MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 26, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:45 a.m., on Friday, May 26, 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: Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau Senator James opened the discussion on Senate Bill (S.B.) 496, the Revisers' bill. SENATE BILL 496: Makes various technical amendments to provision of Nevada Revised Statutes. Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), provided the committee with an explanation of the changes (Exhibit C) recommended by the LCB related to errors found by or brought to the attention of the LCB during the interim, or that are name changes requiring legislative action. At Senator James' request, Ms. Erdoes compared the recommended changes to existing statutes. As set forth in Exhibit C, she explained there was no conflict with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 0.040 with the term "podiatrist," but when the title was changed to "podiatric physician," a conflict was created which the LCB failed to catch in bill drafts. She said S.B. 496 section 1 will limit the application to NRS Chapter 635 to clarify the fact the word "physician" throughout the statutes does not include "podiatric physician." According to Ms. Erdoes, when changes to the list of items exempt from execution of a judgment in NRS 21.090 were made, both sections NRS 21.075 and NRS 31.045, which contain notice provisions, should have been changed, and S.B. 496 will resolve the problem in section 2. Ms. Erdoes called section 3 an "anomaly" in that subsection 1 makes it very clear that the an action brought by an employee, former officer, state legislator or others rising out of an act of omission is a tort, and subsection 3 is identical to the wording in subsection 1. Because it is repetetive, she said, there should be no problem caused by removal of section 3, and it should make the language clearer. Regarding section 4, Ms. Erdoes explained when the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was changed, the short title was somehow omitted and therefore it did not match other short titles in the statutes or in other states. The change will have no substantive effect, she declared. She said the proposed changes in sections 5 and 6 are also proposed to match other references in the UCC to avoid confusion. Mr. Erdoes acknowledged the change in section 7 is the result of a drafting error, since there is no provision in the statutes for marriage between more than two people. Sections 8 through 27, Ms. Erdoes stated, relate to the federal name change of the Veterans' Administration to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. She added the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is now entiteld the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. She noted the United States Code publishers recodified the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 and updates are included in the bill. Ms. Erdoes said the 1993 Legislature expanded the provision of NRS 174.385 to include the attorney general along with district attorneys by saying "prosecuting attorney" among those who can issue subpoenas, but the enforcement provision was not changed at the same time. She noted section 28 will rectify that problem. Ms. Erdoes noted sections 29, 30 and 31 all contain replacements of the term "vagrancy," which was deleted from the statutes during the last legislative section. She asserted section 32 contains definitions of several terms which will make the statutes more "user-friendly." Section 33 will make the necessary changes regarding references to the Veterans' Administration, she said. Mr. Erdoes stated section 34 will amend the provisions regarding ethics and the makeup of a quorum as to when a member of the legislative branch may or may not vote on a measure. She noted it applies to legislative branches of all governing bodies in the state, including local governments. Senator James agreed there is some confusion regarding the makeup of a quorum when a person abstains from voting due to ethical considerations. Senator Adler construed the proposal to allow one person on a committee to vote on a measure if all others abstain from the vote due to ethical considerations. Ms. Erdoes concurred the measure will make such provision. The committee debated whether section 34 provisions will include the full Senate or Assembly body or the full committee, and whether it is constitutional. Senator James asked what prompted the provision. Ms. Erdoes responded it was proposed because other states have it, and committees could be tied up if too many people were barred from voting on a bill due to a conflict. Senator Adler suggested the words "body or" on page 14, line 38 should be deleted or clarified. After some discussion, the committee decided a clear policy on the paragraph starting on line 38, page 14, should be set to reduce the ambiguity. Senator James described the discussion to Senator Titus. He proposed that the committee effectuate the intent of the Legislature, which he opined is to reduce the number of a quorum as it applies to legislative committees. Ms. Erdoes noted sections 35 and 36 are to correct matters pointed out by the elections deputy in the Office of the Attorney General. She noted there are several places where reference is made to "penalty of perjury," which is a felony, whereas violations of the sections are cited as gross misdemeanors. She said the change will make it clear that violations of the sections will be prosecuted as gross misdemeanors, but it will not prevent prosecution for perjury, which is a felony, as it would otherwise under prosecutorial discretion provisions of the law. Ms. Erdoes stated section 37 is another provision regarding the name change for the Veterans' Administration. Section 38, she said, will remove confusion caused by a drafting error regarding the election of a chairman of the State Public Works Board. According to Ms. Erdoes, section 39 will not change the definition of a blind person, it will only delete the term "totally blind," since some people considered legally blind have a little remaining visual acuity. Section 40, she said, applies to the Veterans' Administration name change, and sections 41 and 42 change the wording regarding "totally blind." She indicated section 43 also changes the reference to the Veterans' Administration. Ms. Erdoes stated sections 44 and 45 will amend NRS chapters 375A and 375B in the tax code in which a drafting error was made. The amendment will change "determination of delinquency" to "determination of deficiency." Ms. Erdoes noted sections 46 through 52 amend references to the Veterans' Administration. She indicated section 53 will replace obsolete terms with current terminology regarding fees for commercial and noncommercial wildlife applications. According to Ms. Erdoes, a reference in NRS 598.0915 will change the language, "a product or service" to "goods or services" as is used throughout the statutes. Section 55, she said, will clarify definitions in NRS chapter 612. She noted section 56 is another change regarding the Veterans' Administration. Ms. Erdoes stated section 57 is another change to the former short title in the UCC, while sections 58, 59 and 60 change references to the Veterans' Administration. Ms. Erdoes said section 61 will make clear that the use of the word "division" in NRS 645B.010 means the "division of financial institutions of the Department of Business and Industry." Sections 62 through 65 make more changes in reference to the "Veterans' Administration." Ms. Erdoes said the name of the "recovery fund" was changed in 1991 to the "insurance recovery account," and the proposed amendments in sections 66 through 69 will replace inaccurate references. She explained when the Commissioner of Insurance collects certain funds, those funds are placed into the account. She indicated the last Legislature changed collection of insurance premium taxes from the Commissioner of Insurance to the Department of Taxation, and section 70 will change a reference that was missed at that time. Sections 71 and 72, she said, change references to the "recovery fund." Ms. Erdoes stated section 73 will repair a terminology problem in NRS 711.270. Finally, she indicated section 74 will repeal an unnecessary definition of "daytime" in Title XV of the Criminal Code. The committee discussed an amendment regarding a constitutional provision for section 34, to make it clear that it does not apply to the floor of the Senate. Ms. Erdoes declared, "For us, in our interpretation, it's not a problem because The Constitution [of the State of Nevada] is supreme." Because it is unnecessary to provide that certain things cannot be done if they are in conflict with the constitution, Ms. Erdoes stated it would be preferable to leave the section as written. Therefore, Senator James agreed there should be no problems associated with section 34. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 496. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator James asked the committee to consider S.B. 60. SENATE BILL 60: Revises provisions governing sales of property under execution. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 60. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator James noted committee introductions were considered for two bill draft requests (BDRs) regarding installment credit on credit cards. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 8-387: Makes changes to provisions governing issuance of credit cards by financial institutions. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 2078: Adopt separate provisions to govern credit cards issued by financial institutions. SENATOR ADLER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 8-387 AND BDR 2078. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * There being no further business to come before the committee, Senator James adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary May 26, 1995 Page