MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS Sixty-eighth Session June 20, 1995 The Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 3:14 p.m., on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman Senator William J. Raggio, Vice Chairman Senator Raymond D. Rawson Senator Mark A. James Senator Dina Titus Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1 Assemblyman Peter G. Ernaut, Assembly District No. 37 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert E. Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mavis Scarff, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert P. Olson, Incline Village Citizen Senator McGinness announced that Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 57 was placed on the agenda to inform the committee that S.C.R. 57 is to be considered as a study, but that the substantive portion of S.C.R. 57 will be heard at 4:00 p.m. in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 57: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of effect of competition in generation and sale of electric energy. (BDR R-1917) Senator McGinness opened discussion on S.C.R. 30. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 30: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of desirability and feasibility of dividing large school districts into smaller school districts. (BDR R-1556) Jon C. Porter, Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, provided an update on S.C.R. 30, indicating that they have consolidated two bills; S.B. 511 that was proposed by Senator Rawson, and his bill S.C.R. 30 . SENATE BILL 511 Authorizes certain cities to form independent school districts. (BDR 34-1293) Senator Porter said S.C.R. 30 requests a study of the larger school districts in the state of Nevada, and stated his amendment would actually change some of the language to use the term "reconfiguration" of school districts, and at the request of some other members of the Senate, S.C.R. 30 will also take a look at consolidating some of the smaller districts in the state of Nevada that are currently having financial difficulties. He noted that a big difference between the two bills is that S.C.R. 30 was a study conducted by the Legislative Commission, whereas S.B. 511 requested an outside study be performed by an independent company. He said his amendment also requests an outside study to be performed independently, and which would schedule public hearings throughout the process. He stated a committee would be set up that would negotiate the terms of the contract; it would define the scope of the study which was to be conducted; it would establish a schedule for the completion of the study; and it would require the consulting firm to submit progress reports; also intervals are set up for public input and for updates to make sure they adhere to the scope of the study. He stressed that throughout the process there would be public hearings. Senator Porter indicated that he had a request from Assemblyman Peter G. Ernaut, Assembly District No. 37, who has requested that a part of the study include Incline Village. He said that Mr. Ernaut had provided him with some language to be added to his amendment that says, "whereas Incline Village is geographically isolated and contributes a disproportionate share of property tax revenue toward Washoe County School District," and stated that Incline Village would like to be part of the study. He stated that he is not sure that Mr. Ernaut's amendment is necessary, as he tried to make the amemded language broad enough that it would include any area of the state that wished to participate. Senator McGinness agreed that if they start talking about particular areas, it may limit the study. Regarding some of the smaller school districts, he asked if senator Porter had targeted any in particular? Senator Porter said, "Actually not," but noted that though two-thirds of his district is in rural Clark county, his original goal was to look at the Clark County School District. He said Senator Raggio had requested that they look at the whole state for some areas that could also be consolidated, and he indicated that the outside firm could also look at that. Mr. Ernaut provided background for his amendment, stating that there was a very controversial measure heard in the Assembly this session concerning Incline Village becoming its own country, and he stated that one of the biggest arguments was that Incline Village should have its own school district. He noted that the 1992 bond issue cost Incline Village $12 million in property taxes for which they received less than $5 million in the form of capital improvements, and he stated that the new proposed $192 million bond issue provides no money for Incline Village. Noting that Incline Village is geographically isolated, and that they have a very small community that is limited from growth, he believes it makes sense to look at this as a viable aspect of the study. He requested to be allowed to put his amendment on the Senate resolution. Senator McGinness said he was wondering if this resolution is not worded broadly enough now to include issues such as Incline Village, since the bill says to study the desirability and feasibility of reconfiguring the structure of school districts in the state, and goes on to indicate that the subcommittee will define the scope of the study. He noted that Senator Porter had stated that they may also look at some of the smaller school districts, and talk about either reconfiguring them, or maybe combining some of them. Mr. Ernaut conceded that is a very good point, and indicated that he had received a letter from their bill drafter, Kimberly Morgan, Assembly Bill Drafting Adviser, Legislative Counsel Bureau, that basically says that S.C.R. 30 would already have allowed the bifurcation study of Incline Village. He said the language she put in was just to make it specific, although she would tend to agree with you, that the study already allows it. He stressed that he would not want to see, without that specific language included, that the majority, or a good deal of the time, would be spent