THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIRST DAY
Carson City(Wednesday), May 12, 1999
Senate called to order at 11:39 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Lt. John Van Cleef.
Gracious Heavenly Father, as we pause before You this day, we recognize we live in a society that is desperately seeking for answers to hopelessness, despair and depravity. There are many that say the answer cannot be found, but my faith in You tells me otherwise. Therefore, I ask that You guide the men and women of this Senate to the answers which will restore hope, lead to fulfillment and renew uprightness to all segments of society; and lead them to enact laws that will lead this State and this nation to the answers. This I pray in Your Son’s name.
Amen.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Madam President:
Your Committee on Commerce and Labor, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 110, 112, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Finance, to which was re-referred Senate Bill No. 167, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Also, your Committee on Finance, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 74, 234, 303, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
William J. Raggio, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 100, 236, 270, 459, 603, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass, and place on Consent Calendar.
Also, your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 554, 606, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Ann O’Connell, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which was referred Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 25, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and be adopted as amended.
Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 467, 616, 617, 645, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Mark A. James, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Natural Resources, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 252, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 207, 211, 314, 584, 601, 667, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Mike McGinness, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Transportation, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 188, 410, 452, 553, 620, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Also, your Committee on Transportation, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 76, 627, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Also, your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 678, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass, and place on Consent Calendar.
Also, your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 3, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Be adopted.
Also, your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Senate Joint Resolution No. 21, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 12, 1999
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 65, 66.
Susan Furlong Reil
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By Senators Raggio, Amodei, Care, Carlton, Coffin, Jacobsen, James, Mathews, McGinness, Neal, O’Connell, O’Donnell, Porter, Rawson, Rhoads, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Townsend, Washington, Wiener; Assemblymen Dini, Anderson, Angle, Arberry, Bache, Beers, Berman, Brower, Buckley, Carpenter, Cegavske, Chowning, Claborn, Collins, de Braga, Evans, Freeman, Gibbons, Giunchigliani, Goldwater, Gustavson, Hettrick, Humke, Koivisto, Lee, Leslie, Manendo, Marvel, McClain, Mortenson, Neighbors, Nolan, Ohrenschall, Parks, Parnell, Perkins, Price, Segerblom, Thomas, Tiffany, Von Tobel and Williams:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45—Memorializing Nevada sports legend William Wesley Morris.
Whereas, The members of the Nevada Legislature were deeply saddened by the passing of long-time Las Vegas resident and Nevada sports legend William “Wildcat” Morris on July 17, 1998; and
Whereas, William Wesley Morris was born in Enid, Oklahoma, on September 13, 1927, and moved to Las Vegas to live with his sister Sheila in 1937, later referring to himself jokingly as a “wedding present” for his sister and her new husband; and
Whereas, Bill Morris was educated in the Las Vegas school system and developed an ardent love for the game of football that culminated in his being voted Most Valuable Player on the 1944 Wildcat team of Las Vegas High, which ended its incredible season without having been beaten, tied or even scored on; and
Whereas, Bill Morris enrolled in the University of Nevada, Reno, in 1945, and because of his enthusiasm for his former football powerhouse, was affectionately given the nickname “Wildcat” by fellow students, a name that stayed with him throughout his life; and
Whereas, After graduating from the University with a degree in physical education and serving in the Korean War, “Wildcat” Morris worked for Senator Pat McCarran and Senator Alan Bible in Washington, D.C., while earning a law degree from American University, where he also met his future wife, Vivienne Mae Potter; and
Whereas, During his career, Bill Morris demonstrated his diverse abilities by practicing as an attorney, acting as a municipal judge and a special deputy attorney general, owning and co-owning hotel-casinos, and serving as a University Regent and a member of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority; and
Whereas, Unselfishly giving of himself and his time, Bill Morris endeared himself to many as a noteworthy civic leader by establishing various athletic organizations, serving as president of several such organizations, securing federal funding for the Thomas and Mack Center and Lawlor Events Center, and raising money for scholarships and numerous local charities in Las Vegas; and
Whereas, Among the multiple honors awarded to Bill Morris were his being named a Distinguished Nevadan at the 1978 graduation ceremonies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, being named Distinguished Citizen by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, receiving the Glen “Jake” Lawlor Award for outstanding support of athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno, and being inducted into several athletic halls of fame; and
Whereas, Devotion to his wife and children, dedication to his community and performance of numerous quiet, thoughtful acts of kindness to fellow Nevadans elevated Bill Morris as a role model; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of Nevada, the Assembly Concurring, That the members of the 70th session of the Nevada Legislature express their heartfelt sympathy and sincere condolences to the family and friends of Bill Morris; and be it further
Resolved, That Bill “Wildcat” Morris will long be remembered as one of the most popular and influential residents of the State of Nevada; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to Bill’s wife of 43 years, Vivienne Morris, and his daughters Dawn Dudas and Wesley Morris, all of Las Vegas, to his son William Morris of Reno, and to his daughter Jaymie Bodensteiner of Flagstaff, Arizona.
Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senators Raggio, Neal, Rawson and Titus.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Madam President. Almost a year ago, many of us were coming to Carson City for an annual event when Bill was stricken and died. It certainly cast a pall over that evening. No one has contributed more to athletics to the university system and particularly to the University of Nevada in Reno than did Bill Morris. He was an institution, and he enjoyed the respect, the friendship and loyalty of hundreds and hundreds of friends and supporters. His efforts at both the universities in Las Vegas and Reno to make athletics big time were beyond comparison on the part of anyone else. He spread his loyalty across both of the institutions. He took a great deal of pride in being a Nevadan; although, he was not a native Nevadan. He was particularly proud of his accomplishments, first of all with the Las Vegas High School where the term “Wildcat” came from, and he inherited that nickname. Nobody ever called him Mr. Morris or Bill, it was always Wildcat. If you ever mentioned Wildcat, everybody always knew what you were talking about. On occasions, both on the athletic field and in the legislative building, he acted the part of a wildcat.
