THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY
Carson City(Tuesday), February 23, 1999
Senate called to order at 4:28 p.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senators Coffin and James, who were excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Dr. Ken Haskins.
Dear Heavenly Father, the heavens and earth are Your handiwork. These declare Your glory. You are an awesome God, and yet, You are near and personal, loving and caring. Father, bless us this day and the work to which we have set our minds and hands. In Jesus’ Name.
Amen.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President pro Tempore and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 50, 51, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bill No. 129; Senate Joint Resolution No. 11, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Mike McGinness, Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 22, 1999
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 12.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 40, 79, 88, 177; Assembly Joint Resolution No. 1.
Susan Furlong Reil
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 23, 1999
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bill No. 98.
Susan Furlong Reil
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 15—Urging certain state agencies to use labor provided by offenders and volunteers for the construction and maintenance of certain facilities and projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Senator Rhoads moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 16—Directing the Legislative Commission to appoint a committee to continue the review of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
Senator Rhoads moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 1.
Senator Rawson moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By Senators Amodei and Neal:
Senate Bill No. 239—AN ACT relating to the Nevada highway patrol; requiring the department of personnel to calculate the average salaries of certain law enforcement personnel; requiring that the proposed budget of the department of motor vehicles and public safety include salaries for officers of the Nevada highway patrol which are based on those calculations; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Amodei moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By Senator Jacobsen (by request):
Senate Bill No. 240—AN ACT relating to common-interest ownership; excluding small claims actions from the requirement of mediation and arbitration for certain claims relating to residential property within a common-interest community; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By Senator Shaffer:
Senate Bill No. 241—AN ACT relating to deceased persons; requiring a funeral director to obtain the approval of the state board of funeral directors, embalmers and operators of cemeteries and crematories to manage a funeral establishment; providing that a funeral director is responsible for the proper management of each funeral establishment of which he is the manager; restricting the number of terms that a member of the board may serve consecutively; clarifying certain provisions governing the required education for a license to practice the profession of embalming; providing that a majority of the adult children of a deceased person may order the cremation of the human remains of the deceased person; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Senate Bill No. 242—AN ACT relating to domestic relations; revising the provisions requiring the inclusion of social security numbers and certain other information in judgments of divorce and court orders for child support; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Bill No. 243—AN ACT relating to hazardous materials; changing the date by which certain fees for the storage of extremely hazardous materials must be paid; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.
By Senator Jacobsen (by request):
Senate Bill No. 244—AN ACT relating to taxation; revising the provisions governing the payment of wholesale dealers for cigarettes and other tobacco products; prohibiting certain actions regarding cigarettes manufactured for export outside the United States; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By Senator McGinness:
Senate Bill No. 245—AN ACT relating to retirement; allowing a justice or judge who retired under the public employees’ retirement system and who is recalled to active service to earn credit toward a supplemental pension; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By Senator Shaffer:
Senate Bill No. 246—AN ACT relating to dentistry; authorizing the board of dental examiners of Nevada to issue a limited number of licenses each year to dentists licensed in other jurisdictions; establishing the fee for an application for a license to practice dentistry without examination; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By Senator Neal:
Senate Bill No. 247—AN ACT relating to liens; providing a lien on real property and improvements thereon for labor performed and materials furnished to maintain the property and improvements; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Neal moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 248—AN ACT making an appropriation to the University and Community College System of Nevada for imaging equipment; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 249—AN ACT making an appropriation to the National Judicial College for the Death Penalty Resource Center to provide education and training regarding the laws relating to capital punishment; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 250—AN ACT making an appropriation to the Budget Division of the Department of Administration for reimbursement of the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for the expenses involved in preparing bill drafts requested by agencies of the executive branch; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 40.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 79.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 88.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 98.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 177.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 157.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 35.
Amend sec. 4, page 3, between lines 10 and 11, by inserting:
“2. As used in this section, “court administrator” means the office of court administrator created pursuant to NRS 1.320.”.
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 11, by deleting “2.” and inserting “3.”.