studying Clark county, and never getting around to any of the others. He agreed that Clark county is going to be the number one priority, but he stated, that if another school district took precedence over Incline Village, he certainly would not want to see that. He emphasized the importance of having a specific intention drafted in the bill. Senator Porter said that education costs are close to 63 percent of our budget, and he is very sensitive to the fact that education, and the parental and the school boards' involvement are critical throughout a study such as this. He stated his amendment suggests that the committee be composed of elected officials of the Legislature, Assembly, Senate, and someone from the executive branch. He said he is not firm on the number of individuals that should serve on this committee, but he does encourage that it be members of the elected bodies, the Legislature and the executive side. Noting that emotions are at an all time high, he emphasized that, throughout the process, he is very concerned that there be appropriate notice to all the public who are concerned with this study, throughout the process. He concluded reaffirming Senator Rawson's statement in their hearing on S.B. 511, that this is certainly not a reflection on the integrity and/or the ability of the school boards to perform their functions. He stated that hopefully the study would provide an independent approach to what would help them in the service of their communities, and their children. Senator McGinness asked if there is funding available for this study? Senator Porter replied that the only estimate he has is from Senator Rawson, and that it is anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000. Senator McGinness asked if the source of that money had been identified? Senator Porter replied that it has not, but noted that Senator Raggio is very aware of their request. Senator Rawson stated that they need to sit down with the two of them and see how they can put this together now. He said he likes the idea of having the legislators having an investment in this by helping to select the people who will do the study, but he thinks they need some independent voices once they really get started, because there needs to be a nonpolitical look at some things in it. Senator McGinness opened the hearing on S.C.R. 56. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56 Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of feasibility of creating new county in area around Incline Village. (BDR R-1656) Senator McGinness indicated that since Senator Rawson had to leave, that the committee will proceed as a subcommittee hearing S.C.R. 56. Robert P. Olson, Incline Village Citizens, asked if the committee voted on the last issue, regarding whether Incline Village will be included in S.C.R. 30? Senator McGinness said, "No we did not." He explained that they have about 15 studies that they have to take under consideration, and that these are the last three on which they have not heard testimony. He said they will take testimony on these today, and will probably set their priorities on Thursday as to which studies the Legislature will actually look at. Mr. Olson stated that he would like to see an interim study for Incline Village from a county point of view; however, if Incline Village is going to be included in the study for the school districts, he would rather put the priority on that. Senator McGinness confirmed that if the school district issue is addressed then that would cover Mr. Olson's concern? Mr. Olson replied that it would cover their concerns for the immediate future. Senator McGinness invited Mr. Olson to go ahead and give testimony on S.C.R. 56 because there is no guarantee that either of these studies going forward. Mr. Olson described the progress of A.B. 332 . ASSEMBLY BILL 332 Creates Ponderosa County. (BDR 20-6) Mr. Olson noted that there was no question of the popularity of the issue in Incline Village. He stated a number of different people testified as to the validity of Incline Village's financial feasibility, and he read into the record two paragraphs from two letters written by Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau. The following excerpts are taken from Exhibit C: Because the NEW county study left out revenues when they had no information and underestimated certain other revenues, it appears that Ponderosa County would have between $1 million and $2 million in annual revenues more than the NEW county study shows. There is little doubt that property taxpayers in Ponderosa County will be much more responsible for their government than those in any other county in Nevada. There are a couple of positive features to this situation: first, taxpayers in Ponderosa County will likely be more attentive to what their county is doing or plans to do with their tax dollars than their counterparts in other counties: second, they will probably have more influence over the day-to-day decisions of their government than taxpayers elsewhere. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 56, and stated that the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor will hear the substantive portion of S.C.R. 57, and that any changes will be recommended to the committee. He said S.C.R. 57 it is listed on the agenda to make sure that it is included in the list of studies. A quorum was now present as Senator Coffin arrived. Senator McGinness opened the hearing on S.C.R. 59. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 59: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of treatment of mentally ill offenders in prison. (BDR R-2147) Senator James spoke eloquently on S.C.R. 59. He said this study is important for several reasons, not only because they have laid some statutory predicates for it with bills that they have passed this session, but also because this is an area of the law that is probably the very cutting edge of criminal justice in the state and the country; and that being whether the Legislature can do anything about people who are motivated to commit crime, and actually commit crimes, because of a mental disease or defect that they have. He indicated that the criminal justice system has done very little to treat people in the criminal justice system, or in prison, who suffer from these problems, and whose crimes are a direct result of these problems. Rehabilitation, as regards the mentally ill, he stated, has really been a goal that has not been reached in any degree; very little has been understood about mental disease, less than is understood about physical disease, and even less in dealing with the mental diseases that motivate people to do the most heinous and despicable things in society. Nevada also has to look at the question of whether enough is being done to use the resources necessary to offer treatment to these people, and perhaps prevent them from offending again. Senator James reminded the committee that this resolution is drafted so that it would require an analysis of insanity and mental illness in the criminal justice system, but would also ask for an emphasis to be placed on those who engage in sexually deviant behavior in connection with their crimes. He said that a recent study indicated that the average juvenile offender who commits his first sex crime will commit an average of 360 sex offenses in his lifetime, noting that this a rate of recidivism is the average across the country for this kind of a crime. He remarked that the people who commit these terrible crimes are going to get out of prison, but he emphasized that the Legislature has to take some bold steps, this session, to increase the penalties for violent offenders, and he reminded the committee that they will never be able to keep people in prison forever. Senator James noted that the people who commit these kinds of crimes are different from others, indicating that the statistics show consistently that they have one of the highest of recidivism of any crime. He declared that recognizing that they are going to be free, and recognizing that most of these people have a mental disease or a defect of some kind, which motivates them to that high rate of repeat offense in the future, legislators have to ask themselves whether they are doing enough to try to prevent that from happening. He stated some studies show that treatment of sex offenders is of little help; however, other recent studies show that maybe they are not cured, but the rate of recidivism can be reduced. He agrees that this issue, of trying to look at the treatment of mental illness in the system, and prevent these kinds of crimes from being committed in the future, is a goal without parallel. He said that Senate Bill 192, now in statute, recognizes a class of people who are sexual deviants, and yet nothing has been done to direct further inquiry or study, either outside or inside the prison system, to determine whether these people can be treated to prevent them from repeating their crimes. SENATE BILL 192: Makes various changes related to provisions pertaining to sexual deviants. (BDR 15-171) SENATE BILL 314: Abolishes criminal defense of insanity. (BDR 14-331) He noted that S.B. 314, which was passed by both houses, repeals the defense of insanity in criminal prosecutions, and also recognizes that people who commit crimes can be mentally ill, that the mental illness can be the cause of the crime, and the reason that they committed the crime. He asked how, someone can be dealt with, who is convicted of a crime, and also recognized by a jury or a judge to be mentally ill at the same time. He asserted that those are the two statutory predicates, and some of the statistics, as to why this bill is needed so much. Senator James indicated that many studies have been done over the last 15 years, and that at least seven research groups have analyzed sex offender treatment studies, and all but one, have found overall positive treatment effects. He said that what these studies found, in most cases, is not that people can be cured, not that people necessarily will have the disease, or the defect whatever it is, completely eradicated from their minds, is that one can reduce the chance, or the likelihood, that the particular disease will motivate them to commit a crime again. He cited a study, conducted in 1993, that found that the recidivism rate of treated offenders was 10.9 percent versus 18.5 percent for untreated offenders. He stated that he thinks it is close to neglect of their duties for them not to commission the Nevada Legislature to look into these studies, and see whether they should be implemented in Nevada. Currently, he said, they are doing things on a day-to-day basis with each given crime, each given child that is violated, each rape that is committed; but they need to try to go to the source, and prevent these crimes from being committed in the first place. He urged the committee to adopt this study. Senator Coffin indicated he forgot why they needed to take the sexual offender treatment out of S.B. 192, and asked if it was it because of the cost? Senator James replied it was the strong testimony from the people in the mental health and retardation division, and also in the prison system who said they did not have the time to study these treatment regimes; however, they urged the Legislature to study it, and he stated the Legislature needs to do something to look at the current data and see what Nevada should be doing to try to stop this problem. Senator Coffin asked if he was suggesting a staff study to do this? Senator James said he is suggesting both an extensive review of the existing research, and to have the committee work with the prison officials and mental health officials to look at the programs that have been instituted in other states, in particular Washington. Senator McGinness closed the hearing on S.C.R. 59, and indicated the committee will meet again on Thursday to review the studies. The chairman advised the members that Mr. Erickson had provided them with the latest update on the pending studies (Exhibit D). The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mavis Scarff, APPROVED BY: Committee Secretary Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations June 20, 1995 Page