MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 18, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Vice Chairman Jon C. Porter at 8:15 a.m., on .Thursday, May 18, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Wygnanski, Police Officer, City of Reno Police Department Stewart Handti, Vice President, Nevada Highway Patrol Association Major Michael Hood, Operations Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol Division Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau Steven J. Coburn, Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau William A. Bible, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, International Game Technology, International Technical Systems Senator Porter opened the meeting with Senate Bill (S.B.) 371, the first bill on the agenda. SENATE BILL 371: Expands circumstances under which person fleeing from or otherwise attempting to elude peace officer in motor vehicle is guilty of felony. Adam Wygnanski, Police Officer, City of Reno Police Department, spoke from written testimony (Exhibit C) in support of S.B. 371. He referred to similar statutes in Idaho, Arizona, Washington and California which provide for license revocations, fines and felony convictions under certain circumstances, also included in Exhibit C. Officer Wygnanski read an excerpt from a publication by the Desere Foundation, an organization founded in New Jersey, which has grown to a nationwide organization, that challenges laws, policies and practices related to police pursuit driving. Officer Wygnanski asserted the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) must be strengthened to provide for punishment that is more stringent than that for most of the offenses, which are the reason many attempt to elude police and which result in high-speed pursuits. If the punishment is only a traffic citation, he declared, suspects will continue to attempt to evade police, whereas the knowledge they will be subject to a large fine, imprisonment or a felony conviction will act as a deterrent. Stewart Handti, Vice President, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified members of the board of the association voted unanimously in support of S.B. 371. He agreed that the vast majority of pursuits involve misdemeanor offenses. He surmised those who attempt to run from police generally believe they may have a small chance to get away from officers and thus take the chance because the fine and punishment for being caught is so minimal. Trooper Handti declared the suspect of the chase endangers not only police officers involved in pursuit, but also innocent bystanders. He acknowledged pursuits will continue to occur, but he expressed the belief passage of a bill such as S.B. 371 will serve as a deterrent. He conjectured many will simply pull over and accept misdemeanor violations in order to avoid a felony charge. Trooper Handti stated many of those with whom he works also support S.B. 371. Senator McGinness asked if the Nevada Highway Patrol Division (NHP) has a policy regarding pursuit, and if it includes criteria for backing off. He inquired if studies have been made that indicate whether those being pursued tend to slow down if the chase ceases. Major Michael Hood, Operations Commander, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, took the opposite view of the matter. He agreed pursuit is an important and serious concern, but he opined no purpose will be served by making failure to yield to pursuit a felony offense. Major Hood confirmed that the NHP does have a policy regarding pursuits which indicates the officer should back off if he can identify the perpetrator as one guilty of just a misdemeanor or traffic violation rather than a more serious offense. He said police officers have a great deal of authority and are charged with using common sense in pursuits. He opined current misdemeanor law is sufficient, which he declared is the official NHP position. Senator Lee inquired what affect there will be on NHP policy if S.B. 371 passes. Major Hood replied the policy will have to be completely changed. He explained that now, if an officer is in pursuit for any reason, even a broken light or registration violation, he has the authority to continue or back off, but the NHP feels there should be no pursuit for misdemeanor violations. Senator Lee asked why the policy to back off, if the officer can identify the vehicle, should not be continued even if the bill passes. Major Hood acknowledged the policy can be continued. Senator Washington suggested if an officer begins to pursue a vehicle when there has been a misdemeanor violation, and the driver fails to stop after being signaled and subsequently harms someone or something, he should be prosecuted for a felony. Major Hood concurred there is no disagreement with that situation, but the NHP does object to making failure to stop a felony. Senator Washington expressed concern over public safety when a pursuit is involved. Major Hood wondered if the subject will run harder and farther if the offense is made into a felony. Senator Porter interjected most folks who are fleeing do not know the law or what its consequences will be. He suggested they flee without using proper judgement. He asked if law enforcement personnel may feel more obligated to give chase if the offense is made into a felony. Major Hood replied, "Yes." He surmised it may be more difficult to bring a felony charge. He added many people are confused or simply do not know they are being pursued, and he averred there are other ways to deal with such people. Major Hood voiced agreement