Senator Titus moved adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Titus.
Amendment adopted.
Senator Titus moved that Senate Bill No. 157 be re-referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Bill No. 160.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 173.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 36.
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting section 1 and adding new sections designated sections 1 and 2, following the enacting clause, to read as follows: “Section 1. NRS 174.234 is hereby amended to read as follows:
174.234 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than 5 judicial days before trial or at such other time as the court [may direct:] directs:
(a) If the defendant will be tried for one or more offenses that are punishable as a gross misdemeanor or felony:
(1) The defendant shall file and serve upon the prosecuting attorney a written notice containing the names and last known addresses of all witnesses the defendant intends to call during the case in chief of the defendant; and
[(b)] (2) The prosecuting attorney shall file and serve upon the defendant a written notice containing the names and last known addresses of all witnesses the prosecuting attorney intends to call during the case in chief of the state.
(b) If the defendant will not be tried for any offenses that are punishable as a gross misdemeanor or felony:
(1) The defendant shall file and serve upon the prosecuting attorney a written notice containing the name and last known address of any witness the defendant intends to call during the case in chief of the defendant whose name and last known address have not otherwise been provided to the prosecuting attorney pursuant to NRS 174.245; and
(2) The prosecuting attorney shall file and serve upon the defendant a written notice containing the name and last known address or place of employment of any witness the prosecuting attorney intends to call during the case in chief of the state whose name and last known address or place of employment have not otherwise been provided to the defendant pursuant to NRS 171.1965 or 174.235.
2. If the defendant will be tried for one or more offenses that are punishable as a gross misdemeanor or felony and a witness that a party intends to call during the case in chief of the state or during the case in chief of the defendant is expected to offer testimony as an expert witness, the party who intends to call that witness shall file and serve upon the opposing party, not less than 21 days before trial or at such other time as the court [may direct,] directs, a written notice containing:
(a) A brief statement regarding the subject matter on which the expert witness is expected to testify and the substance of his testimony;
(b) A copy of the curriculum vitae of the expert witness; and
(c) A copy of all reports made by or at the direction of the expert witness.
3. After complying with the provisions of subsections 1 and 2, each party has a continuing duty to file and serve upon the opposing party:
(a) Written notice of the names and last known addresses of any additional witnesses that the party intends to call during the case in chief of the state or during the case in chief of the defendant. A party shall file and serve written notice pursuant to this paragraph as soon as practicable after the party determines that he intends to call an additional witness during the case in chief of the state or during the case in chief of the defendant. The court shall prohibit an additional witness from testifying if the court determines that the party acted in bad faith by not including the witness on the written notice required pursuant to subsection 1.
(b) Any information relating to an expert witness that is required to be disclosed pursuant to subsection 2. A party shall provide information pursuant to this paragraph as soon as practicable after the party obtains that information. The court shall prohibit the party from introducing that information in evidence or shall prohibit the expert witness from testifying if the court determines that the party acted in bad faith by not timely disclosing that information pursuant to subsection 2.
4. Each party has a continuing duty to file and serve upon the opposing party any change in the last known address, or, if applicable, last known place of employment, of any witness that the party intends to call during the case in chief of the state or during the case in chief of the defendant as soon as practicable after the party obtains that information.
5. Upon a motion by either party or the witness, the court shall prohibit disclosure to the other party of the address of the witness if the court determines that disclosure of the address would create a substantial threat to the witness of bodily harm, intimidation, coercion or harassment. If the court prohibits disclosure of an address pursuant to this subsection, the court shall, upon the request of a party, provide the party or his attorney or agent with an opportunity to interview the witness in an environment that provides for protection of the witness.
[5.] 6. In addition to the sanctions and protective orders otherwise provided in subsections 3 and [4,] 5, the court may upon the request of a party:
(a) Order that disclosure pursuant to this section be denied, restricted or deferred pursuant to the provisions of NRS 174.275; or
(b) Impose sanctions pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 174.295 for the failure to comply with the provisions of this section.
