MINUTES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Sixty-eighth Session May 5, 1995 The Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on General Government was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 5, 1995, Chairman Giunchigliani presiding in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chris Giunchigliani Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mr. Bob Price SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Bernice Mathews COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Ms. Sandra Tiffany GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst Robert Guernsey, Deputy Fiscal Analyst Brian M. Burke, Program Analyst Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: See attached guest list. In order to simplify methods for staff in dealing with the Supreme Court budgets due to be affected by pending legislation (A.B. 259, S.B. 16 and S.B. 366), Chairman Giunchigliani suggested dollars be backed out of the budgets; should the bills pass, the budgets will be adjusted accordingly. She explained backing the dollars out would establish a cleaner revenue source for budget closings. Mr. Brian Burke reviewed the technical adjustments in Supreme Court budget account 101-1494. Out-of-state and in-state travel were reduced to reflect FY 1994 actuals pursuant to the budget instructions. State-owned building rent expenditure was reduced to reflect the current state-owned rent schedule. Administrative assessment revenue was augmented to reflect new projections prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division. The additional administrative assessment revenue decreased the need for General Fund appropriation. Base revenue was adjusted. Photocopy revenue was misclassified as county participation charge revenue. The Governor's budget contains General Fund appropriation for "unallocated salaries" to fund an unclassified position salary increase and a general salary increase for the six positions requested in module M-210. Unallocated salaries are eliminated in the proposed adjustments. The court can approach the Board of Examiners for an allocation from the salary adjustment account pending the outcome on decisions regarding the unclassified pay bill and general salary increases. FY 1996 personnel expenses were reduced to reflect a 10/1/95 start date rather than a 7/1/95 start date for the six new positions. Module E-800 was eliminated. The unclassified pay bill will determine the salary of the unclassified staff in the Supreme Court. Reserve was reduced in module E-802. The adjustment reflects the current 4 percent and 3 percent increases requested in the Governor's budget for general salary increases. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CLOSE THE SUPREME COURT BUDGET WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS ONE THROUGH SIX. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani addressed the subject of Supreme Court Policy Decisions, budget account 101-1494. Mr. Burke reported the first policy decision covers the six positions the court has requested for caseload. He pointed out the positions are separate from the positions requested in module M-220 and would be requested by the court whether or not the new justices are approved by the committee. Mr. Burke stated the caseload appears to justify the request. Senator O'Donnell asked how the positions would be paid for. Mr. Donald Mello, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, said if the assessment is higher than the projection, there would be a reversion to the General Fund of a portion of the appropriation. Should collections substantially increase, Mr. Mello maintained it is possible they could pay for the positions. Mrs. Brower asked Mr. Mello to prioritize the positions. Justice Thomas Steffen stated he felt all the positions were very important because of the unmanageable caseload they deal with. He strongly urged the Legislature to consider what the court has requested. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIX NEW POSITIONS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS REQUESTED IN MODULE M- 210. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SENATOR MATHEWS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Referring to Policy Decisions 2 and 3, Chairman Giunchigliani stated the policy decisions would be backed out of the budgets and pending passage of the bills, the proper adjustments would be made. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE SUPREME COURT BUDGET. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani addressed budget account 101-1495, Board of Pardons Commissioners. She yielded to Mr. Burke who reported the only technical adjustment in the budget was a reduction of $13,651 in FY 97 which reflects a recalculation prepared by the court staff. The policy decision was whether or not the committee wished to fund the Board of Pardons Commissioners. Mr. Burke stated the decision would allow mid-term salary increases for the justices who cannot receive the increase through the regular Supreme Court budget account. Senator O'Donnell asked whether there was a constitutional prohibition against receiving a mid-term salary increase. Justice Steffen said he definitely thought there was. He stated the system was used in the past to equalize the salaries since the justices share the same workload. He could not represent to the committee that he would feel making up the differential through the Pardons Board would be consistent with either the vote or what exists in the Constitution. Senator O'Donnell said he agreed. Senator Mathews said she could not condone increasing salaries mid-term. She appreciated the workload and inequities in the salaries, however, she felt two or three of the justices would always be playing catch-up. Chairman Giunchigliani noted the committee did not want to taint the court with the appearance of a slush fund. She realized this was not the intent, however, it could be the public's interpretation. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO ELIMINATE THE DOLLARS IN THE BOARD OF PARDONS COMMISSIONERS FUND. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BOARD OF PARDONS COMMISSIONERS BUDGET. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Referring to the Retired Justice Duty Fund, budget account 101- 1496, Mr. Burke reported the technical adjustment reflects the adjustment in the Administrative Assessment Revenue to reflect the new projections. In the Supreme Court Justices' and Widows' Pensions budget account 101-1492, the adjustment is a reduction in the SIIS payments. Senator O'Donnell requested the status of the bill. Mr. Burke said the Senate Finance Committee had requested a bill draft for the cost of living increases for surviving widows. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION PENDING READJUSTMENT SHOULD THE COST OF LIVING FOR THE WIDOWS BILL DRAFT REQUEST PASS. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE RETIRED JUSTICE DUTY FUND BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. EVANS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Burke reviewed the staff recommendations pertaining to the Law Library budget account 101-2889. The state-owned building rent expenditure authority was reduced to reflect the current state-owned rent schedule. The Law Library proposed to eliminate the half-time student position in consideration of creating a full-time Library Assistant position. The proposal was not reflected in the Governor's Recommended Budget, therefore the adjustment eliminates the funding for the student position as proposed by the Law Library. Contract services authority is reduced to eliminate first-year warranty payments on new computer equipment. The Governor's Budget reflects a 20 percent increase in salary and fringe for the Law Librarian position. The Law Librarian salary will be determined in the unclassified pay bill. If an increase is granted in the bill, the Law Library can approach the Board of Examiners to fund the increases from the general fund salary adjustment budget account. Mrs. Brower questioned the 20 percent salary increase. Senator O'Donnell replied the salary issue would be determined in the Unclassified Pay Bill. He explained the Supreme Court did not know where they would be in terms of salary at budget preparatory time. The committee has decided to back the salaries out and put some money away in a fund which can be accessed should the unclassified bill, which contains the raises, passes. Senator O'Donnell pointed out the Executive Branch should give the Judicial Branch a salary range so they can prepare a budget that is reasonable. Senator Mathews felt the 20 percent increase was high. She hoped the motion would include language that clarified the issue so there would be no doubt that she did not vote for a 20 percent salary increase. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF, TO TAKE OUT THE 20 PERCENT INCREASE AND ALLOW THE STAFF TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES PENDING APPROVAL OF THE LAW LIBRARIAN'S SALARY INCREASE IN THE UNCLASSIFIED PAY BILL. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani recommended the committee vote separately on the Library Assistant position since the committee made the motion to back out the half-time to move into the full-time position. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEW LIBRARY ASSISTANT POSITION. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. EVANS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE LAW LIBRARY BUDGET. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Burke discussed the technical adjustments pertaining to the Administrative Office of the Courts, budget account 101-1483. General Fund appropriation was replaced with court assessment revenue. The statewide cost allocation was reduced pursuant to the adjusted schedule prepared by the Budget Division. Module E-802, administrative assessment revenue and reserve were adjusted to reflect new administrative assessment revenue projections. Module E-800 was eliminated. The unclassified pay bill will determine the salary of the unclassified staff in the Administrative Office of the Courts. Senator O'Donnell asked whether the Management Analyst would be transferred to the Judicial Education budget and if there were additional General Fund dollars required for the transfer. Mr. Burke said the Senator's statement was correct, however, the position would be paid for by administrative assessment fees from the education budget. Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Mello to comment on the transfer of a Management Analyst to the Judicial Education budget. Mr. Mello commented it would allow for better matching of revenue expenses and performance indicators. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND TRANSFERRING THE MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION TO THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION BUDGET ACCOUNT 101-1487. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Burke presented the technical adjustments pertaining to the Division of Planning and Analysis, budget account 101-1484. Based upon recommendations received from the Judicial Assessment Commission, the Court is proposing a new Division of Planning and Analysis that would provide research, planning and technical assistance to the various courts in Nevada. The Court indicated the service would bring the Administrative Office into compliance with its statutory responsibilities as detailed in NRS 1.360. In respect to Court Improvement Program, budget account 101- 1489, Mr. Burke reported the Court proposes to create a Court Improvement Program to assess and improve the handling of proceedings relating to foster care and adoption. The program will be broken down into two phases - the assessment phase and the implementation phase. The assessment phase is funded entirely by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. During the March 29 meeting of the Joint Subcommittee on General Government, the court administrator testified that is was the court's desire to merge the Division of Planning and Analysis and the Court Improvement Program. Mr. Burke said the technical adjustments in each account were reflected if the accounts remain separate. He pointed out there were policy decisions regarding whether the committee wished to approve the new functions and closing sheets provided for each account reflecting the adjustments necessary if the committee chose to merge the two functions. Mr. Burke noted if the committee chose to approve the two new functions and merge them into a single Division of Planning and Analysis, General Fund savings (compared to the Governor's budget) would total $128,000 in FY 96 and $91,000 in FY 97. Referring to BDR-2008, Mr. Mello explained it contained a request to reallocate administrative assessment fees from the Retired Justice Duty Fund, allocating 1 percent to Planning and Analysis. Senator O'Donnell added he understood the position would be able to assist the courts in helping collect some of the administrative fees by determining the statistical information necessary to prove that they either are or are not giving the assessments back. Mr. Mello agreed one of the many functions of the position was to work with the courts to improve their collections and make recommendations for improvement of the collections. He maintained the court needs a person to be able to coordinate efforts with the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and the courts to bring about a true uniform system. Referring to their last appearance before the subcommittee, Mr. Burke recollected the court committed to backing down the deputy position to a chief position equal to the other chiefs within the court system which would reduce the General Fund appropriation by $29,800 in the first year and $27,700 in the second year. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOWING THE COURT TO CREATE A NEW PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION AND INCLUDE THE TECHNICAL CHANGES. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS AND COURT IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGETS. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Burke explained the technical adjustments pertaining to the Uniform System of Judicial Records, budget account 101-1486. Court assessment revenue was adjusted to reflect revised projections. NRS 176.059 provides that 9 percent of the Court's administrative assessments must be distributed to the Uniform System of Judicial Records. Statewide cost allocation was adjusted to reflect the current schedule prepared by the Budget Division. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CLOSE THE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL RECORDS BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY MOTION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani turned the committee's attention to budget account 101-1490, District Judges' Salary. District Judge Michael Fondi representing the Nevada District Judges Association stated S.B. 366 allowed for two district judges in family court in Clark County. The companion bill for Washoe County, as Judge Fondi understood it, had not as yet been introduced by Assemblyman Humke. The bill would ask for one district judge in the family court. It was his understanding that all of the district court positions would not be effective until 1997. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE DISTRICT JUDGES' SALARY BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION BY BACKING OUT THE SALARY INCREASES AND SALARY COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED NEW JUDGES. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani presented budget account 101-1480, Board of Law Library Trustees for the committee's consideration. Mr. Stevens stated this was the mechanism to provide for a mid-term salary increase for district judges; the Board of Pardons was for Supreme Court Justices. If similar action was taken based on the committee's actions in respect to the Board of Pardons, the money would be eliminated from the account. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO DELETE THE BUDGET. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Burke explained budget account 101-1493, District Judges' Travel. He stated the technical adjustment reflected an addition of balance forward revenue to reflect the FY94 actual level. The committee was asked to consider whether to transfer excess peremptory challenge fees to the Supreme Court budget to pay Supreme Court Travel costs. The action would reduce the general fund needed in the Supreme Court budget. When asked at the Joint Subcommittee on General Government meeting on March 29 if they agreed with the action, the Court did not oppose using the excess peremptory challenge fees. Subsequent to the subcommittee meeting, however, Mr. Burke said the committee should note the court administrator had expressed concern that the funding mechanism not be viewed as an ongoing source of Supreme Court revenue past the 1995-97 biennium. According to statistics provided by the Courts, travel costs for District Judges are expected to be $51,430 in FY 1996 and $56,192 in FY 1997, however, the Governor's budget requests $85,000 and $87,418 in travel expenditure authority. With anticipated balance forward of revenue from the 1993-95 biennium, and excess revenue versus expenditure needs in the 1995-97 biennium, the budget account could accumulate over $70,000 in unencumbered cash by the end of FY 1995 and $134,000 in unencumbered cash by the end of FY 1997. Mr. Burke testified the Supreme Court budget requests $35,248 in each year of the biennium for in- state and out-of-state travel combined. If the Committee decides to transfer excess peremptory challenge fee revenue, it will be necessary to add transfer revenue and reduce general fund appropriation by $35,248 in the Supreme Court budget in each year of the biennium. Chairman Giunchigliani asked whether the committee approved of the Court taking the peremptory challenge fees and transferring them over, thus reducing the General Fund obligation. The committee had no objections. She concluded because there was a greater reserve being built, the funding would be used for travel in the Supreme Court Justice's fund. Senator O'Donnell felt taking fees out of the Peremptory Challenge Fund posed an ethical problem. He asked how the peremptory challenge fee was generated. Mr. Mello stated the litigants had the right to ask that another judge be assigned to their case. In doing so the litigants pay a fee of $200 (a one- time option). The money coming to the Supreme Court is used for judges' travel. Senator O'Donnell stated he did not want a situation where the Court is in a position of generating by assignment peremptory challenge fees which will be deposited into a fund and applied to the judges' travel. He wanted to make sure there was no semblance of unethical behavior. Justice Steffen assured Senator O'Donnell the mechanism was legitimate and there was no unethical behavior. He explained this was a device whereby a lawyer and his client who is not satisfied with the judge to whom the case has been assigned has an opportunity to peremptorily challenge the judge (without giving reasons). He noted the fee was charged to discourage attorneys from overly using the device; they did not want forum shopping or attorneys using it to create delay. Judge Fondi explained the peremptory challenge process only applies in civil cases; it does not apply in criminal cases. Cases are assigned as they are filed to the next department so there is no forum shopping. The peremptory challenge process is a way that was provided by Supreme Court rule to allow them to change judges without having to state a reason and incur any wrath from the judge. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CLOSE THE DISTRICT JUDGES' TRAVEL BUDGET ACCOUNT WITH THE ONE TIME TRANSFER FOR THE BIENNIUM WITH THE RECOMMENDED TECHNICAL CHANGES. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY MOTION. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Judge Fondi called the committee's attention to the fact that all district court judges who are assigned general jurisdiction (as opposed to family court which exists only in Clark and Washoe counties) are up for re-election in 1996 for six year terms. The family court judges were first elected in 1992, taking office in 1993. Their terms are different than every other district court judge and under S.B. 16 (as presently written) they would not be eligible for the pay increase because it would be during their term of office. If the new district judges are created for the family court positions in Washoe and Clark that are presently being asked for, which are a total of three, they would be on the same track as all other district judges for six year terms and theoretically on the same track for the salary benefits and increases that come out of S.B. 16, whereas those who are presently serving in those positions would not be eligible for a raise until elected in 1998, taking office in 1997. Chairman Giunchigliani agreed this was a very valid point; new judges would be coming in at a higher wage than those who had been doing the job. She was not aware the judges were on that type of a time frame. Mr. Burke explained the technical changes pertaining to District Judges' and Widows' Pensions, budget account 101-1491. He noted the SIIS payments were eliminated. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE DISTRICT JUDGES' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDED TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MRS. BROWER MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MR. ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani presented the Judicial Education budget for the committee's consideration. Mr. Burke said the administrative assessment revenue was adjusted to reflect the new projections and statewide cost allocation was reduced to reflect the Budget Division's schedule. He noted the committee had already voted to transfer the Coordinator from the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Judicial Education budget account. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION BUDGET WITH STAFF RECOMMENDED TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE MOTION. MRS. BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani presented the Commission on Racial and Economic Bias budget for the committee's consideration. Mr. Burke stated the committee had to decide whether to fund the commission. The Governor's budget reflected $222,500 in FY 1996. Mr. Kelly testified the report from the commission would not be completed until FY 1997 which would require them to request a split of the appropriation. The adjustments to revenue reflect the changes necessary to split the appropriation. Senator O'Donnell stated the committee needed to know whether there was racial bias in the court system. He said it would never be known unless the budget was funded. Once it was found that there was racial bias, money or policy would have to be directed to wherever the problem was. Senator O'Donnell maintained he wanted an answer. Mrs. Brower noted a bill existed in a different agency to fund a similar study. She commented she would be more inclined to look at funding a study rather than building a commission at this point in time. Chairman Giunchigliani pointed out this was the study committee. The term "commission" meant the group appointed to conduct the study. She added this was not meant to be a permanent board and could be given a sunset date if the committee so desired. Mrs. Evans stated she supported the creation of the commission, however, desired more detail regarding the six areas of study. She was particularly interested in the area of juvenile matters. Mrs. Evans said this could be supplied at a later date. Mr. Mello said the Supreme Court established the commission; it did not exist pursuant to any statute. He suggested the committee could choose to limit the funding. Senator O'Donnell wanted to make sure he received a concrete report before the next legislative session. Justice Steffen testified he fully understood Senator O'Donnell's fiscal concerns. He said ideal was to have equal justice under the law for everyone. There were concerns that minorities and people who lack financial means to hire counsel were not receiving the same type of equal justice as others. The Supreme Court was not convinced that this was the case and if the study proved injustice was present, they wanted to take action. Once the study was completed and no injustice was found, the Supreme Court would sunset it. Mrs. Brower suggested the budget be held until the committee could determine other studies they wanted to add. Chairman Giunchigliani said the framework had already been set and the Supreme Court guaranteed results by 1997. Mr. Mello noted an amending order would be issued by the Court directing the committee to complete its work by December 31, 1996 giving the Legislature and the Court the benefit of the report. SENATOR O'DONNELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE COMMISSION ON RACIAL AND ECONOMIC BIAS BUDGET ACCORDING TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SPLITTING THE DOLLARS OVER THE BIENNIUM. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S MOTION. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Giunchigliani presented the Judicial Selection budget for the committee's consideration. MR. ALLARD MOVED TO CLOSE THE JUDICIAL SELECTION BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION. MRS. EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATOR MATHEWS MOVED TO CONCUR WITH THE ASSEMBLY'S MOTION. SENATOR O'DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ________________________________ Janine Sprout Committee Secretary Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance Joint Subcommittee on General Government May 5, 1995 Page