with the association that pursuit poses a problem. Trooper Handti agreed that people often are not aware they are being pursued. However, he said, sometimes pursuit is treated as a "joke" in terms of implementing punishment. Officer Wygnanski interjected that if a tourist fails to yield because he has not heard the siren due to a loud radio or for a similar reason, his action is not going to be classified as being wanton or in disregard of the law. The officer said he has experienced situations in which he has had his siren on, but the driver was preoccupied for some reason and simply was unaware of his presence. On the other hand, he described a pursuit of a person guilty of a misdemeanor, who nearly struck three vehicles in an intersection, and when the perpetrator was finally apprehended he said, "So what, it's just a misdemeanor. You don't think I'm going to do this again next time?" Officer Wygnanski surmised the person knew he would receive only a fine or revoked or suspended license, and present law presents no deterrent. Senator Porter pointed out the officer will still have discretion available to continue the chase or stop pursuit, even if S.B. 371 passes. He asked if there are many repeat offenders for such situations. Officer Wygnanski replied there are, and there is no initiative for them to cease the practice. He declared states that do have felony legislation have noticed a drastic decrease in the number of people running from pursuit. He noted the policy regarding pursuits will be the same whether the offense is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Major Hood suggested the bill be changed to make the offense a felony on a third subsequent arrest. He agreed there is merit to the proposed measure, but maybe it would suffice as a deterrent after one or two prior convictions. Senator Adler stated S.B. 371 does not include the same provisions as some of the measures cited from other states, such as the inclusion of specific speeds and the words "willful and wanton." Officer Wygnanski agreed the inclusion of specific speed limitations will serve to clarify whether the person is attempting to elude the officer or simply not aware he is being chased. He proposed additional stipulations be added to include a person being pursued who speeds through a parking lot or school zone in an attempt to evade an officer in total disregard for safety. Senator Lee suggested the person should be considered in total disregard of people and property if he commits two violations while being pursued, such as first ignoring the officer's signal to him and then going through a stop sign. Senator Washington averred common sense should be applied and that most officers will know when they are being eluded as opposed to chasing people who are unaware of the pursuit. He suggested the words "willfully fails or refuses to ... stop" should be sufficient to determine whether the driver should be held on a felony charge. Senator Adler pointed out the severe consequences of designating someone as a felon. He asserted a felony charge should only be used if there is real endangerment. Senator Washington agreed with the inclusion of a speed provision, such as 30 miles per hour over the posted limit. However, he stated, the bill appears to allow the officer the discretion to use his common judgement. Trooper Handti concurred the words "willful or wanton" make the felony charge justifiable. He opined no officer with common sense would charge an old person, or someone else who simply is unaware of his presence, with a violation which could be considered a felony. Major Hood declared there should be some specified conditions if the crime is going to be made into a felony. He cited an example of a young girl who fails to stop simply because she is afraid and leads an officer on a chase to her house. He warned against such a situation because the young girl would be considered a felon for the rest of her life. He asserted there must be some provision to separate those types of people from those for whom the bill is designed. Senator Porter noted there is agreement that under certain circumstances the elusion of an officer should be considered a felony, but in others it should not. He encouraged those present to work on changes to the bill to clarify who should or should not be included and under what circumstances. Officer Wygnanski concurred, and pointed out the changes discussed will make the bill similar to the Idaho statute, which has requirements as to when the violation changes from a misdemeanor to a felony. Senator Adler suggested it may encourage a driver to "take off" if there is no time at which the violation becomes a felony, but if, at a certain point, the evasion turns into a felony, the driver may decide to pull over and stop while it is still just a misdemeanor. At Senator Porter's request, Officer Wygnanski reread the Idaho statute included in Exhibit C. Senator Washington emphasized his view some discretion should be left to the officer. Senator Adler opined that should take place at the time the officer pulls the driver over. Senator Lee voiced acceptance of the proposed amendments to bring the bill closer to the Idaho statute. Senator McGinness voiced concern the provision to enforce the law as a felony could be misused by officers eager to apprehend someone such as a teenager who has owned a "muscle car," has continually exceeded the speed limit, who officers have not been able to catch, but who finally is caught. However, he agreed the statute will be a valuable tool in the case of the person who has just robbed a liquor store. Officer Handti agreed the officer should be provided with discretion. Major Hood declared police officers have a responsibility to those who do not really understand, such as the 17 year old girl who is afraid, or the elderly person who is confused, or the youngster trying out his "muscle" car. He said officers can use discretion to cite as a felony when needed, but there must be a provision for those who are not really committing a felony. He voiced approval of the Idaho plan. Senator Porter requested the staff to prepare an amendment. He turned the gavel over to Senator James. In the absence of further testimony, Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 371 and opened the hearing on S.B. 393. SENATE BILL 393: Revises provisions governing contents of order granting limited right to custody of child or for visitation of child. Senator James inquired if anyone from the Office of the Attorney General was present to testify on the matter. Senator Adler recalled a similar measure was passed during the last session of the Legislature and requested an explanation of the new provisions. In the absence of representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), offered to review the measure. She explained the Office of the Attorney General requested clarification of last session's measure to make an order for visitation rights more specific. She said judges are continuing to mandate "reasonable" visitation rights, which leaves the interpretation open to further litigation. Senator James proposed to hold action on the measure pending further input. He closed the hearing on S.B. 393. He noted the Family Law Section of the State Bar Association intends to make a comprehensive study of domestic relations laws before the next session of the Legislature, at which time they will bring in a report and proposal for changes. Senator James opened the hearing on S.B. 432. SENATE BILL 432: Ratifies technical corrections made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada 1993. Senator James requested Ms. Erdoes to give an explanation of the ratification bill and explain how it differs from the revisors' bill. Ms. Erdoes responded the first legislative counsel introduced the first ratification bill in order to comply with the provisions of Article IV, section 17 of the Nevada Constitution which says when an act is revised or amended it must be reenacted and published at length. During legislative sessions, she explained, the Legal Division of the LCB makes a compilation of every section of the statutes that has been amended, using every bill that was enacted, to determine where conflicts arise, which are then approved. If conflicts remain unresolved by the end of the legislative session, during the following session the ratification bill is published to ratify the changes to the entire Nevada Revised Statutes from the previous session. As an example, Senator James asked, if two bills are enacted to change the same section of the statutes, and both are to take effect on the same date, such as December 1, the LCB Legal Division will then change the date by a day in order to prevent them from taking effect on the same day, which is then ratified during the next session. Ms. Erdoes confirmed his example and said, "Not only do we make it [December 1], we take the substantive provisions out that were the changes that were made in the first bill, and actually carry them into the second bill so that you see them all in one section." Ms. Erdoes explained the "revisors' bill" is one required by statute in which the LCB is required to call attention to statutes with suggested substantive changes for obsolete provisions. Ms. Erdoes noted S.B. 432 is inordinately large due to the reorganization bill passed during the last legislative session which included many name changes that were not substantive, but were extensive throughout the statutes. She drew attention to Exhibit D (Original is on file in the Research Library.) which provides a detailed explanation of each section of the statutes to be ratified. She commented the system works well. Ms. Erdoes called attention to a proposed amendment to S.B. 432 (Exhibit E) requested by attorneys from the Carson City law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, to make a change not normally ratified. She explained the LCB has the authority to change the numbering of the statutes in order to reorganize them as long as the change is not substantive. She said the law firm feels the change from one chapter to another has great implications in property law and the amendment is designed to prevent problems as to whether the change applies only to mortgages or to deeds of trust, too, which it is supposed to do. Steven J. Coburn, Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, interjected the amendment moves the provision to NRS chapter 40 rather than chapter 106. Ms. Erdoes said the amendment will apply to NRS sections 40.501 through 40.512. Senator James opined the change is substantive because the original changes were made to chapter 106, which only applied to certain issues, whereas moving the change to chapter 40 will provide changes in other issues. He recalls there was some discussion when the original measure was enacted during the last session as to what would be affected. Ms. Erdoes offered to provide a detailed explanation. She recalled a reference was made to "deeds of trust" in all discussions of the bill, and the committee members probably would not have approved the change if they had believed it applied to the mortgage provisions of NRS chapter 