MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 27, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, June 27, 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 Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau OTHERS PRESENT: George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Paul Gowins, Representative, Disabled Community Carol A. Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation I.R. "Renny" Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association Elizabeth B. Kolkoski, Chief, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources Myla C. Florence, Director, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources Despina Hatton, Attorney, Senior Law Practice C. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, Senior Legislative Commission Chairman, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Anne Andrini, Executive Assistant, Governor's Office Chairman James announced this would be the last regularly scheduled meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Any other meetings held will be at the call of the chair, he noted, depending on what remaining measures require attention. He opened the hearing on the first bill. SENATE BILL 573: Makes technical corrections to certain measures previously approved by the 68th session of the Nevada Legislature. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, came to the witness table to explain the need and contents of Senate Bill (S.B.) 573. She provided an outline of the various changes (Exhibit C) and pointed out that this bill differs from the previous revisor's bill brought to the committee. The previous bill corrected problems from previous sessions, she said, while S.B. 573 is designed to address corrections needed in legislation from the current session. Ms. Erdoes went over the outline and explanation of the trailer bill (S.B. 573). There was no further testimony on the bill and the hearing was closed. Chairman James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 502. ASSEMBLY BILL 502: Makes various changes relating to discriminatory practices. Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley brought this measure to the committee. Ms. Buckley explained that A.B. 502 addresses the topic of housing discrimination. During her campaign, she said, someone told her Nevada's housing laws were extremely outdated and needed to be updated to ensure disabled persons have equal opportunity and access in housing. This representation regarding the State of Nevada's housing laws was an understatement, Ms. Buckley stressed. The laws have not been updated to ensure the disabled have accommodation, she reported, and the state has lost HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funding because of the failure to do so. Some of the lost funding was that allotted for the state to process its own HUD housing discrimination cases. Thus, claims are currently being processed out-of-state, the assemblywoman stated. A.B. 502 attempts to bring Nevada law in line with federal guidelines. If this bill is adopted Nevada law will be considered "substantially equivalent" to the federal statutes. This will allow the state to process housing discrimination claims, and it will make a strong policy statement about the concern the state has for those citizens who are disabled. Ms. Buckley gave the committee an overview of the major provisions of the bill. She explained that section 2 of the bill states a person may not refuse to authorize a person with a disability to make reasonable modifications to the unit that they lease. There are certain conditions attached, she said, including requiring the person to restore the interior of the unit to its original condition when they move. Additionally, the landlord may not increase any security deposit as a result of the tenant's disability, but they may request the tenant deposit a reasonable amount to ensure the restoration is completed. Section 3 governs how a building is to be constructed after March 13, 1991, the witness noted. This date is included because it is the date contained in the federal guidelines, and it is the date this federal act became effective. Section 4 clarifies current law in regard to discrimination on the basis of familial status, Ms. Buckley told. Previously, Nevada law did not provide that a person who had lawful custody of a child could not be discriminated against, as long as the custody is court awarded or they have written permission of the custodial parent, she explained. This will prohibit such discrimination. Ms. Buckley continued. Section 5 prohibits a nonprofit educational or social organization from discriminating, as is outlined in the federal guidelines, she reported. Sections 6 and 7 govern the time period in which a claim of discrimination can be filed. Section 8 again deals with familial status clarification. Section 9 provides it is unlawful to discriminate and refuse to purchase a loan because of the borrower's status. Section 11 tells the Governor may designate another agency to perform the duties and function of the Equal Rights Commission. This provision was requested by the commission, because there have been discussions with the Governor about subcontracting housing discrimination claims. Section 12 sets out the procedure for filing housing discrimination claims, Ms. Buckley noted, as well as how the investigation shall be conducted. Section 13 was requested by the Clark County Affirmative Action Officer, the witness reported. This provision is designed to ensure the personnel involved are dedicated and focused on their duties with the commission. Section 14 deals with the issuance of subpoenas; section 15 once more clarifies procedural requirements for housing complaints, including proper service of the complaint upon the "alleged" discriminator, the assemblywoman stated. Section 16 discusses remedies, and it was included to make the Nevada law "substantially equivalent" to federal law. Ms. Buckley requested an amendment which was not made in the Assembly. Page 6, line 44, the words, "at the expense of the commission" should be deleted because of the concern that this would cause an inordinate expense to the commission if they had to pay the costs of attempted mediation. The witness explained the wording was inserted because the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) staff felt it is required to maintain the substantial equivalency. However, she told, subsequent research reveals this is not needed. This was confirmed by the director of the San Francisco HUD office. Section 16 also allows the awarding of punitive damages, Ms. Buckley explained. There were questions raised as to the need for the allowance. Staff has concluded it is needed. Senator James asked the witness to explain what is meant by "substantially equivalent." Ms. Buckley replied this is a HUD term which means Nevada law must address the familial discrimination act, the fair housing act, in a manner close enough to federal law in the opinion of HUD. Once this legislation is enacted, she continued, a copy of it will be forwarded to HUD which will determine whether the law is substantially the same. There is some leeway in certain areas, but other provisions are required to be identical, the witness noted. If this determination is made in favor of Nevada, funding will be reinstated so the state can process its own housing discrimination claims. Ms. Buckley concluded her overview, noting the remaining sections of the bill address technical changes as well as providing clarification that a "service animal" may be utilized by certain disabled individuals. It also explains what a service animal is, she stated. The effective date is unusual, the assemblywoman explained, because the bill will only become effective upon the approval of HUD as declared by the Assistant Secretary on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to the Governor. Ms. Buckley noted that in the redraft, section numbers listed in paragraph 3 of section 30 were incorrectly inserted. The changes will be provided to the research analyst. With some discussion with the committee, the assemblywoman suggested the wording should be "the provisions of this act affecting discriminatory housing practices enforcement shall not become effective until it's been declared that our laws are equivalent." Finally, Ms. Buckley offered letters of support for the bill from various employers and from HUD. These are incorporated as Exhibit D). Ms. Buckley reported there was great support for the measure in the Assembly. She noted she had received a communication that morning from I.R. "Renny" Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, expressing some concern about the bill. Previously, he had forwarded concerns from one of the association's builders who was afraid some of the provisions were not required by federal law. LCB assured her, she reported, the provisions were already in federal law. The concern raised by Mr. Ashleman this morning, Ms. Buckley explained, was in reference to the punitive damages provision. The chairman asked if this provision sets forth a new standard for punitive damages. Ms. Buckley confirmed it would not do so. He asked for confirmation the court would have to analyze the situation under the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 42.010 which indicate the necessary intent to harm. She concurred, adding under this bill there would have to be an intentional refusal to rent to someone with a disability. Senator James questioned why the phrase includes "actual and punitive" since it should be sufficient to say all remedies available in law or in equity. This is essentially set forth in the provision, he asserted. Ms. Buckley agreed the chairman's remarks make sense, that the wronged party could get any remedies available at law, including the full array. She referred to section 115.3A of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which states, "the state or local law must provide for civil enforcement of the law by an aggrieved person within 1 year. The court should be empowered to: 1) award the plaintiff actual and punitive damages...." Thus, she opined, the research staff must have concluded since this was the verbiage used by the federal code, it should be repeated in that same form in the state law. The chairman observed the courts of Nevada are already empowered to do that very thing. Senator James noted that normally the aggrieved party would receive a legal remedy of damages or an equitable remedy. He asked if this provision intends to give the plaintiff both damages and injunctive relief in the same action, or is it an elective remedy. Ms. Buckley reiterated that federal law requires the state to empower the court to order these remedies, either equitable or damages. She speculated it would be the same as current Nevada state law. Also, she opined, the court could, in some cases, issue injunctive relief, stating the person must allow the tenant to modify their unit. The court could also consider some damages that plaintiff may have suffered in bringing the action or in renting alternative housing, the assemblywoman said. This would be at the court's discretion and would not require anything further than what a judge could do now. Senator James asked if the state can limit the amount of punitive damage that can be awarded by the court. George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County, responded to this inquiry. He stated there are caps already set within most of the federal program, and therefore, it probably would not be a problem to set a cap on amount of punitive damages in this case. Mr. Cotton offered the example of the cap put on the 1991 Civil Rights Act dealing with employment. The senator asked what that cap is; Mr. Cotton related it depends on the size of the employer and varies to a maximum of approximately $300,000 for a large employer. Ms. Buckley asserted there is nothing in the CFR which requires the state to grant unlimited punitive damages. The state standards would be applicable, she maintained. The chairman wondered if, in this instance it would be possible to apply a different standard than the state standard that is in place. For example, if the federal standard set in the regulations the state is attempting to be "substantially equivalent" to is lower than the state's, it might be best to set the limit at the federal level. The law could say, "...award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages in an amount not greater than that allowed by federal statute. Ms. Buckley replied she is hesitant to agree to that, because in all of the research on the issue, such a provision has not come up. She explained she possesses the federal register which details a discussion on every aspect of the Fair Housing Act, and the subject has not come up. She stated she hesitates to make a change that would potentially cause the law to be declared not substantially equivalent. She did offer to check the possibility. The chairman turned to Mr. Cotton, asking if he wished to add anything further. Mr. Cotton told the committee the reason Clark County is supporting this bill is because they have to deal extensively with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and the Department of Justice in employment cases. In many of these instances, the county is required to defend their client in multiple venues at the same time. This is extremely expensive. Additionally, he opined a local state agency "on their worst day" is much easier to deal with than a federal agency "on their best day." Senator James sought confirmation that it is Clark County's desire and preference to work with a local office. Mr. Cotton agreed, noting they seem to be more fair and less likely to "go on fishing expeditions," which the federal offices seem prone to do. The senator asked Ms. Buckley if the bill, as drafted, will protect from the existence of "coextensive, overlapping authority." Ms. Buckley emphasized that upon substantial equivalency, the federal government is required to defer to the state. At this point, Ms. Buckley offered possible language that would satisfy the chairman's concerns about punitive damage awards. She read, " a court may limit the amount of punitive damages to be awarded to any amount permitted by applicable federal law." She suggested this be inserted on page 7. Senator Adler voiced agreement with the observations and comments made by Mr. Cotton. He told he had experienced great frustration in his law practice when dealing with the federal offices of EEOC. The witnesses stepped down. Paul Gowins, Representative, Disabled Community, was the next individual to speak in support of A.B. 502. Mr. Gowins explained that housing has always been a very serious problem for disabled persons; from locating and obtaining housing to needing to make modifications to accommodate the disability and being denied the authorization to do so. Additionally, having to deal with the federal offices for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act is a real hardship, he reported. Mr. Gowins requested one change be made to the section dealing with the restoration of the residence once the individual is moving out (section 2, line 14). Mr. Gowins suggested the removal of the word "interior" so the provision would require the restoration of the dwelling as a whole. Sometimes there is a need to modify the exterior of the dwelling, such as adding a ramp, he explained, and these changes would need to be rectified, as well. This wording change would protect the interests of the property owners. He requested the committee move forward with this legislation and stepped down. Carol A. Jackson, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, came to the witness table. She explained that her concern was with the substantial equivalency aspect of the bill. Ms. Jackson stated she has received assurances from Ms. Buckley that the wording, "at the expense of the commission" would need to be removed from the bill. This request was made, she explained, because the initial fiscal note with that provision intact was around $80,000. Another concern, Ms. Jackson noted, deals with the portion which discusses contracting with some other agency to process the fair housing complaints. This is needed, she reported, because the commission is currently about 14,000 cases behind in their work load. This concluded Ms. Jackson's remarks. The chairman noted the ability to contract the services is addressed in section 11 of the bill. Ms. Jackson agreed this provision would be sufficient. Next, I.R. "Renny" Ashleman, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, came to discuss the bill. He noted there were other parties (Pardee Construction and the realtors) interested in this bill and he represents their interest. These parties are concerned with section 2 and section 3 which reference the HUD requirements. The sections are not as restrictive as the HUD requirements, he pointed out; for example the interior of the dwelling versus the dwelling as a whole must be restored. If the HUD guidelines were simply referenced in the bill, Mr. Ashleman explained, there would be less confusion for attorneys and contractors who use the state law in their desire to meet HUD guidelines. He reported Ms. Buckley has assured him the bill drafters are certain the bill will sufficiently cover the HUD requirements. He was unwilling to accept this assurance. He asked that further research be undertaken to see if it is possible to reference the HUD guidelines in the statutes. The witness opined this would be much "cleaner" because when the regulations change Nevada law would change with them. This would provide better protection to those