[6.] 7. A party is not entitled, pursuant to the provisions of this section, to the disclosure of the name or address of a witness or any other type of item or information that is privileged or protected from disclosure or inspection pursuant to the constitution or laws of this state or the Constitution of the United States.
Sec. 2. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.”.
Senator Titus moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Titus, Neal and Care.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Bill No. 16 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.
The Sergeant at Arms announced that Assemblywoman Freeman and Assemblyman Nolan were at the bar of the Senate. Assemblyman Freeman invited the Senate to meet in Joint Session with the Assembly to hear Chief Justice Rose.
The President pro Tempore announced that if there were no objections, the Senate would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Senate in recess at 4:58 p.m.
IN JOINT SESSION
At 5:04 p.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
The Secretary of the Senate called the Senate roll.
All present except Senators Coffin, James and Townsend, who were excused.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly called the Assembly roll.
All present except Assemblywomen Angle, Gibbons and Assemblyman Marvel, who were excused.
Mr. President pro Tempore appointed a Committee on Escort consisting of Senator McGinness and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to wait upon Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court and escort him to the Assembly Chamber.
Chief Justice Rose delivered his message.
Message to the Legislature of Nevada
Seventieth Session, 1999
Senator Raggio, Speaker Dini, Senators, Assemblymen and Assemblywomen, my old friend Lawrence Jacobsen, our special guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Tonight, it is my pleasure to report on the state of the Judiciary in the State of Nevada, a branch of the government that receives less than one percent of the state’s General Fund budget. When we are important, we are very, very important. I am happy to say that the picture I am to paint is positive, from top to bottom. That is not to say that the courts of Nevada do not have their problems, especially with the problems presented by the unprecedented population growth we have experienced. But it is not the problems that you have in life, but rather how you deal with those problems that really counts; and your Nevada courts are handling the problems very well.
Before I proceed further, I would like to introduce to all of you my colleagues who have come today to share with me the state of the Judiciary. First is Justice Cliff Young and his wife Jane, second is Justice Bill Maupin, third is Justice Miriam Shearing, next Justice Deborah Agosti, then Justice Myron Leavitt, and finally Justice Nancy Becker and my wife Joline.
Myron and I were each Lieutenant Governor and have served in state service a number of times for over 20 years. We finally arrived today. I’m glad I have an opportunity to give the State of the Judiciary; I hope Myron gets to give this address in the coming years of the Supreme Court.
I would also like to remind you of the reception we are holding in your honor immediately following this special session.
The mission of the judiciary is to provide the public with a system for dispute resolution—a system that decides each dispute with the appropriate result in a fair, user‑friendly process, and in a reasonable amount of time. However, our judicial system has some features that were in it from the beginning that now present some challenges.
The judicial system in America was developed from the English model that was adversarial in nature; dependent on attorneys and judges to resolve cases; and placed great reliance on judgment by one’s peers, the use of juries—a wonderful, but cumbersome process. It probably is the best system of justice in the world, but also one of the most time-consuming and expensive ever devised.
As we review the state of the Judiciary, we see our courts attempting to make the system more user-friendly, less expensive to the parties and taxpayers, and more expeditious. The two tools our courts are using are mediation and arbitration, to resolve controversies, and technology in the operation of the courts.
Mediation and, to a lesser degree, arbitration have many benefits over confrontational litigation. First, it is the parties exploring a settlement with a neutral third party—a more friendly process that often achieves good results. Second, the cost is almost always much less than litigation with attorneys. Third, the time taken to mediate is much less than having your case heard on a busy court calendar. Fourth, since both parties must agree to the settlement, there is usually much less anger or disappointment than when a court declares a winner and a loser.
We have seen mediation used effectively as an adjunct settlement process to our justice and municipal courts which are the courts that handle all traffic and misdemeanor violations and small claims up to $7500. The mediation process assisting these courts is called the Neighborhood Justice Center in Clark County. The initial funding was provided by the 1991 Legislature. The center provides community mediation in all its forms, and people who seem destined for small claims court are informed of this process. Lower court judges also refer certain cases to the center. This program is a welcome addition to the dispute resolution process, helping relieve the case load in our lower courts, and hopefully it will spread to a process throughout the State of Nevada.