106 only. Senator James declared his preference for reviewing the change prior to taking any action on the amendment. Mr. Coburn reiterated everything in the ratification bill is something that was actually enacted during the past session of the Legislature, nothing new was added, and the LCB simply put it together in workable fashion. Senator James asked the committee to review the bill and Exhibit D. He announced he will hold the bill to give time for its review and to await receipt of further explanation of the proposed amendment. He closed the hearing on S.B. 432. Senator James stated he wanted to move forward on gaming bills heard the previous week. He asked if agreement has been reached on the definition of the term "gross revenue" in S.B. 399. SENATE BILL 399: Clarifies term "gross revenue" for purposes of gaming statutes. William A. Bible, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, responded no agreement has been reached regarding the inclusion of promotional chip giveaways as gross revenue. Senator James explained the proposal is designed to exclude the chips given away as promotional tools from gross revenue, which frequently have a cumulative value of as much as $50,000, when they are played. Restating earlier testimony by gaming board members, he said: There's a difference between not including gross revenue the hotel gives credit for, for example in a baccarat commission situation ... and a situation where they actually give out chips which can be redeemed for cash. Senator James acknowledged the distinction is not clear. Senator Adler declared S.B. 399 is worrisome because it is exceedingly broad. He asserted he has no concern regarding misuse by the large casinos, but he worried about other situations because it applies to all hotels and casinos. If a corrupt person working for a casino hands out unmarked, regular house chips, they would be untraceable, he said. Senator James countered the gaming house would not condone such action because it would be liable for gross revenue tax. Senator Adler replied, "This is an easier skim than gross revenues." He opined it would be too difficult to audit. Mr. Bible admitted the draft may need to be changed for clarification. He said if the chips are passed out of the cage they can be deducted from revenue and will pose a potential for mischief. He explained: The industry presented an amendment after we sat down with them and it indicated that they'd have to demonstrate that they had won the chips, so they'd have to show up in their drop-box or in their count so that they would not be includable within revenue if they could demonstrate that they had won chips that they'd given. Mr. Bible recalled testimony that there will be an offsetting entry; that if the patron wins, there will be a deduction from gross revenue. He stated: Potentially, if you give $100 of promotional chips to an individual, and the averages are in slot machines, for instance, where you have a 97 percent payback, there'd be a $97 dollar deduction from gross revenue, a $3 win to the patron. Mr. Bible said the gaming commission is not concerned about the larger houses that use such gambits as inducement for "high-end" play, which brings in business and generates more revenue for the state. He voiced concern with the broad-based aspect of the bill which may allow any type of promotional activity, such as paycheck giveaways in which the patron is given a $20 token, to become deductible from gross revenue. He said some portion of the win against the $20 token will become deductible from gross revenue. He asserted it could create an area of deductibility with an impact on gross revenue. Mr. Bible suggested the provisions be crafted so they will only pertain to upper-end play in denominations large enough to be readily traceable, such as above $500. He agreed the practice should not be spread throughout the industry to allow a deduction from gross revenue for all promotional activities. He said, "We're moving more towards a net-type philosophy of taxation in this area." Mr. Bible explained the proposal differs from the baccarat activity bill enacted during the last session of the Legislature, because that did not result in a deduction from gross revenue, whereas S.B. 399 provides for a deduction from gross revenue. Mr. Bible indicated the casinos have been unwilling to propose an amendment that will restrict the bill to "high-end" play. He agreed some provision which will allow for uniquely marked tokens or traceable tokens above $500 should be acceptable, although that would probably not apply in the revenue section of the statutes. He reported another suggestion has been to disallow a deduction if chips are used in play and there is a win. Senator James asked if the casino will be empowered to deduct the entire win even if a promotional chip is used under the proposed bill. Mr. Bible replied in the affirmative. He explained if the chips result in winnings, the winnings are deducted from gross revenue. He reiterated the promotional chip has no value. He offered an example, saying: You go in, and they give you a $100 chip. You take that $100 chip over, and you win a jackpot, and you don't replay it. You win a jackpot of, say, $1,000. From the casino's standpoint, what they have done is they have created a $1,000 deduction against gross revenue when they report taxes, because taxes are everything they win less everything they pay out to patrons.... Mr. Bible pointed out the $100 promotional chip has no value since no revenue has been received for it, whereas the $1,000 paid out for the jackpot is a deduction from the tax liability payable to the state. He said as the law now stands, the value of the chip is considered revenue. He agreed the question is philosophical. Mr. Bible reiterated the larger houses use promotional chips as inducements to play. Senator Adler inquired how the house can determine which chips are the ones provided for gaming promotions if they are not marked. Mr. Bible acknowledged there is no way of knowing. He stated if the casino can track the promotional chips and demonstrate which result in payouts, those chips should not be included in revenue. He said the casinos have proposed some such language be used to amend the bill. Senator James suggested, "For which the licensee can demonstrate that it, or its affiliate, has not received cash." Mr. Bible responded: Okay, because ... in that, they're demonstrating that the licensee has not received cash. They haven't demonstrated that they've won the thing.... An earlier version of the bill ... indicated they'd have a requirement to demonstrate that they'd won that chip in play. So I've seen a number of iterations where you've put the word `demonstrate' to shift the burden. Senator Adler asked how it can be dealt with if the casino provides an affidavit that the patron was given the chip used in the win. Mr. Bible agreed there will have to be some method to track those chips. He said: The amendment, as drafted, does not have them have the burden to demonstrate that they [the casino] won it. I think it has them to demonstrate that they have not received cash from ... the patron either directly or from an affiliated entity. Senator James asked, "Doesn't it assume they won it?" He inquired: Is [there] any portion of the face value of any chip, token or other representative of value, won by a licensee from a patron, for which the licensee can demonstrate that it did not receive cash. Mr. Bible responded there must be some method to demonstrate, when the casino takes a count, which chips were given to the patron and should be excluded from revenue, and which were chips for which they received value and should be included as revenue. He opined it should not pose a particular problem to make the chips identifiable. Senator James concurred the issue is philosophical as to whether the win using promotional chips should be included in gross revenue or not. He voiced approval of the amendment, because if it becomes apparent there are abuses, they can be addressed at the next session of the Legislature. Mr. Bible stated the State Gaming Control Board would like to see the policy defined more narrowly so that it will only relate to "high-end" credit activity and not to general promotional activity in which paycheck drawings and other such gambits that create deductions from revenue will not be included. Senator Adler offered the opinion the proposal will create more work. Senator James acknowledged there is a potential for abuse in any situation, but stated he thinks it will make the philosophy consistent. Senator Adler declared the casino should have the burden of tracking the promotional chips. Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, declared: There is absolutely no disagreement who has the burden to prove the tracking and the identification of these [promotional] items. It is the licensee. I want to make that clear on the record. Mr. Whittemore reported he has held significant discussions with Chairman Bible who agrees there is a problem regarding the issue. Mr. Whittemore said: If we were to agree to a line of demarcation as to what is promotional, we could, clearly, and I think the committee understands the utility with respect to the "high-end" players. But that puts us in a very difficult situation with respect to the smaller casinos in some of the rural areas or in northern Nevada, who have different promotional items which are still bringing in players. Mr. Whittemore declared putting the line of demarcation at either $500 or $100 may give some institutions in the industry favorable treatment with respect to promotion, while others will not benefit. He asserted the issue relates to fundamental, consistent tax policy. He said: What we're trying to do with respect to this is to create the imagery and the notion within this committee that, why in the world would a licensee give away money unless they believed that ultimately the tax revenues and their profit would be increased by virtue of the promotional activity. Mr. Whittemore recalled earlier testimony that when the casino brings in a customer at $50,000, and it expects him to lose $1 million, the utility of the promotion becomes clear. He cited statistics from a situation related by Phil Flaherty of the Desert Inn in which the baccarat receipts were $32 million prior to use of a promotional program. After a promotional program was instituted, the baccarat receipts grew to $92 million. Mr. Whittemore pointed out such activities by licensees result in additional tax revenue to the state while the casinos earn additional profits. Senator Titus asked how such promotional activities as paycheck wheels will enter the equation. Mr. Whittemore said the paycheck wheel is a similar promotional item, but on a smaller scale. He declared if a patron is given an opportunity to spin the wheel and loses, it is not the patron's cash that is lost, it is the casino's cash, so there is no increase in cash benefit to a smaller casino. In response to a query by Senator Titus, Mr. Whittemore explained the paycheck spin sometimes pays off in tokens for play, or a dinner, or an actual cash prize. He voiced the understanding the chairman is concerned about "winning a cash prize and just simply converting that to cash, and then ... saying ... since it's cash, you have no way of determining whether, in fact, you've won that back." Mr. Whittemore asserted the casino should be allowed a deduction for giving out such promotional items. Acknowledging that prizes have various ranges, Mr. Whittemore reiterated his denial that there is any circumstance in which a casino would give away dollars knowing that they would be converted to cash and the patron would leave the casino. He said the whole point is to give away something that will extend the play and promote the activities of gambling and entertainment. Mr. Whittemore agreed there are legitimate concerns regarding how to tax such activities, and how the licensee will control the activities. Senator Porter asked if any wording could be suggested to deal with the fact the smaller casinos do not have the same checks and balances as the larger casinos in order for them to keep track of promotional giveaways. Mr. Whittemore responded it would be simple to say that promotional activities under a certain amount will not be covered by the legislation, but he reiterated the small casinos will be at a disadvantage. Senator Adler inquired if Mr. Whittemore would object to more detailed language showing the licensee has the burden of proof in tracking the chips. Mr. Whittemore responded he will not object if there is agreement within the industry because the burden will be upon the industry. He assured the committee the resorts are adamant that the promotional chips must be identified and tracked. Senator Adler voiced concern the bill will not include adequate tracking for the smaller casinos. Mr. Whittemore declared the problem should be resolved by inclusion of language that the licensee has the burden of proof. Senator James agreed the burden will be placed on the casino. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 399 AS PROPOSED TO INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF WILL BE PLACED UPON THE LICENSEE. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Adler declared he would prefer more specific language on tracking. He repeated his concern people working for the small casinos may abuse the situation. Senator James responded the regulator will have the upper hand on the situation because the licensee must provide adequate proof or the deduction from receipts will be denied. Senator Adler opined the amendment does not make that distinction. Senator James restated the amendment: Any portion of the face value of any chip, token or other representative of value won by a licensee from a patron for which the licensee can demonstrate that it did not receive cash. Senator James added: It's a chip ... that you won, for which you can demonstrate ... that you didn't receive cash.... It's only one kind of chip, a kind that you won, and that you didn't receive cash for. Those are linked together in my reading of it. Senator Adler reiterated words should be included that the licensee has the burden of proof. Senator McGinness responded the term "that you can demonstrate" should be adequate to indicate the licensee has the burden of proof. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 131: Provides for regulation of inter-casino linked systems related to gaming. Senator James noted the bill was held pending resolution of a disputed issue. Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, International Game Technology (IGT), International Technical Systems (ITS), explained a concern was expressed with respect to the effective date of the inter-casino linked system in which a game is conducted at one location, and when that should take place. Mr. Whittemore said an agreement has been reached between two of his clients and has received the approval of Chairman Bible. He stated: There has been agreement reached that in a transitory section, if we can, to make it clear that a ball-drop game that is at one location for nonaffiliated entities, that that should become effective after November 1, 1995. Mr. Whittemore proposed an amendment to section 16 on page 8, line 13, by adding a subsection (b) to provide: Before November 1, 1995, an inter-casino linked system in which the game is conducted at one location may be placed only at nonrestricted gaming establishments with live games that are affiliated with each other. After November 1, 1995, inter-casino linked systems in which the game is conducted at one location may be placed at all nonrestricted gaming establishments with live games. Mr. Whittemore noted the amendment will provide for a different effective date. He explained the request was made as a result of potential disagreement between IGT and ITS. The two companies held discussions on another provision of the bill, he said, which is the keno portion that was presented to the committee earlier. He stated IGT and ITS have agreed the November 1, 1995, date will resolve their differences. He indicated the date was selected because ITS believes it will be prepared to go forward by November 1, giving an advantage to ITS, but which IGT accepts. Mr. Whittemore reminded the committee of other proposed amendments discussed at an earlier hearing and which Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, had presented to the committee. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 131. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * There being no further business, Senator James adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary May 18, 1995 Page