attempting to comply. The chairman stated he hates to reference federal statutes in Nevada law, adding he tries to avoid doing so whenever possible. Despite this, he voiced understanding for Mr. Ashleman's concerns. Mr. Ashleman appreciated the chairman's view on the punitive damages cap. There are specific federal caps for women and disabled persons, he noted. Mr. Ashleman referred to page 7, line 27 of the bill. He asked that this reference to punitive damages be deleted from the bill. He explained this section refers to employment claims which do not allow punitive damage. He represented there have been discussions with the affirmative action office in Clark County. Mr. Cotton has agreed this reference to punitive damages in section 16 is not necessary, if the builders will go along with the other provisions. The witness asked the committee to seriously consider deleting this reference. Senator James asked Ms. Buckley if section 16's reference to punitive damages is to attain substantial equivalence to some other area of the law. Ms. Buckley noted that section 15 governs both housing and employment or public accommodations. Section 16 goes on to specifically provide methods of resolution and remedies for complaints and conflicts. Thus, it provides a combination of housing and employment remediation. For housing there must be an allowance to provide punitive damages, for the substantial equivalency. However, Mr. Ashleman reported discussion with Mr. Cotton in the employment area, which resulted in an agreement that punitive damages could be removed from the area of employment. Ms. Buckley suggested it needs to be made clear that punitive damages are allowed in fair housing conflicts. If this is done in section 5, there should be no problem with deleting the reference to punitive damages on line 27 of page 7. Senator James attempted to clarify the differences. He stated section 6 of the bill used to be section 4. There has been a new section added which indicates that, if attempts at mediation or conciliation fail in a housing discrimination case, this is the procedure and these are the available remedies. Under the new section 6, he continued, is existing law, which, had the changes not been made, would have applied to housing, public accommodations and employment. He asked Mr. Ashleman to explain why removing the reference to punitive damages in section 16 would not be confusing. Mr. Ashleman responded it is because punitive damages have already been expressly addressed in section 7. The chairman asked which situations would be covered by these damages under subsection 6 on page 7. Mr. Ashleman stated it applies to all cases currently. It is important to make certain that the provisions in section 7 apply throughout the bill, but only to those "violations that it addresses." Senator Adler asked Mr. Ashleman if he is suggesting a period be inserted on page 7, line 26 after "actual damages." He noted the rest of the language on that line would amount to less than actual damages. Mr. Ashleman suggested it might be possible to refer back to the previous section. The chairman stated he still is unclear how the provisions work and asked someone to clarify it. Mr. Cotton came forward. He noted that NRS 233.170 is the enabling legislation for the commission which deals with all areas covered by the commission. Section 16 is mainly dealing with the employment area, he stated, and the issue of back- pay. The intent of the original (current) law was to address the whole gamut of remedies for the commission, he said. From the standpoint of punitive damages, Mr. Cotton speculated if, in chapter 118 of NRS it was spelled out that the chapter deals with housing and the punitive damages were inserted there and left out of chapter 613, the employment chapter, and 651, the public accommodations chapter, the intent would be clear. He noted the primary concern is to retain the punitive damages allowance in the housing section. Ms. Buckley interjected it might be easier to have the bill read, "the court shall award in employment cases..." leaving the old language in; and "in housing discrimination they may order..." It was pointed out the provisions refer to different statutes. Senator Adler explained the housing provision refers to an actual court case, which is filed. The employment and public accommodations provision refers to the enforcement of a commission decision, he told. The Legislature has said, in terms of a commission decision, the commission may issue a decision awarding actual damages. This decision might be subsequently enforced by the court through a petition for judicial review, he explained. In section 5, the senator continued, the provision refers to an original complaint, filed with a court. This is why punitive damages are appropriate in section 5, but not in section 6. If the punitive damages are allowed in the later section it would have the effect of allowing the commission to decide punitive damage, which is totally inappropriate, he stated. Therefore, Senator Adler opined, Mr. Ashleman is correct. Senator James observed the goal could be accomplished by simply removing the reference to punitive damages in section 16, page 7, line 27. He asked if there was anything further. Ms. Buckley replied in the negative. There were no further witnesses and the hearing on A.B. 502 was closed. The chairman moved to the next order of business, A.B. 585. ASSEMBLY BILL 585: Makes various changes to provisions prohibiting abuse, neglect and exploitation of older persons. Elizabeth B. Kolkoski, Chief, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, addressed the committee. She offered a copy of her testimony as Exhibit E. Ms. Kolkoski also provided a letter from Mr. Michael F. Bell (Exhibit F) which tells of his experiences with elder abuse, and an overview of the provisions of the bill (Exhibit G). Following Ms. Kolkoski was Myla C. Florence, Director, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, who also spoke in support of this measure. A copy of her testimony is attached as Exhibit H. At the conclusion of her statement Senator Adler voiced agreement with Ms. Florence, noting it is his opinion that such legislation is necessary. Senator Washington asked Ms. Florence if the Welfare Division has sufficient staff to conduct these investigations. Ms. Florence replied the division is chronically understaffed, however, the Governor's budget does provide for additional staff. This additional personnel should be effective in helping with these matters. She stated this area has a very high priority with the division and law requires such cases be investigated within 72 hours. Generally, they are investigated within 24 hours, she reported. Ms. Kolkoski interjected the Aging Services Division has ombudsmen who also investigate complaints in long-term care facilities. Also, the number of these ombudsmen will be increased during the coming fiscal year, she stated. She assured the committee it would be one of her highest priorities, upon enactment of this measure, to engage law enforcement in a more vigorous level of activity in this area with more vigorous investigation, etc. She reported she has heard complaints from the district attorney's office in Clark County that the current statute is not easily prosecuted, particularly the exploitation aspect. Despina Hatton, Attorney, Senior Law Practice, reported it is her job to represent persons who are over the age of 60 years old and who are Washoe County residents. She stated she is also speaking on behalf of the attorney for the Senior Law Project in Las Vegas. Between these two offices, numerous cases of exploitation and abuse are seen, particularly in the area of financial exploitation. Both agencies support this measure, Ms. Hatton stated. She urged the committee's support. Senator James asked if the attendant provisions "square" with the other attendant bills recently passed by the committee. Ms. Kolkoski replied she has not had an opportunity to closely examine the bills with this in mind. She speculated it does, but she is not certain, she stated. Senator Titus voiced her support for the measure, noting there are many effective and worthwhile state agencies; the division on aging being one of the best. She thanked the agencies for their efforts in this matter. Ms. Kolkoski read a letter to the committee which was written by Thelma Clark. The letter stated: I represent Nevada's Seniors Coalition, Inc., in Las Vegas. Our corporate members discussed this bill at our last meeting and agreed that we should support this bill wholeheartedly. Many of our members have gone through the abuse mentioned in this bill, they have also had occasions where someone is making decisions for them about where they will live without asking them. We had one member put in a home to recover from a hospital stay and was terribly mistreated by neglect. Her family called aging services, who rescued her. Her family then was able to put her in another nursing home for 1 month. Then she was able to go home. These are only a few cases from our membership. Your support of this bill will be very much appreciated. I am on the liquefied petroleum gas board and I have to be there at 9:30. I'm sorry I could not stay. Ms. Kolkoski noted there is also a representative from the American Association of Retired Persons present to testify. C. Edwin Fend, Lobbyist, Senior Legislative Commission Chairman, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), came forward to speak in support of A.B. 585. Mr. Fend echoed the comments made by those before him. He asked the committee to strongly support this bill and to move it out of the session and into law. He stepped down. There was no further testimony on the bill. The chairman closed the hearing and moved to a work session. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. The chairman noted that A.B. 585 brings out a number of conflicts with S.B. 416. He asked the research analyst to research how the crimes created in A.B. 585 would mesh in the grid layout of crimes in S.B. 416. He then moved to take action on other bills. Recalling S.B. 573, the bill drafter's trailer bill, the chairman took a motion. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 573. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL 157: Revises provisions governing use of affidavit or declaration in lieu of testimony of expert witness as to existence of alcohol or controlled substance. The next bill, S.B. 157 is the affidavit bill. The committee received the amendments to the bill. It appeared the bona fide dispute escape clause was removed by the Assembly. This was apparently done in error, the chairman explained. He called for a motion to not concur in the amendment to allow a repair of the bill in a conference committee. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO NOT CONCUR IN THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT TO S.B. 157. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 623: Authorizes juvenile division of district court to bind over for trial child certified as adult after formal adversarial hearing. The next bill, A.B. 623, is opposed by the Nevada Association of Juvenile Probation Officers, Senator James reported. He asked who had requested this piece of legislation. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, came forward to address the concerns raised by the juvenile authorities, noting this same concern was raised by the Clark County District Attorney's Office when it first came forward. This bill would require a full investigation and preliminary hearing in juvenile matters. This was not the intent of the bill, Mr. Graham pointed out, but the intent was outlined at the committee hearing the previous day (June 26, 1995). The proposal made the previous day was to throw out everything but the optional procedure of doing a preliminary hearing as part of the certification process, Mr. Graham explained. Mr. Graham noted the opposition voiced by the juvenile authorities is obsolete, following the discussions held with them, the Governor's Office and other prosecutorial officials. Anne Andrini, Executive Assistant, Governor's Office, observed there was a letter faxed to the Governor's Office that morning from the juvenile officials. This letter recommended that the Legislature amend the title of NRS 62.080. She read the current title and the recommended change. She opined this would clarify the intent and solve the problem before the committee. Senator James responded the Legislature does not amend titles. This is done by the LCB. ASSEMBLY BILL 317: Makes various changes related to juvenile courts, sentencing, and crimes and punishments. Mr. Graham asked the committee to allow the procedure outlined in the bill as an option for the courts. He requested the committee to amend the bill so it is simply a procedural bill that can be blended into, but not oppose any provision in, the Governor's crime bill (A.B. 317). Senator James asked what need there is for this bill. Mr. Graham said the idea originated in the Rose Commission as an expedited way to proceed with the juvenile hearing; to remove the need for a certification hearing and then repeat the evidence in a preliminary hearing. Senator Adler noted he has discussed this with the juvenile district attorney in Carson City. The district attorney explained that the current procedure to certify a juvenile to adult court only requires an affidavit. This bill literally requires a certification hearing. This causes the juvenile prosecutors to oppose the bill, he stated. Mr. Graham explained the previous day's hearing had covered this question. The mandatory hearing provision was to be removed, he reported. Senator Titus asked what the result would be if the bill was not passed. Mr. Graham replied, "I wouldn't have to worry about it." On a more serious note, Mr. Graham attempted to explain that a full investigation and juvenile certification hearing requires much of the same work as is required to present a preliminary hearing. This bill would provide the certification and preliminary hearing in one, thus, removing the need to duplicate the evidence presentation. He said it would be a one-step process, instead of a two-step process. Senator Adler opined it really only changes a process which might be a step and one-half into a one-step process. There really is not that much savings of effort or time. Senator James asked the witnesses if this bill could wait, since it appears to need further amendments and examination. Mr. Graham noted he would have no problem with the chairman's proposal. Ms. Andrini attempted to explain the bill's main provision, on page 2, which lays out what it is the court must find or address when determining whether or not a child should be certified. Specifically it tells the court it cannot certify a child up if particular issues are present. Senator James suggested the bill should be amended to simply enact the standard set forth in that section. Ms. Andrini agreed this would work, but added section 1, subsections 2 and 3, requires the court to enter specific findings. The issue may be, she opined, in terms of determining those specific findings when things are only submitted on affidavit. She opined it still might work with the affidavit procedure and getting rid of the other specific procedures required in this bill. She reminded the committee the bill is not sponsored or requested by the Governor's Office. The chairman asserted the only points he could agree with would be on lines 1-4 on page 2. Ms. Andrini asked to include lines 5-10. There was much opposition to this. Senator Titus wondered about the age of the child in the bill. The chairman noted this is incorrect and is another thing about the bill which needs to be fixed. Senator Adler stated he shares the chairman's concern, but has an additional one, as well. He voiced opposition to changing yet another procedure the prosecutors and the courts are familiar with, noting there have already been many changes made to the criminal justice system. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 623. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 292: Provides for disposition of certain pension or retirement benefits upon dissolution of marriage. Senator James noted it is his intention to move A.B. 292 but he is awaiting a facsimile from a family law practitioner about a concern with the bill. This correspondence has not yet arrived, he noted, and he would hold the bill for a few minutes. He moved to A.B. 646. ASSEMBLY BILL 646: Makes various changes to procedure in juvenile cases. Senator Adler explains this bill allows the district attorney to sign a criminal petition instead of the juvenile probation officer. The chairman asked if the procedure outlined on page 4 of the bill would cause problems for involved parties. Senator Titus asked if this is a bill which attempts to speed up the process in such matters. Senator Adler agreed. The chairman called for a motion. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 646. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The anticipated correspondence did not arrive and the chairman decided to move A.B. 292. He explained the bill is a revision of the process used by courts to address the disposition of pension benefits, both vested and un-vested, upon a divorce. He noted no proposed amendments. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 292. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR PORTER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** There was no further business before the committee. The chairman adjourned the hearing at 10:10 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary June 27, 1995 Page