I had known him for a long, long time. I knew his family, particularly Vivienne, when he was back in Washington, D.C., in his early days training to be a lawyer. He was a very fine lawyer. He was a good productive member of the bar and enjoyed their respect. He certainly enjoyed the respect of those in education because his efforts were not just limited to athletics at the university. He served as a very productive member of the Board of Regents over a long period of time. During his era as a regent, a great many of the decisions that were made allowed the university system of this State, first with community colleges and then the development of new colleges, the enhancement of the university and its programs were certainly part of his efforts as a regent. I admired him, particularly, because he was so impartial but dedicated. He defended those institutions and the whole system of education fiercely. It was because of his efforts, almost individually, that the reason that the federal funds that were coming from slot tax and the reason that we have today two fine stadiums; the Lawlor Events Stadium and the Thomas and Mack Center at the universities are due to Bill Morris. Those would not be here today, I am sure, except for his coming up with the idea and participating in the effort by pulling all the strings that he could in Washington, D.C. In addition, he came over to this Legislature and badgered us. Those buildings became reality. Not to take away from others whose names are on those buildings, but those buildings probably both should be called the Wildcat Morris Arena, One and Two.
In any event, Bill was not only active at the university but he was a leader, a mover and shaker in his community, Las Vegas and Clark County. The honors that he has received don’t go far enough to really do justice to all that this person contributed to this State. We are a much better state, a much finer university system in this State because of the efforts of Bill Morris. I could go on and on because words are inadequate to express what he meant to this State. On top of that he left a family who shares that dedication, and we are very grateful to them for giving us a lot of the time that he had during his lifetime and sharing him with us. We are grateful to them for their continued dedication to this State.
Senator Neal:
I met Bill Morris in the early ’60s. He was a very good Democrat and those were the circles where I met him. I remember when one time he ran for Attorney General of Nevada, and I was very supportive of his effort. We did fall a little bit short in terms of the number of votes, and I was one of the people that supported him and because he was such a grand person, and as the Majority Leader has indicated, that sometimes when you do great things, you do not get the honors and rewards for it. I happened to be here when he came up and started lobbying for the athletic facility in Las Vegas that is now called Thomas and Mack. We could not get that one unless we added one in the north. He agreed to do that. As the Majority Leader has indicated, maybe one or both of those facilities should have been named after him because he was the one who did the yeoman’s job in terms of bringing those facilities to fruition and making it possible for this State to have those two facilities within its higher education community.
Bill was not only a friend of mine but he was one of my benefactors in terms of running for political office. He always would send me a check every time I would run. I remember one instance that I was coming through the airport in Reno and he asked me if I were running. I said yes, and he said to wait a minute, hold it, went over to the counter and pulled out his checkbook and wrote me a check for what I considered to be a fair amount of money to run with. For some
reason, I guess his ferociousness on the football field and what he saw in me kind of depicted the type of person that he liked to see in public office. I really was saddened when I learned of his passing because I did consider him a very upstanding citizen and also a good friend.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Madam President. I graduated from Las Vegas High School and graduated in 1959 and so I’m a wildcat. We particularly appreciated Bill because he brought the alumni together every year for a party, a dance, a celebration, an opportunity to see the people from all of the different classes and all the different years. He would highlight a certain class but all of us were invited.That was a great time to be able to see our classmates and our friends. I was surprised to find out that he was a Democrat. I always thought he was Republican because he was so good to me and encouraged me in my races and was just a good friend to be able to talk to. Sometimes you have funny associations with people. I always saw the Landmark Hotel as part of him and remember as a student at UNLV driving past that site and for months all this activity was going on in the ground but nothing was coming up out of the hole. Then one day they started pouring the cement and they poured continuously until the hotel was built. That was miraculous and space age to see this thing with moving forms rise out of the ground over a couple of weeks period of time. I just associated that with him. Somehow once he was not associated with it any more, it seemed like it was okay that the hotel be taken down. The State is better off for his having gone our way.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Morris has often been recognized for his contribution to university athletics, and perhaps that was his first love, but he should also be remembered for his support of academics. When my husband, Tom Wright, served as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters at UNLV during the eighties, Mr. Morris was a founding member of the college’s community advisory committee. He also generously contributed the money to fund special teaching and research awards for Arts and Letters faculty. Those awards are presented annually and bear his name. It is quite an honor to receive one, and we thank you for continuing to endow them.
Resolution adopted.
Senator Raggio moved that all rules be suspended and that Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 65—Commending retired Director Peter A. Fenili for 24 years of service with the Walker River Irrigation District in Yerington, Nevada.