In the family court division of district court, the services of social workers and family counselors have long been used to evaluate children and their parents and make recommendations to the family court about child custody and visitation. The family courts in Washoe and Clark counties have now instituted a mandatory mediation program that resolves child custody cases in an attempt to resolve the disputes through mediation. This was mandated by your legislation in 1997 and implemented by court rules. Since beginning in October 1997, 1435 families have been referred to the service in Clark County and 1133, or 70 percent, have resulted in mediated custody agreements. This program is working.
In many family law disputes, one or both of the adult parties are not represented by an attorney. In Clark County, 44 percent of the parties who appear in family court do not have legal representation. This means that one or both parties are disadvantaged because they do not have assistance of an attorney or know the law or the court procedures to follow. By having a process that informs people who cannot afford an attorney of their legal rights and procedures, the parties and the family court are better served. This process exists in the Washoe County family court. On average, this program assists 380 pro per litigants each month.
The same type of program is planned for family court in Clark County and will be called the Self Help Center. Part of the staffing will be provided by students at the Nevada Boyd School of Law. This is a good example of the legal profession’s effort to help those who cannot afford an attorney and to make the court system as user-friendly as possible. It is interesting to note that this project has had the full support of the state bar association, the family court, and legal aid organizations. This is in stark contrast to some states where this proposal has been vigorously opposed by the legal profession on the grounds that it could amount to the illegal practice of law or be in direct competition with attorneys.
At the district court, there is a mandatory arbitration process that you have set forth in law and we have mandated by rule for all civil disputes having a reasonable settlement value of under $40,000. This process has the parties appear before an experienced attorney and present the facts and claimed damages in a hearing. The arbitrator makes his decision and either party can request a jury trial before a district court judge, but face penalties if not bettering their position. The attorney-arbitrator is paid on an hourly basis up to $500 per case. In Clark County, about 65 percent of the civil, non-family-law, cases are diverted to this program and only 15 to 20 percent go on to a full district court trial. This means that 50 percent of the civil cases before the general jurisdiction courts in Clark County are settled by this program. Similar results are reported from Washoe County. This court-annexed arbitration program is a major settlement tool and one reason why neither Clark nor Washoe counties will be asking for additional general jurisdiction district court judges this session. There is no doubt that mediation and arbitration has helped the Nevada court system resolve controversies and is now an integral part of our justice court system.
The second trend we see in the Nevada courts is the use of court technology in processing cases and producing reliable court records as a by-product. This is the coupling of technology with modern court management principles. It is usually done by developing a system of computers and software that tracks the process of each case through the court system. These systems are usually called “case management systems,” and when designed and installed, help the court to more effectively process its case load and keep reliable records. Most of the larger court systems have their own case management system. Boulder City Municipal Court just installed such a system, and the family court in Clark County is presently designing its own system and hopes it will be operative next year. We are taking every step to ensure that the technology installed is compatible throughout the state.
I reported to the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committees earlier last month, the Nevada Supreme Court finally signed off on its own fully operational case management system which we began eight years ago. We have entered the twentieth century in regards to technology just in time. I would like to thank our Court Clerk, Janette Bloom, for spearheading this project, and sticking with it for eight long years. This demonstrates that the courts at all levels are committed to use technology and court management practices in their operation, and that their funding agencies see the wisdom in such use of technology. But the fact that each court keeps its own records with the use of technology does not mean we have a uniform statewide system for keeping judicial records. We have had a hodgepodge of judicial record keeping. Some courts keep them, some do not. Some courts keep statistics one way, others another way. Some send their statistics to the Administrative Office of the Courts, some do not. In 1995, your legislative auditors, in dismay, lamented in an audit report concerning the Court that a system for collecting uniform, reliable court records was nonexistent and would probably not be achieved. It stated as follows:
Because the AOC has not properly planned the development and implementation of the uniform system for judicial records, little uniformity exists, accurate and reliable information cannot be easily assembled, and there is no assurance that a uniform system will ever be achieved.
However, the situation was not quite as bleak as your auditors might have thought, and the push for reliable court records now amounts to a quiet revolution in the Nevada court system. In 1993, the Urban Court Workload Assessment Commission was formed to study the operation of the courts in Clark and Washoe counties. Since I had pushed this idea when I was chief justice, I served as chairman, and the commission took on the shorthand name of the “Rose Commission.” One of the major concerns of the commission was that reliable court records were not kept on a statewide basis. The commission was made up of mostly lay people from throughout the state and was a group of 50. There was great input throughout the state and mostly from those who were not lawyers. The commission report recommended that the Nevada Supreme Court create the Division of Planning and Analysis to develop a system for collecting reliable court statistics and use modern court administration practices and technology to plan for the future. You responded to our request by creating the division with three positions.
Some people might ask why the emphasis on reliable court statistics. To them, I give three reasons. Reliable court records are an excellent management tool. Can you imagine a grocery store or a restaurant not keeping track of its inventory or not knowing what was sold on any given day? The courts must know the number and type of pending cases, the degree of difficulty presented, the need for expeditious handling and the probable length of time to disposition. All those facts help a judge or court administrator handle the case load in the most efficient way. Reliable court records give a judge or court system the ability to evaluate its performance from year to year and compare it with other states and national standards. It is an excellent tool for self-evaluation. It is a tool for public accountability by the courts. Reliable court statistics show what the courts have been doing—the work that has been accomplished with the taxpayers’ money. I know this legislative body looks to performance indicators to evaluate the operation of an entity, and you have many times asked us for certain statistics about our operation or that of other courts. Some we could provide you—a lot we could not. We hope to have all that information in the future.
When Karen Kavanau came aboard last year, the Court and Karen made the establishment of a Uniform System of Judicial Records a priority for the Administrative Office of the Courts. To establish such a statewide system, you have to do four things: determine the technology and know-how that each of the 91 Nevada court systems presently have; establish a uniform method for keeping court records and statistics. An example is the counting of each case; provide all courts with the minimum technology and training needed to keep reliable records; and collect those records from throughout the state and publish them each year.
The first step has been accomplished. The AOC has evaluated the equipment and technical competence of the staff of every court in Nevada. The second step has almost been accomplished. Meetings have been held throughout the state with judges, court administrators, and court clerks, and general agreement has been reached on what statistics should be kept and how they should be counted. The final draft has been prepared and sent to all the courts in the state for comment. It is expected that the Nevada Supreme Court will approve this agreement later this year.
The third phase, providing the necessary technology and training to our courts, will be the longest and most difficult part of the process. This is why we have asked for two additional technical positions for the Planning and Analysis Division. Many courts have adequate technology as is evidenced by the courts that already have case management systems. The additional necessary technology will be funded by local entities and the use of administrative assessment fees. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars of these AA (administrative assessment) fees that go to the Supreme Court every year are earmarked for this technology and training, but it will not be nearly enough money to do the project statewide in five years without substantial, additional local funding. This is why we guard this account jealously and resist the suggestion to spend this money for other purposes.
The fourth phase is the collection and publication of these statistics. Within five years, we should have a complete set of statistics on the operation of all court systems in the State of Nevada; and by doing this, we will go from the state having the worst statewide court statistics to one of the very best—thanks to all the courts’ good efforts and your help! This is real progress and very exciting. As an aside, you know you are in your middle years when you think judicial records are really exciting.
By emphasizing reliable court records collected in a uniform manner and management by the numbers, I do not mean to say that they are the end all and be all of the justice system. That still takes a competent judge having sufficient time to hear and consider the parties’ claims. But good records help the judge get that time and use it most effectively so that he or she can reach the appropriate result in a reasonable amount of time. Good court management and good records enhance justice rather than detract from it.
At the Nevada Supreme Court, the obvious change is from five to seven justices and the fact that we are breaking into panels to decide the vast majority of cases. We had our first full court hearings two weeks ago, and some of you stopped in to see this historic event. The seven-justice Court will hear only the major cases and do that two or three times a year. The panels will rotate every six months on a random basis, and the two panels have now swung into full action and will continue for six months. This will give us the first indication of the number of cases a panel can dispose of in a six-month period. Although you will probably be out of session in July when the first panels end, we will send each of you the results of their operation.
But even before the Court expansion, we took steps to keep up with our ever‑increasing case load. We began two programs with your help during the last few years that have been very successful. The first is the fast track criminal case program, which attempts to resolve most of our criminal cases within six months of appeal to our Court. The rules require an abbreviated record and 10-page briefs by the defendant and the state. The four-person fast track team analyzes the case and proposes a speedy disposition for about 80 percent of the cases. The remaining 20 percent of the cases go on to a full briefing. This program makes a quick disposition of most criminal cases and prevents them from becoming part of the backlog. The second program is the civil settlement program which requires all civil cases, except the termination of parental rights, to go to an experienced attorney who acts as a settlement judge. Shortly after the appeal of a civil case, the parties are required to write a five-page settlement statement and meet with the settlement judge in an attempt to settle the case. When Justice Cliff Young was encouraging us to come to you and ask to implement this program, we all thought that if we could settle 25 to 30 percent of our civil cases, it would be worthwhile. However, we are settling anywhere from 55 to 60 percent of our cases. Last year, 372 were settled. The program is a roaring success and is helping us stay even with the case load. In fact, last year was the first time in 10 years that we have decided more cases than were filed. Both programs are excellent and will continue under the newly expanded Court, and the cases will be processed by the panels when settled.
What does the future hold? In a few weeks, the Buckley Report on family courts and its recommendations will be enacted into law. I applaud Barbara Buckley and her committee and this legislature in their willingness to address a serious problem and for being willing to go where judicial angels feared to tread. We at the Court will review the legislation and issue the necessary orders and rules to effectuate the purpose of the report and legislation. This should prevent any problem concerning the issue of separation of powers that might arise. One of the recommendations of the Buckley Report and the proposed legislation is that a strong chief judge be created in family court, and that she or he, have sufficient authority to see that all judges are pulling their load and to coordinate the operation of family court. The problem arises in multi-judge districts when some judges leave early, take excessive vacation time, do not take overflow trials from other departments or when judges do not cooperate to run the court system in the most effective manner. It is simply not fair to most of the hard-working judges when one or two judges are not putting in the same work hours or effort as the others. Without a chief judge, the situation goes on without a remedy.
The Buckley Report is not the first time this concept has surfaced. In the Rose Commission Report of 1994, one major section was entitled, “Who’s In Charge,” and the commission went on to conclude that in the Washoe and Clark County district courts, no one was. The recommendation was that a strong chief judge be selected for a four-year period with sufficient authority to ensure that all judges were working full time and the court’s rules and policies for processing cases were enforced.
How can this be accomplished? In two ways: a majority of the judges in a district can amend their court rules to provide for a strong chief judge and ask the Supreme Court to approve it or the Supreme Court can order that a chief judge be installed in all multi-judge districts of three or more. We have never exercised this authority before, but I have little doubt that the Nevada Constitution gave the Court that authority when it provided in Article 6, Section 19, that “The chief justice is the administrative head of the court system.” You, the legislature, and the legislative auditors have had no doubt that the Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Nevada court system. Just read the laws and audit reports that require us to discharge that role. A clear majority on the Court believes that we are the administrative head of the court system, and we have the authority to issue appropriate and necessary orders to the lower court system. What is stopping us from acting? The answer is nothing, except judicial deference to the district courts. But the failure to use properly vested authority is just as bad, and sometimes worse, than the misuse of power.
Therefore, I predict that a strong chief judge system will be enacted, where needed throughout the state one way or the other. This will ensure that the full measure of judicial firepower is being used to serve the people, that the taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck and the most efficient methods are used by all judges to process the cases.
Too often, a death penalty has been unnecessarily delayed by a glitch in the system or mixup in court calendaring. We have a vested interest to see that all cases move expeditiously through the court system, and that certainly includes major cases like death penalty cases. To do that, the Nevada Supreme Court has begun to track all death penalty cases from the time the death sentence is pronounced until the case leaves the state court system. Our new rules provide that the district court clerk notify us when a death penalty verdict is returned. Once we receive this notice, we will track the case through the state court system to conclusion. We believe that this will prevent glitches or unnecessary delays in these important cases.
Legal aid and attorney pro bono programs—these programs will continue to assist those in our society who need legal services but cannot afford them. In 1998, 9374 cases were closed statewide by legal aid, and pro bono attorneys closed 13,425 cases, for a combined total of 22,799. As impressive as this legal effort is, the Nevada Legal Services estimates that only 20 percent of the citizens who could not afford help but had requested it, got it. This need for legal services will continue to go unmet in the future, and communities and the legal profession must redouble their efforts to try to ensure that all Nevadans have the necessary legal services and access to our court system.
Drug court was begun in Clark County in 1992 and established in Reno a few years later. Their sole mission is to break the cycle of crime, violence, and child abuse caused by drug addiction. I will share some statistics on the drug court in Clark County because it is the longest running. The drug court celebrated its 1000th graduate in December 1998. To date, the recidivism rate for all graduates is 14 percent. That is amazing and means that 86 percent of the graduates have gone on to live law-abiding, drug-free lives. Thirty-one drug-free babies were born to participants of the program. If a child is born to a drug-addicted mother, care for the infant usually runs around $81,000 a year for three years. By any measure, the drug courts in Las Vegas and Reno are a great success and must continue.
Last legislative session, we asked you to pass the first leg of the joint resolution to establish an intermediate appellate court in Nevada. This was done in conjunction with expanding our court to seven members. Our concern has been that our case load has expanded at an alarming rate and may overwhelm us. Ten years ago, the number of appeals to this Court was just under 1000; today our case load is just under 2000. That is a 100 percent increase in 10 years. In 1996, the cases appealed to our court jumped more than 650. If this trend continues, this means that our case load will double in 10 years to 4000. At that time, I doubt that the present court of seven justices could possibly handle that workload.
However, since we have embarked on the seven-justice court and are sitting in panels to decide most of the cases, we should give this system a chance to operate before submitting the question to the voters. Accordingly, our court has requested that the joint resolution passed in 1997 be jettisoned and the amendment process for an intermediate appellate court begin anew. This will mean that there will be two, full years of panel operation before you consider the second leg of the amendment process in 2001. If we need it, we can proceed. It not, we can proceed no further. But I can tell you, if these six judicial sharpshooters cannot gun down the backlog and the incoming cases, we will know that there is no alternative than to give us more firepower. I think this is a prudent, cost-conscious way for us to proceed, and I hope you will agree.
As you see the Nevada Supreme Court before you, it is an enthusiastic group that is working well together both in panels and as a full court. I would be amazed if you see any public bickering or criticism similar to what unfortunately happened in the past. We at the Court have struggled for years in a “winter of discontent.” But this grim period has given way to today—a spring of hope and promise—and I truly believe that this optimistic time will give way to a summer of fulfillment and achievement. It may be difficult for some to believe that solid accomplishment can be had on the heels of such dissension on the Supreme Court, but in years to come, I believe people will come, to understand that, during this period, the Court enacted innovative programs to meet the booming case load, expanded the Court to decide more cases and took the necessary steps to provide uniform, reliable records showing the operation of every court in the State of Nevada. In the end, when people look back at the judiciary during this period of time, they will say that these were very good years for the Nevada Supreme Court.
Senator Washington moved that the Senate and Assembly in Joint Session extend a vote of thanks to Chief Justice Rose for his timely, able and constructive message.
Motion carried.
The Committee on Escort escorted Chief Justice Rose to the bar of the Assembly.
Senator Rhoads moved that the Joint Session be dissolved.
Motion carried.
Joint Session dissolved at 5:46 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 5:49 p.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Quorum present.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, February 25, 1999 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Approved: Lawrence E. Jacobsen
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas