association, advised the banking industry wants to make sure their customers do the right thing. Mr. Sande did not believe a check off box would help and recommended a disclosure statement or booklet for every customer written in simplistic terms. He added if people have concerns they should consult an attorney. Also, Mr. Sande stated the Nevada Bankers Association will coordinate with Mr. Carpenter to come up with a program. Mr. Carpenter replied it will be of great benefit to the public and will raise the knowledge necessary for all concerned parties. Chairman Humke brought the motion back to the floor. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, PERKINS AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Floor assignment was given to Ms. Ohrenschall. Chairman Humke brought S.B. 435 back to committee for discussion. Mr. Anderson advised he had a writing from Mr. Graham which solves the problem in part by amending S.B. 435 to add section victims may include the arrested person to eliminate the ambiguity. Mr. Goldwater stated it was satisfactory to him in that he could still request it of the police officer by that definition. Mr. Goldwater noted when boards are directed to come up with regulations perhaps a date when the regulations should be completed should be implemented as well. Chairman Humke stated he personally does not know of a precedent to accomplish this. Mr. Goldwater advised the health committee has done it several times. Usually the agency to be affected advises when time factor amendments may be drawn for their own purpose. Mr. Anderson asserted that was not present in this particular case and would appear to be inappropriate. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 435. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, SANDOVAL, PERKINS AND BATTEN WERE NOT PRESENT TO VOTE.) Floor assignment was given to Mr. Goldwater. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 24, 1995 Page