Whereas, Peter A. Fenili has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Walker River Irrigation District as the representative of Division No. 4 since May 5, 1975; and
Whereas, Peter Fenili, a staunch believer in proper water management and fairness in its distribution to all water right holders, was a visionary who saw the need for a strong infrastructure to protect water rights and properly serve the present and future needs of agriculture and who voted consistently to accomplish this ideal; and
Whereas, As a member of the Board of Directors, Peter Fenili consistently stated that the Walker River Irrigation District should be staffed by qualified personnel and that the facilities of the District, including dams and canals, as well as the equipment, office and maintenance shop, should be maintained and their integrity preserved; and
Whereas, In the early 1980s, when environmental groups launched an all-out attack on the water supply of the Walker River Irrigation District by filing legal actions on many state and federal fronts in an attempt to gain minimum stream flow and minimum stored water rights, causing internal conflict and years of costly litigation, the District prevailed in the protection of those rights with the help of Peter Fenili; and
Whereas, During the 6 consecutive years of drought stretching into the 1990s, Peter Fenili took the lead and suggested innovative management practices that extended the limited water supply and allowed agricultural interests to survive a possible financial crisis; and
Whereas, As the Director of the Walker River Irrigation District for 24 years, Peter Fenili proved himself to be a man of honesty, fairness and devotion to the people he served; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of Nevada, That the members of the Assembly of the 70th session of the Nevada Legislature express their appreciation to Peter Fenili for his loyal years of service to the members of the Walker River Irrigation District; and be it further
Resolved, That this body, on behalf of the residents of the State of Nevada who have benefited from the dedication of Peter Fenili, extend its heartfelt gratitude and best wishes in the future to Peter A. Fenili, his wife, Vicki, and daughter, Dana; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to Peter Fenili.
Senator Jacobsen moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senator Jacobsen.
Senator Jacobsen requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Madam President and members of the Senate, I am really honored today to have Peter and his wife and daughter here with me. I think you have to live in a little rural community to really appreciate what water is all about whether you are on the canal, the ditch, the slough or whatever, you seem to know everybody’s business. Sometimes it is a little difficult to deal with at times because they all think they have some prior right. Occasionally, they use that right by putting boards in the box when they are not supposed to. Along comes Peter and he tells them they can’t do that because it is not their turn for the water. We never realize how important it is, and I think many times, especially being born and raised on a ranch, that the water was almost like life blood. I think it is becoming more so today. Thank the good Lord many years ago we did not have any environmentalists because all of us were environmentalists. When I think about the water and the course that it took, especially on a ranch property, the first ranch property, horse corral, cow corral, the hog pen and then used to bail the water out of the ditch for my mother to put into the washing machine that you ran by hand and discharged into the same ditch and then down a ways, probably, you washed the milking machine machinery in the same water, and we, even in the wintertime, took that very same ice and made homemade ice cream. Nobody complained about it not tasting good. There again, I just wanted to explain to you that water is an important item, and we cannot live without it. Thanks to people like Peter that try to guard this resource very religiously and use it most efficiently mostly to keep everybody separated. I think, having represented Lyon County for 10 years, I can even recall a few times when there were people by the ditch with a rifle or a pistol to make sure that they got the water when they were supposed to. I just want to indicate to you that it is important to have people like that who can kind of be the arbitrator regardless of nationalities, and Lyon County had a nationality all of its own just like other communities. Sometimes they were a little difficult to deal with. Thank the good Lord that people like Peter came along and was able to keep everybody happy and, at times, his wife probably suffered some of the abuse over the telephone.
Resolution adopted.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 66—Commending the Nevada Opera and its founders, Ted and Deena Puffer, upon 30 years of success.
Whereas, The Nevada Opera had its debut season in 1968 and since that time has grown into a nationally recognized regional opera company; and
Whereas, The founders of the Nevada Opera, Ted Puffer, Artistic Director, and Deena Puffer, Associate Producer, had a vision in 1967 and, with the help of a handful of volunteers, worked tirelessly over the years to develop the company to the level of offering three professionally-produced traditional operas each season, an annual performance of The Nutcracker ballet, as well as the production of lighter and more contemporary works; and
Whereas, The Nevada Opera has to its credit over 120 main-stage productions, including presentations as diverse as Verdi’s Requiem and Bizet’s Carmen to Carlisle Floyd’s Of Mice and Men, and summer musicals starring such accomplished artists as Toni Tennille and Broadway legend John Raitt; and
Whereas, The Nevada Opera has produced two acclaimed American premieres, Busoni’s Doktor Faust and Tchaikovsky’s Joan of Arc; and
Whereas, In 1993 the team of Ted and Deena Puffer presented the Nevada Opera’s first commissioned work, the 25th Anniversary of the World Premiere of Bern Herbolsheimer’s Mark Me Twain; and
Whereas, Ted Puffer, known for his work as stage director, conductor, concert pianist, accompanist, tenor soloist and, more recently, world-renowned vocal coach, mentored Nevada Opera’s young artist graduates who have gone on to make their European opera debuts, most notably the internationally-famous mezzo soprano Dolora Zajick; and
Whereas, The Nevada Opera has an educational outreach mission which led it to institute the Nevada Opera Youth Chorus in 1994, a formal program that provides professional training in the arts of voice, musicianship, theater and movement for talented youngsters ages 8 through 18 years; and
Whereas, The Nevada Opera has a new program called the Nevada Opera Studio, which reaches into the local community with special programs designed for elementary, middle and high school levels, and which also tours the smaller outlying communities in Northern Nevada; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the assembly of the State of Nevada, the Senate Concurring, That the Nevada Opera is hereby commended for its 30 years of first-class presentations to Northern Nevada audiences and especially for its presentations to the children in the local community and the rural areas; and be it further
Resolved, That Ted and Deena Puffer are hereby congratulated and honored for their many years of dedication during which they shared their vast knowledge and tremendous talents to make the Nevada Opera the first-class company that it is today; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of the 70th session of the Nevada Legislature urge the residents of Northern Nevada to attend the Nevada Opera performances and show their support for its great contributions to the arts and culture of this state; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and transmit copies of this resolution to the Board of Directors of the Nevada Opera and to Ted Puffer and Deena Puffer.
Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Senator Raggio requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Madam President and members of the Senate, it is most appropriate that we join with the Assembly today in recognizing and commending the Nevada Opera and its founders, Ted and Deena Puffer. I did not realize that it had been 30 years since the Nevada Opera was founded. I know that over the years it has developed into a preeminent opera company which is largely through the efforts of people like the Puffers and many who are here today that it enjoys the fine reputation that it has achieved. Over the years, I have tried out for parts in the Nevada Opera. I know the members of this body recognize my singing ability. But it has never been recognized by the Nevada Opera even though I am somewhat fluent in Italian. To be serious, we are very proud of the Nevada Opera in Reno and in the entire State. A small city like Reno to have an opera of this consequence is really a wonderful thing. We were fortunate enough to have the kind of dedication that went into the founding of the Nevada Opera and the people with the talent and the capabilities that were in our community. This has been a prodigious effort on the part of those associated with the opera. Over the years they have performed all of the many noted and most important operas as well as the works of lesser known operas including a composition of their own making.
Resolution adopted.
Senator Schneider moved that Assembly Bill No. 432 be taken from the Second Reading File and placed on the Secretary’s desk.
Remarks by Senator Schneider.
Motion lost on a division of the house.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 12:51 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 12:56 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator O’Donnell moved that all rules be suspended, reading so far had considered second reading, rules further suspended, Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 declared an emergency measure under the Constitution and placed on third reading and final passage.
Remarks by Senator O’Donnell.
Senator O’Donnell requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Madam President, Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 has been considered by the Committee on Transportation, and I believe the Secretary has just read the report. The resolution expresses concern regarding the proposals redefining the air space in which aircraft may be flown over the Grand Canyon. I feel it is important to move the resolution out of the Senate today and immediately transmit it to the Assembly for processing. We need to get this Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 to Washington D.C., this week, in order that it be processed and testified in committee in the Parks and Recreation’s Subcommittee.
Motion carried unanimously.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Assembly Bill No. 432.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 462.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 490.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources:
Amendment No. 796.
Amend section 1, pages 2 and 3, by deleting lines 3 through 42 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3, and inserting: “section if the channel is cleared, maintained or restored pursuant to a permit granted by the division of state lands of the state department of conservation and natural resources and such other permits and approvals as are required by law.
5. The division of state lands and the division of environmental protection of the state department of conservation and natural resources shall refund the application or permit fees, if any, paid by a governmental entity to apply for a state permit to perform channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting if:
(a) The governmental entity applies for the applicable permits from the division of state lands and from the division of environmental protection of the state department of conservation and natural resources;
(b) The governmental entity obtains all other permits and approvals as are required by law;
(c) The governmental entity applies for a grant pursuant to subsection 3; and
(d) The grant is denied for lack of money in the account after:
(1) The state engineer requests an allocation from the contingency fund pursuant to subsection 4 of NRS 532.230; and
(2) An allocation from the contingency fund is not made within 90 days after the request is made.
6. A state permit must not be denied for lack of money in the account for the channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting program.”.
Amend sec. 2, page 3, by deleting lines 20 through 24 and inserting: “fund pursuant to NRS 353.266, 353.268 and 353.269.”.
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 3.
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:
“AN ACT relating to navigable rivers; requiring the division of state lands and the division of environmental protection of the state department of conservation and natural resources to refund under certain circumstances fees paid by governmental entities to obtain a permit to conduct channel clearance of rivers; revising provisions governing the account for the channel clearance, maintenance, restoration, surveying and monumenting program; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”.
Senator Rhoads moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Rhoads.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 509.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 2.
Resolution read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senator Washington moved that Assembly Bill No. 53 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Washington.
Motion carried.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Joint Resolution No. 21.
Resolution read third time.
Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 21:
Yeas—20.
Nays—Carlton.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Senator O’Donnell moved that all rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Senate Bill No. 245.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 245:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 245 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 292.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Rhoads.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 292:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 292 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 12.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 12:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 12 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 108.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and Townsend.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 108:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 108 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 150.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 150:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 150 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 166.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by Senator Titus:
Amendment No. 856.
Amend sec. 8, page 8, by deleting line 14 and inserting: “is on the premises of a public building only if that building has a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that firearms are allowed in the building.”.
Amend sec. 8, page 8, by deleting line 26 and inserting: “or that does not have a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that firearms are”.
Amend sec. 8, page 9, line 4, by deleting: “subsection 2 or 3” and inserting: “any provision of this section”.
Senator Titus moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Titus.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 409.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, James and O’Donnell.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 409:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 409 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 284.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 284:
Yeas—15.
Nays—Jacobsen, Mathews, McGinness, O’Connell, Townsend, Washington—6.
Assembly Bill No. 284 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 416.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 416:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 416 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 439.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 439:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 439 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator James moved that Assembly Bill No. 304 be taken from the Secretary’s desk and placed on General File.
Remarks by Senator James.
Motion carried.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Assembly Bill No. 471.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 471:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 471 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 477.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by Senators Titus, Wiener and Care:
Amendment No. 860.
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 13, by deleting “$5” and inserting “$2”.
Senator Titus moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Titus, Care and Townsend.
Senators Titus, Carlton and Care requested a roll call vote on the adoption of the amendment.
Yeas—11.
Nays—Jacobsen, McGinness, O’Connell, O’Donnell, Porter, Raggio, Rawson, Rhoads, Townsend, Washington—10.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15.
Resolution read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 15 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 304.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, James, Coffin, Care, O’Donnell, Titus and Carlton.
Senator Carlton disclosed that her husband is a peace officer.
Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator James:
Thank you, Madam President. Assembly Bill No. 304 creates a misdemeanor violation for a person who knowingly files a false or fraudulent statement against a peace officer for conduct in the course and scope of the peace officer’s employment. The measure, further and more importantly, requires each agency employing a peace officer to establish written procedures for investigation of any complaint or allegation of misconduct filed against the officer. The bill requires copies of these written procedures be made available to the public. In 1985, Lewis vs. Benson, the Nevada Supreme Court held that citizens who file complaints with a police department alleging misconduct on the part of the officers are, absolutely, privileged from civil prosecution for defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. We live in a democracy in which all citizens are supposed to be judged by similar standards. We do, I believe, an injustice when we begin to carve out these exceptions. I can recall in 1973 when I first came to the Legislature, that we carved out the exception of enhancing the penalties for killing a police officer. In those ensuing years, we had quite a bit of police brutality. I can recall when Governor O’Callahan announced his proposal for this, I asked the question, “Is there any difference between killing a police officer and any other citizen?” Now, we are coming back and saying that if you file a false complaint against a police officer, you are now making that distinction between the ordinary citizen and putting police officers above the citizenry of this State. By carving out that particular exception of filing a false complaint, then, you are subject to a misdemeanor. I think that is wrong. If we are going to make that exception, then, why not make it for every citizen in the State of Nevada. Why, just, policemen. Why not make an exception for cooks, waiters, waitresses or doctors, lawyers—all of these individuals have professions in which they work. Why just make this exception for a policeman. It doesn’t make any sense, none, whatsoever. If we are going to look at the fact that we are all citizens and we are supposed to abide by the laws of this State, then, I would submit this type of exception to the law is not needed. It is not needed. When we do this, we create the atmosphere here that police are beyond the control of citizens.
We saw what happened in the ensuing years from 1973 when we put on the statute these enhanced penalties for killing police officers. We saw what happened. Now, we begin to try to counter that by creating police review boards to stop some of the abuses because we painted that picture and created the atmosphere that police officers are beyond the reach of citizens. On the other hand, they are responsive to the people of the State of Nevada. That is what our Constitution says. I don’t know what was being considered by those who actually brought out this particular bill from the committee. Are you saying that citizens do not have the ultimate right to make these judgments about people who are in government? Policemen are part of the government. What is it that we are trying to reach by placing this exception into the law. I cannot see it. Maybe somebody will have to tell me, but I cannot see it. I don’t know what it does other than raising a category of individuals, namely policemen, above citizens. That is what it seems to be doing. I happen to think that is wrong. It is the wrong public policy for this State to make.
When a person or persons become a policeman or policemen, they do not and have not gained a status of sainthood. They have all of the ills that are found in the population at large. They are subject to criminal wrong doing. They are subject to committing crimes. All of the faults that encompass the human family, they are subject to this. Why, then, do you want to create this exception? These people are not saints. The population is not that of sainthood. I don’t understand what we are doing when we say, file a false complaint and you are going to be charged with a misdemeanor. It means you get six months in jail. Six months, that is what a misdemeanor means. The person that might file a complaint might not be able to prove it. Yet, the facts might be there that it actually happened. How is that person protected by this bill? The false complaint is based on an investigation by whom, by the police? That is who would investigate this and, thereby, make the charge that this is a false complaint, arrest Joe Doe and charge him with a misdemeanor. They would bring him before the magistrate or local judge and give him six months in jail. It has a chilling effect upon our democracy when we have this happen. It does no good for the public to put this type of law into statute.
Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Madam President. This is a dicey issue because Senator Neal has raised good questions. I had asked the chairman if he would give us a full explanation, and he gave us something but not the total flavor of what kind of testimony was presented. I recently read, I think in the Review-Journal, that the last 60-odd cases of allegations of brutality or police blame in shootings in the southern Nevada area held the policemen free of blame for misuse of their office. Did you hear testimony on the number of times “knowingly-false” claims were made against these policemen. Apparently, the internal affairs and the review board are not holding them at fault for claims that are made, which shows that the system works if, in fact, the policeman was not at fault. In the course of those deliberations by those bodies, perhaps, some false statements were made and maybe some were “knowingly false.” Did you have testimony as to whether there was a lot of this going on? What kind of escape would there be for that person who feels chilled if they make a claim that they can’t prove is not false. In other words, trying to prove the negative as Senator Neal has tried to point out.
Senator James:
Thank you, Madam President. You must understand that the standard is that you have to know what you did was false. Everybody here is, probably, familiar with the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan. In certain cases, if your statements are in regard to a public official or public figure, you can’t be held liable for a defamatory statement unless it was made with actual malice. The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” as knowledge of the falsehood or reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. The Supreme Court said that you are privileged to say false things about public officials, government officials and public figures, unless it can be shown that you actually knew what you were saying was false. Or even if you didn’t know it, you had reckless disregard for whether it was true. You made no investigation and said it anyway. Unless you can show that, the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment protects your speech even if it is false, defamatory and would hurt somebody.
The standard in this bill is even higher. It is a greater level of malice. If you look at the bill, it applies to a person who knowingly files a false or fraudulent statement. “Knowingly false”―knowing that what you say is false without the additional element from New York Times vs. Sullivan which is reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity. A fraudulent statement is fraud. Fraud includes the element of scienter. Scienter means the intent to deceive and the intent to harm another person by your deceitful statement. That is an even higher standard than “knowingly.” We are talking about somebody who, absolutely, knows what they are saying is false and says it anyway. That is the only way you can be proven to have violated this bill. It is necessary because in the civil area, as decided in the Lewis case, there is no civil remedy for a false and defamatory statement against a peace officer. There is no civil remedy, whatsoever, for a false and defamatory statement even under the New York Times vs. Sullivan standard that destroys a peace officer’s career. There is still no civil remedy. All this bill says, is, that if it rises to a certain level, there is some deterrent from making such a statement.
As to Senator Coffin’s question, the committee heard from various police and peace officer organizations who said these claims are a problem. Many of these claims are dismissed when it is proven the officer didn’t violate the law, or the officer did act according to proper conduct. The officers were not fined nor found to have violated the law. It also doesn’t mean that a citizen who filed a complaint in those cases would have been found to have violated the provisions of this bill. Because the case wasn’t proven, or they investigated it and found that on balance based on the facts, the officer acted rightfully, doesn’t mean that the person filed a “knowingly false” statement. This is a very high standard. Further, the original version of the bill required that the person sign a statement that they have investigated the facts. That was deleted in the Assembly. We are left with this bill stating the high standard of falsehood, deceit and intent to harm somebody with a “knowingly false” statement actually, not being reckless or negligent about it, and a complaint is filed to hurt a peace officer. That is bad.
We are not discouraging any kind of petitioning of the government or free speech. The Supreme Court has held that we are not because you are not privileged to say “knowingly false” things. You are not privileged to shout, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater because the consequences of your action are detrimental to other people. This is where the right has its limits. You can still file a complaint. You can file any truthful complaint without the fear of being held liable, criminally or civilly.
I support the laws that give a greater penalty for the killing of a police officer. I don’t think there have been those unintended consequences. These are people who day after day go out and risk their lives. There needs to be some extra deterrent. These are people whose job it is to enforce the law and deal with people, whether it’s a traffic citation or whatever. They are constantly in a confrontational, harms’-way type of situation subjecting themselves to these kinds of things. There needs to be something there. Without this bill, there is, absolutely, no remedy. There is no criminal remedy. There is no civil remedy, whatsoever, for anybody who wants to exact retribution against one of the peace officers of our State by filing a knowingly false or deceitfully false or fraudulent complaint against them. The Assembly amendments have made this bill much more palatable, and that is why it received the support of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Madam President. The chairman of the committee, partially, answered my question. But, in so doing, he went on to characterize the opposite position of a “yea” vote on this bill as, in some way or another, putting those who don’t favor supporting this bill in a bad light or as not supportive of law enforcement. We should all understand that a vote on this bill is not one that should be cast as a vote against law enforcement’s duties and the protection of our law enforcement people because we have all received their support. We all support them. I wanted to know how many times it had been presented to the committee that we had these kinds of situations occur?
Senator Care:
Thank you, Madam President. To answer the Senator’s question, I don’t recall that the testimony was how many. It was what kind. The testimony, I recall, was that this bill would apply only in the most egregious cases. The policeman is the last defense or boundary between anarchy and a civilized society. He is given a public trust which sometimes, admittedly, he violates. It is because of that trust that in egregious circumstances, when the complaint is egregious, oftentimes a policeman is suspended. He finds himself mentioned in the newspaper. He’s interrogated. These are the cases that the supporters of this bill were talking about when they testified before the committee. I would point out that if the district attorney ever chose to prosecute under this bill, a good criminal defense attorney is going to request criminal discovery. That is going to include internal investigations. If it is an officer who has been involved in another incident, I think the defendant is entitled to the investigation of that incident as well. I know that law enforcement agencies are loathe to have those things turned over. We are talking about a case where the law enforcement agency would want to turn over those internal files.
One other comment, I appreciate the North Las Vegas Senator’s comments. When I came to Las Vegas in 1979, I recall, that was the summer when a series of young black men were killed by the local law enforcement under questionable circumstances. The Senator championed and campaigned for the coroner’s inquest and got the District Attorney, Bob Miller, to agree to it. I think that was a fine thing. I understand his position, but I wanted to make these points.
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Madam President. I have some kind of experience in this matter as I am a former metropolitan police officer, and I have gone through a complaint process. However, I have also been wrongly accused and have been taken before the Ethics Commission. I can understand why it’s important to ensure you get punished if you make a false accusation against somebody. The question I have, though, is subsection 1 of section 1 says that a person who knowingly files a false or fraudulent written complaint or allegation of misconduct against a police officer for conduct in the course of the scope of his employment is guilty of a misdemeanor. What body would be the one to do the investigation as to whether the complaint was fraudulent or not? Also, who would be the one to arrest the person who has allegedly made these false complaints? If it is the D.A., would it be in the form of a complaint filed in court? Or, would it be the police department’s internal affairs division doing the investigation, and therefore, upon deciding there was probable cause to arrest, would they be the ones to arrest for the misdemeanor?
Senator James:
Thank you, Madam President. It would be handled like any other misdemeanor case.
Senator Titus:
It takes a lot of guts for a person to file a complaint against a police officer because the complainant knows the system is stacked against him from the outset. You have heard the statistics recently reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The odds against finding a policeman guilty of any offense are overwhelming. I fear that passing this bill will add yet another obstacle to that process and have a chilling effect on the filing of truthful, legitimate complaints.
Under this bill, if a person does get up the nerve to file a complaint against a police officer, to the police, knowing the police will conduct the investigation, the first thing he or she will encounter is someone saying, “You know if you file this complaint, and it turns out to be false, you’re guilty of misdemeanor?” Who will ever be willing to take that chance?
Furthermore, I believe there are other civil remedies for dealing with the problem of filing false complaints. We do not need to criminalize the action.
Senator Neal:
A brief comment to share with you, the Senate. In the early, mid-to-late eighties and some part of the nineties, some of the black youngsters in my community reported to me that policemen were engaged in drive-by shootings. I exacted a standard upon them. Who are these policemen, identify them, then we could do something about it. If those individuals had gone to the police department and made that complaint, it would have been a false complaint. We did not know until later, until somebody was killed, that this was a fact. That is the type of thing that I am concerned about.
Senator Carlton:
Thank you, Madam President. It always seems like we get into these really great debates, and all I have to do is stand up and disclose something. I will do that right now. My husband is a peace officer. This bill would apply to him. I do understand how these particular issues do affect families, but this will not apply to him any more than any other peace officer in this State. Therefore, I will vote on this bill, and I will vote positively on it.
Senators Townsend, Jacobsen and Raggio moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Assembly Bill No. 304.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 304:
Yeas—18.
Nays—Coffin, Neal, Titus—3.
Assembly Bill No. 304 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Consideration of Assembly Amendments
Senate Bill No. 121.
The following Assembly amendment was read.
Amendment No. 728.
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 1 through 3, renumbering sections 4 through 6 as sections 2 through 4 and adding a new section designated section 1, following the enacting clause, to read as follows:
“Section 1. Chapter 113 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, in a county whose population is 400,000 or more, a seller may not sign a sales agreement with the initial purchaser of a residence unless the seller, at least 24 hours before the time of the signing, provides the initial purchaser with a disclosure document that contains:
(a) A copy of the most recent gaming enterprise district map that has been made available for public inspection pursuant to NRS 463.309 by the city or town in which the residence is located or, if the residence is not located in a city or town, by the county in which the residence is located; and
(b) The location of the gaming enterprise district that is nearest to the residence, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the nearest gaming enterprise district is located.
The seller shall retain a copy of the disclosure document that has been signed by the initial purchaser acknowledging the time and date of receipt by the initial purchaser of the original document.
2. The information contained in the disclosure document required by subsection 1 must:
(a) Be updated not less than once every 4 months;
(b) Advise the initial purchaser that gaming enterprise districts are subject to change; and
(c) Provide the initial purchaser with instructions on how to obtain more current information.
3. The initial purchaser of a residence may waive the 24-hour period required by subsection 1 if the seller provides the initial purchaser with the information required by subsections 1 and 2 and the initial purchaser signs a written waiver. The seller shall retain a copy of the written waiver that has been signed by the initial purchaser acknowledging the time and date of receipt by the initial purchaser of the original document.
4. As used in this section, “seller” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 113.070.”.
Amend sec. 4, page 4, by deleting lines 1 through 6 and inserting:
“6. As used in this section, “seller” means a person who sells or attempts to sell any land or tract of land in this state which is divided or proposed to be divided over any period into two or more lots, parcels, units or interests, including, but not limited to, undivided interests, which are offered, known, designated or advertised as a common unit by a common name or as a part of a common promotional plan of advertising and sale.”.
Senator James moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Bill No. 121.
Remarks by Senator James.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered enrolled.
Senate Bill No. 274.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 780.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 7 through 9 and inserting: “the approval of the voters. Thereafter, the wards may be increased:
(a) By the city council if it determines that an increase is necessary; or
(b) Upon approval of a question proposing an increase to a specific number of wards by a majority of the voters voting on the question. Such a question must be submitted to the voters on the ballot at a general election or general city election if the city council votes for the submission of the question on its own motion or if a petition signed by a number of registered voters of the city equal to 15 percent or more of the number of voters who voted at the last preceding general election is submitted to the city council requesting an increase to a specific number of wards.
The wards must be as nearly equal in population as can”.
Amend sec. 3, page
2, line 23, by deleting “[1st] first” and inserting “first”.
Amend sec. 3, page
2, line 28, by deleting “[1st] first” and inserting “first”.
Amend sec. 3, page 3, by deleting lines 6 through 18 and inserting: “with the city clerk. All filing fees collected by the city clerk must be paid into the city treasury.
6. If, in the primary election, regardless of the number of”.
Amend the title of the bill by deleting the third and fourth lines and inserting: “city; authorizing the city council or the voters within the city to increase the number of wards in certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding the following assemblymen as primary joint sponsors:
Assemblymen Bache and Williams.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding the following assemblymen as non-primary joint sponsors:
Assemblymen Berman, Freeman, Gibbons, Humke, Lee, Mortenson, Neighbors, Parnell, Segerblom, Thomas, Tiffany and Von Tobel.
Senator Neal moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Bill No. 274.
Remarks by Senator Neal.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered enrolled.
Senate Bill No. 472.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 770.
Amend sec. 4, page 4, line 5, by deleting “$250” and inserting “$100”.
Amend sec. 4, page 4, line 6, by deleting “$250” and inserting “$100”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 9, after “253.0415” by inserting “1.”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, by deleting line 10 and inserting:
“[1. Investigate:]
(a) Investigate:
(1)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 14, by deleting “(b)” and inserting “[(b)] (2)”
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 17, by deleting “(c)” and inserting “(3)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 20, by deleting “2.” and inserting “[2.] (b)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 22, by deleting “This” and inserting: “[This] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, this”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 26, by deleting “3.” and inserting “[3.] (c)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 30, by deleting “value.]” and inserting “value.”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 31, by deleting “4.” and inserting “4.] (d)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 32, by deleting “(a)” and inserting “[(a)] (1)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, line 33, by deleting “(b)” and inserting “[(b)] (2)”.
Amend sec. 5, page 4, between lines 35 and 36, by inserting:
“2. The public administrator is not eligible to serve as a guardian of the person and estate of a ward if the board of county commissioners of his county has established the office of public guardian pursuant to NRS 253.150, unless the board has designated the public administrator as ex officio public guardian.”.
Amend the bill as a whole by renumbering sections 8 and 9 as sections 9 and 10 and adding a new section designated sec. 8, following sec. 7, to read as follows:
“Sec. 8. NRS 253.200 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Has no relative or friend able and willing to serve as his guardian; or
(b) Lacks sufficient assets to provide the requisite compensation to a private guardian.
2. A person so qualified, or anyone on his behalf, may petition the district court of the county in which he resides to make the appointment.”.
Amend sec. 8, page 6, by deleting lines 12 through 16 and inserting:
“1. A public administrator or deputy designated by him may submit a written request to a public utility for the name and address of a person listed in the records of the public utility if the information is necessary to assist the public administrator in carrying out his duties pursuant to chapter 253 of NRS.”.
Amend the title of the bill, by deleting the fourth and fifth lines and inserting: “under certain circumstances; prohibiting certain public administrators from acting as guardians of proposed wards; revising the circumstances under which a public administrator is required to petition a court for letters of administration; allowing the appointment of a public guardian for a person who is under 60 years of age;”.
Amend the summary of the bill, first line, by deleting “administrators.” and inserting: “administrators and public guardians.”
Senator O’Connell moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Bill No. 472.
Remarks by Senator O’Connell.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered enrolled.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 217.
Amend the resolution, page 2, line 7, after “appointed” by inserting: “, subject to the approval of the Legislative Commission,”.
Amend the resolution, page 2, line 16, by deleting “committee;” and inserting: “committee and, in approving the appointments to the committee, shall ensure that not less than two of the members are appointed from the Assembly Standing Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and not less than two of the members are appointed from the Senate Standing Committee on Government Affairs;”.
Senator Porter moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1.
Remarks by Senator Porter.
Motion carried.
Resolution ordered enrolled.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 546—AN ACT making a supplemental appropriation to the Commission on Ethics for an anticipated shortfall in operational expenses; 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. 547—AN ACT making an appropriation to the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources for expenses related to the NOMADS Project; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Madam President:
Your Committee on Finance, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 546, 547, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
William J. Raggio, Chairman
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Bills Nos. 8, 44, 140, 332, 418, 433, 465, 517, 529, 542; Senate Joint Resolutions Nos. 11, 20; Senate Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 43, 44.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Amodei, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following members of the Lyon County Republican Women’s Club: Doris Franks, Bob Franks, Nora Van Norman, Nikki Bryan, Deeann Rotchy, Mary Milligan, Pauline Vencill, Colleen Wipfli, Denise Strosnider, Velma Ford, Kathleen Stephens and Ron Stephens and the following students from the Fernley Intermediate School: Kayla Brown, Lexi Christensen, Kelly Fitzgerald, Tawni Gibson, Marshall Gledhill, Kirsten Kornegay, Kiah Ladringan, Amanda Lowe, Fallon Lowrey, Mary Sue McDowell, Cecelia Mead, Kellie Menezes, Danielle Milich, Victoria Pace, Raul Paredes, Jonathan Parker, Teanna Schwab, Amanda Shadoan, Lora Shadoan, Jessica Smith, Cassandra Tillman, Christine Weakland, Nicole Wortman, Chris Wren, Tony Yori, Tasha Allen, Chris Capps, Amberly Dalton, Christine Davis, Steven Dempsey, Katie Dunster, Holly Gagne, Michelle Fernandez, Patricia Galli, Jamie Goodsell, Johanna Huybers, Kathy Kuybers, Janelle Kashuba, Nikki Knutson, Lacey LaVoie, Kathleen Ritter, Elaenia Serdehely, Jessie Straight, Valorie Tyler, Samantha Weaver, Katie Roesler, Rachel Chandler, Jeff Herzig, Bobby Hodgden, Misty Knippel, Patsy Knippel, Kris Little, Derek Maguin, Anthony Matulonis, Luis Paredes, Tyler Petersen, Adam Ruck, Kristina Sewell, Alex Wilson, Joshua Blevins, Tanya Bongiovanni, Darleen Capps, Lindsey Craig, Eduardo Echeverria, Erin Gelmstedt, Holly Johnston, Sandy Marshall, Cindy Marshall, Greg Price, Cody Wagner and Pete Borda.
On request of Senator Jacobsen, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Jack Carpenter, Peter Fenili, Veronica Fenili, Dana Fenili, Beverly Landalt, Katherini Nelson, Leah Compston, Amy Sanford, Richard Rand, Merle King, Dale Ferguson and Leo Havner.
On request of Senator Porter, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Mary Kincaid and Bruce Woodbury.
On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Ted Puffer, Deena Puffer, Dave Reynolds, Dorothy Lienau, Lauran Hoose, Barbara Long, David Rudat, Ricco DePietro, Jennie DiPietro, Bill Kimmel, Kathy Kimmel, Lannie Pardini, Steve Meyer, Ken Westbrook, Bill McConnell, Louise McConnell, Vivienne Morris, Tamara Dudas, Michael Dudas, Bill Morris, Jilly Morris, Katlyn Morris, Willy Morris, Tom Bodensteiner, Joy Bodensteiner, Carly Bodensteiner, Tommy Bodensteiner, Carl “Sonny” Morris, Nancy Spina, Carole Howell, MaryAnn Wilkerson, Jackie Springer, Nancy Logar, Scott Beasley, Lucretia Beasley, Rob Potter, Pat Potter, Kacey Potter, Eileen Potter, Dan Orlich and the following Reno-Sparks Leadership Class of 1999: Cecilia Adams, Julie Ardito, Andy Backstrom, Donna Becker, Mike Bosma, Kam Chan, Adina Cremeans, Jim Devolld, Karen Foster, Bob Francl, Francine Harr, Leslie Hart, Dave Henselman, Carol Infranca, Meg Kinney, Ronele Klingensmith, June Lundquist, Lisa Mann, Melinda Marine, Shawna Mefford, Bill Moran, Joel Muller, Roberto Nerey, Barry Pierce, Steve Reid, Leeann Slate, Cindy Trimble-Mason, Mike Vialpando, Risa Vonschimmelmann, Charles White, Alison Winnie and Monte Winterhalter.
On request of Senator Schneider, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Wesley Morris, Jaymie Bodensteiner and Dawn Morris Dudas.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas