THE EIGHTEENTH DAY
Carson City(Thursday), February 22, 2001
Senate called to order at 4:23 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senators Coffin and Porter, who were excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Reverend Louie Locke.
Lord we give You thanks and praise for Your goodness and grace in the book of Proverbs we read:
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.” (Prov. 29:2) We pray that there will be no need for groaning because of the righteousness lived out by our leaders. Bless them. Give wisdom and understanding to our legislators; bless and keep their families, and we ask for Your blessings on the people of our great State of Nevada.
I pray in the Name of the Most High God.
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 Government Affairs, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 38, 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 Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 31, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Mark A. James, Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 21, 2001
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 107.
Patricia R. Williams
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Joint Resolution No. 5—Proposing to amend section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada to authorize the legislature to establish a business court as a division of a district court and to prescribe its jurisdiction.
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JOINTLY, That section 6 of article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 6. 1. The District Courts in the several Judicial Districts of this State have original jurisdiction in all cases excluded by law from the original jurisdiction of justices’ courts. They also have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in Justices Courts and such other inferior tribunals as may be established by law. The District Courts and the Judges thereof have power to issue writs of Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction, Quo-Warranto, Certiorari, and all other writs proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction. The District Courts and the Judges thereof shall also have power to issue writs of Habeas Corpus on petition by, or on behalf of any person who is held in actual custody in their respective districts, or who has suffered a criminal conviction in their respective districts and has not completed the sentence imposed pursuant to the judgment of conviction.
2. The legislature may provide by law for:
(a) Referees in district courts.
(b) The establishment of a family court as a division of any district court and may prescribe its jurisdiction.
(c) The establishment of a business court as a division of any district court and may prescribe its jurisdiction.
Senator James moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 229—AN ACT relating to criminal justice; eliminating the advisory commission on sentencing; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 230—AN ACT relating to juvenile justice; revising provisions relating to juveniles who violate parole; providing that the juvenile court may order certain juveniles who violate parole to be placed in the local or regional facility for children or in the county jail under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 231—AN ACT relating to juvenile justice; revising provisions relating to detention homes for the temporary detention of children; permitting such homes, under certain circumstances, to adjoin, be located on the same grounds as, or share common grounds or common facilities with an adult jail or adult lockup; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 232—AN ACT relating to juvenile justice; requiring certain state and local agencies to assess whether children of racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately taken into custody, detained or referred to the system of juvenile justice; requiring the division of child and family services of the department of human resources to develop certain standards and procedures for conducting assessments and to prepare certain reports; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 233—AN ACT relating to correctional officers; providing that direct supervision, custody, security and discipline of offenders must be conducted by correctional officers who are designated as peace officers; clarifying that correctional officers who are designated as peace officers are exempt from certain provisions pertaining to weapons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By Senators Porter, James and Titus:
Senate Bill No. 234—AN ACT relating to sentencing; revising the provisions governing the statements of victims of crimes at sentencing hearings; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By Senators Washington, O'Connell, O'Donnell, Rawson; Assemblymen Hettrick, Cegavske, Von Tobel, Angle, Gustavson, Marvel and Tiffany:
Senate Bill No. 235—AN ACT relating to education; establishing a program of voucher schools to be administered by the department of education; authorizing certain private schools to apply to the department of education for certification as voucher schools; authorizing certain pupils to apply to the department of education to participate in the program of voucher schools; revising provisions governing the apportionments of money from the state distributive school account to provide for the payments of money for pupils who are enrolled in voucher schools; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Washington moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
By Senators Care, Neal, Carlton, Mathews, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener; Assemblymen Giunchigliani, Koivisto, Angle, Beers, Cegavske, Chowning, Collins, Manendo, McClain, Mortenson, Parks and Tiffany:
Senate Bill No. 236—AN ACT relating to education; requiring certain entities that employ children in the entertainment industry to pay for those children to receive tutoring upon the request of a parent or guardian; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Care moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
By Senators Wiener, Rawson, Amodei, Mathews, Schneider and Townsend:
Senate Bill No. 237—AN ACT relating to education; removing the commission on postsecondary education from the department of education; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Wiener moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 107.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 16.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 5.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 18, after “3.” by inserting: “Compliance with this section by a seller constitutes an affirmative defense in any action brought against the seller by the purchaser based upon any damages allegedly suffered as the result of livestock entering the property.
4.”
Amend the title of the bill, third line, after “range;” by inserting: “providing that compliance with the requirement of disclosure constitutes an affirmative defense in certain actions brought against the seller;”.
Senator James moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator James.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 19.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 6.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 9, by deleting “30” and inserting “60”.
Amend section 1, page 2, line 12, after “5.” by inserting: “Any person who purchases any appliance or electronics in good faith at a sale to satisfy the lien acquires the appliance or electronics free of any interest of any other person.
6.”
Amend section 1, page 2, line 15, by deleting “6.” and inserting “7.”
Amend section 1, page 2, line 21, by deleting “30” and inserting “60”.
Amend section 1, page 2, line 25, by deleting “7.” and inserting “8.”
Senator James moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator James.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 33.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 4.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting lines 29 through 35 and inserting: “claim through ancestors more remote. [If any person dies leaving several children, or leaving a child and issue of one or more children, and any such surviving child dies under age and not having been married, all the estate that came to the deceased child by inheritance from the deceased parent descends in equal shares to the other children of the same parent, and to the issue of any other children who may have died, by right of representation.]”.
Amend the bill as a whole by renumbering sections 3 through 19 as sections 4 through 20 and adding a new section designated sec. 3, following sec. 2, to read as follows:
“Sec. 3. NRS 134.080 is hereby amended to read as follows:
134.080 1. At the death of a child who is under age , who is without issue and who has not been married, all the other children of the parent being also dead, if any of the other children left issue, the estate that came to the child by inheritance from the parent descends to all the issue of the other children of the same parent, and if all the issue are in the same degree of kindred to the child , they are entitled to share the estate equally; otherwise, they are entitled to take according to the right of representation.
2. If any person dies leaving several children, or leaving a child and issue of one or more children, and any such surviving child dies under age, without issue and not having been married, all the estate that came to the deceased child by inheritance from the deceased parent descends in equal shares to the other children of the same parent, and to the issue of any other children of the same parent who may have died, by right of representation.”.
Amend sec. 3, page 2, by deleting lines 38 and 39 and inserting: “is governed by the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure [.] , and the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the district court not later than 30 days after the date of service of written notice of.”
Amend sec. 4, page 2, line 47, before “drunkenness,” by inserting: “conflict of interest,”.
Amend sec. 5, page 3, by deleting lines 18 and 19 and inserting:
“(g) [Creditors who have become such during the lifetime of the decedent.
(h)] The public administrator.
(h) Creditors who have become such during the lifetime of the decedent.”
Senator James moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators James and Neal.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 55.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Amendment No. 7.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 18, by deleting “shall” and inserting “[shall] may”.
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 4:46 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 4:57 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
The Sergeant at Arms announced that Assemblyman Arberry and Assemblywoman Von Tobel were at the bar of the Senate. Assemblyman Arberry invited the Senate to meet in Joint Session with the Assembly to hear an address by Chief Justice A. William Maupin.
Madam President 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 5:02 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
The Secretary of the Senate called the Senate roll.
All present except Senators Coffin, Mathews, Porter and Townsend, who were excused.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly called the Assembly roll.
All present except Assemblywomen Freeman, Ohrenschall, Tiffany and Assemblyman Manendo, who were excused.
Madam President appointed a Committee on Escort consisting of Senator Amodei and Assemblyman Anderson to wait upon the Honorable A. William Maupin, Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, and escort him to the Assembly Chamber.
Chief Justice Maupin delivered his message as follows:
Message to the Legislature of Nevada
Seventy-First Session, 2001
Governor Guinn, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker, Constitutional Officers, members of the Nevada State Senate and members of the Nevada State Assembly:
It is my privilege to address you tonight on the State of the Nevada Judiciary, and I thank you for this opportunity. In this, I speak on behalf of my colleagues on the State Supreme Court, our 56 colleagues around the State who serve in our district courts, our 97 colleagues around this State who serve as municipal court judges and justices of the peace and our colleagues who serve in the capacity of administrative law judges.
As many of you know, certainly those of you with whom I campaigned in two consecutive elections, the entirety of my adult life has been devoted to the Nevada legal system either as a practicing lawyer or as a member of the judiciary. Never have I been more proud of the men and women who serve the people of this State as judges and lawyers than I am at this moment. When you hear what these dedicated public servants have accomplished since Chief Justice Bob Rose spoke to you two years ago, I am quite confident you will join me in that sense of pride.
Also, as I intend to make quite clear, the vast majority of these accomplishments could not have occurred without the partnership that I believe the Nevada judiciary has formed with the Legislature, the executive branch and with the various county and city governments in this State. These partnerships have served this State well, and I can now say without reservation that the people working in your judicial system have made every effort to maximize available resources to improve the delivery of formal dispute resolution to our citizens.
In terms of general administration of the court system, I would point out the following:
In December, we published the judiciary’s first‑ever annual report containing uniform caseload statistics for every district, justice and municipal court in Nevada. This report contains information that you have requested, information that we are happy to provide and information that is important in management at every level of the Nevada court system. Last year, we established the strong chief judge requirement in the urban districts. Working with local judges, we also adopted comprehensive case management rules in the large districts which have already paid great dividends in increased productivity and accountability to the people of Nevada. We have upgraded the Nevada Judicial Council by developing uniform standards for judicial administrative performance, court security and court facilities. The Supreme Court formed a committee of judges, law enforcement representatives and family advocates to develop standards, including forms, to be used in domestic violence cases, and we have ordered all courts to use the new forms. We developed a manual for trial courts to improve collections on all levels. With the help of the private bar, we are now nearing completion of an Appellate Practice Manual to aid lawyers and their clients with the complex process of appellate litigation. We also created a blue ribbon committee to revise and modernize the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure so that litigation in our trial courts will become more user-friendly. We have enacted rules to implement the Short Trial Program passed as part of the Nevada Arbitration Act by the 1999 Legislature. We continue to review and improve the Court Annexed Arbitration System in place since July 1, 1992. This program regularly diverts a substantial percentage of the litigated damage cases out of the district courts of Washoe, Clark and Douglas counties and Carson City.
In the Supreme Court itself, we are managing our caseload to maintain quality and to reduce one of the most serious backlogs of any appellate court in the country. That backlog developed as a result of a tremendous increase in case filings during the early and middle 1990s. Because Nevada has no intermediate appellate court and was comprised of only five justices with a relatively modest support staff of lawyers, the 1997 session allowed us to expand the court to seven justices and provided us with generous increases in our staff. I believe that our statistics, since then, demonstrate excellent use of these resources.
At the close of calendar year 1997, our pending case inventory was 2,521 cases, certainly one of the five largest inventories in the country. Three years later, at the end of calendar year 2000, 1,720 cases remained pending, a reduction of 801 cases. In non-governmental accounting terms, this is a reduction of 32 percent. Our own internal case management measures have contributed to this as well. The Civil Settlement Program, which you have also funded, is still resolving between 50 and 60 percent of the civil appeals lodged with the court. The Fast-track Program for processing criminal appeals has substantially increased the speed with which we are disposing of those cases. Finally, with the resources provided to us by you, we have made significant headway in the reduction of the backlog of prisoner litigation.
Long term, we will continue to advocate for an intermediate appellate court. Although recognizing we now operate both as an intermediate appeals court and a court of final appeal, and recognizing that we can justify an intermediate court system based upon the sheer size of our caseload, we have determined not to press for the second leg of the legislative process that would lead to the intermediate appellate court being placed on the general election ballot in 2002. This is reflective of the fact that, as of now, we continue to reduce the backlog. I must emphasize, however, that this trend cannot continue indefinitely given the growth picture of this State, particularly in southern Nevada. Thus, we will be asking you to again re-submit the resolution for creation of the intermediate appeals court in a form that would, if passed by two consecutive legislative sessions, result in the new court being placed on the ballot for approval by the voters in the year 2004.
Turning to the Eighth Judicial District, our largest district court system: Last year, over 62,000 civil, criminal, family and juvenile matters were filed in the Eighth Judicial District. Of these matters, 17,489 were civil cases, 8,266 were criminal cases and 36,584 were family and juvenile cases. Thus, the upward trend in filings across the board continues in that district.
In calendar year 2000, 7,657 civil filings in Clark County were routed through the court annexed arbitration program. Of these, 2,268 cases were settled prior to an arbitration hearing; 2,510 resulted in formal awards, and 1,242 cases proceeded into district court on requests for trial de novo. Since this program was enacted in 1992, over 30,200 cases have gone through the program. Less than 1 percent of these have actually gone to trial. We are therefore very satisfied with the enormous success of the program. And most recently, we conducted training of over 75 additional arbitrators statewide.
Turning to the Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District: In the calendar year 1999, the Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District closed almost 17,000 matters. Further, the Clark County family court partnered with Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams, Assembly Majority Floor Leader Barbara Buckley and Clark County Legal Services in the implementation of the Children’s Attorney’s Project. This innovative new program provides legal representation to children in the court system, giving priority to abused and neglected children. According to the first annual report on this project, some 1,400 children per year are taken from their parents in Clark County due to abuse and neglect. District Judge Gerry Hardcastle, who played a pivotal role in obtaining grant funding and in the implementation of the program, advises that some 70 private attorneys have already volunteered to participate in the representation of these children. Some 9,300 hearings were conducted in fiscal year 1999-2000 on 6,543 child support cases. The Clark County District Court Administrator advises me that over $100 million in child support payments were collected over a two-year period through the combined efforts of the family court, the district attorney and the Nevada State Welfare Division. The Clark County Family Mediation Center provided mediation services to 3,275 families with a success rate of 78.4 percent in child custody matters. The Clark County Family Court processed over 14,500 new applications for protective orders against domestic violence, issued 4,200 emergency orders, implemented use of new forms approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts for statewide use and made possible electronic transfer of protective order information to the state and criminal records repository through the use of Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety grant funding. Finally, the Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District has drafted a comprehensive set of local case management rules. Since our approval of these measures last year, the productivity and quality of resolutions at the Family Division continues to improve. Presiding Judge Dianne Steel and her colleagues have done everything possible to maximize the resources provided to them. I note that Judge Steele is in the audience tonight, a former colleague of yours, and I think that a round of applause for the efforts of this court is in order.
Like their counterparts in Las Vegas, our Washoe County district judges of the Second Judicial District have taken aggressive measures to improve the management of their very serious criminal, civil and domestic caseloads.
Since your last session, the Second Judicial District, as part of its Strong Chief Judge System, has adopted a no-continuance policy in civil cases. This means that no trials are being cancelled or postponed due to court calendar congestion. This, of course, has increased the number of settled cases and maintains the local practice of having a vast majority of matters resolved within one year of the commencement of the civil litigation process. In a prime example of this, Judge Jim Hardesty advises that a complex medical products case with multiple defendants and thirty‑five plaintiffs was resolved within ten months of filing under the new case management regimen adopted in Washoe County.
In criminal cases, the Second Judicial District Court is currently working on new local rules for processing cases and has adopted a policy that allows the parties to agree to short postponements in pre-trial motions up to the end of business hours the day before hearings to save costs and avoid unnecessary security problems of transporting inmates from the county jail.
Turning to the Family Division of the Second Judicial District, presiding Family Division Judge Scott Jordan has instituted the SAFE program which stands for Special Advocate For Elders. This program—a collaborative effort of the District Court, the Nevada Division for Aging and others—is designed to recruit community volunteers to work with elderly persons who may have court appointed guardians. Volunteers assist in gathering information to assist the court in making decisions on the welfare of elderly clients of the program.
Along with every other judicial district in the State, the Second Judicial District is in the process of improving automation technology and improving its transmission of statistics to the Supreme Court and ultimately to you through the Uniform System for Judicial Records.
Moving to the statewide picture, we are working with interim committees of the Legislature and local district judges to institute business court dockets in Clark and Washoe counties on an experimental basis. We believe this new docket management technique will enable us to more ably handle sophisticated business matters at no sacrifice to the management of other cases. Incidentally, Nevada is the first state west of the Mississippi River to do this.
The family divisions of the Eighth and Second Judicial Districts are in the process of implementing the one judge, one family legislation including the current ongoing development of sophisticated software to accommodate the legislative mandate. This has made the system much more efficient and has significantly reduced the fragmentation of services and internal conflict in court orders. This is, again, a prime example of how the partnership formed between the Legislature and the court system has successfully served the citizens of this State.
Courts in Carson City, Storey, Churchill and Lyon counties have, with assistance from the administrative office of the courts, implemented a multi-county justice information system to streamline the collection and sharing of information in criminal cases. The Administrative Office of the Courts has also been coordinating with other rural courts to acquire a case management system for more than 30 of the smaller courts with insufficient resources to implement computer technology on their own.
The experiment with adult, family and juvenile drug court programs continues to flourish and expand. Without question, our drug court judges throughout the State are demonstrating national leadership in this area. Judges Jack Lehman, Dianne Steel and Jessie Walsh in Las Vegas and Judges Peter Breen, Chuck McGee and Deborah Schumacher in Reno continue to excel in these endeavors. I am now advised that Judge Mike Griffin, Carson City, and Judge Archie Blake, Yerington, are in the process of instituting drug court dockets in Carson City, Storey County, Lyon County and Douglas County. There is also another important experiment with alcohol and drug related offenses going on in Judge Larry Sage’s courtroom in Sparks. In this connection, I would like to additionally mention that District Judge Deborah Schumacher recently received a national award for her work in this area, and that one of her graduates received the Youth of the Year Award from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Going further, the Second District and several of our rural judges are now exploring the creation of mental health courts.
Last but not least in my incomplete list of the accomplishments of my colleagues, during the fiscal year 1999-2000, our justices of the peace and municipal judges have with great success wrestled with caseloads totaling over 890,000 criminal, civil and traffic related matters.
One last comment about our family court judges, I would like to express our appreciation for each and every one of these judges because, without question, they have the toughest assignments that exist in our state judicial system.
An important component of many of the accomplishments mentioned is volunteer service by members of the Nevada State Bar. These include pro bono representation of disadvantaged citizens, representation of children in the Family Court Child Representation Project, participation in the Habitat for Humanity project, committee work to revise procedural rules at all levels of the court system, service as mediators and arbitrators and other roles too numerous to mention. Certainly, our Nevada lawyers have responded overwhelmingly to the call to participate in public service without expectation of compensation. Thus, I can state here tonight that our public is being well served by the Nevada legal profession.
I believe that the true state of the judiciary statewide is capsulized in a paragraph from a letter I recently received from Chief Judge Gene Porter of the Eighth Judicial District.
While striving to maintain the highest standard of justice, the court is committed to finding creative and responsible solutions that improve public access and speedier dispute resolution for citizens. In pursuit of its vision and the healthy development of the court in the longer term, the judiciary, court administration and staff hold fast to a steady course of meeting these needs through hard work, dedication and innovation. This evolution is formed by an ever-growing public need and is served by creation of special courts and calendars, changes to local court rules and development of special programs and enhanced services. Other on-going projects are gaining momentum that find solutions by merging technology with creative thought, resulting in the court’s ability to better manage existing workloads, report performance and achieve the ultimate goal of speedier justice for our citizens.
Interestingly, ladies and gentlemen, until about five years ago, the court system was simply trying to deal with day-to-day survival. Now, it is clear to me that all your Supreme Court justices, district court judges, municipal court judges, justices of the peace and our administrative tribunals are thinking in terms of systems to manage and not simply reacting to the problems of burgeoning caseloads.
Before I conclude, let me say that our lawyers and judges continue every day to work together to provide access to the justice system for our people. Let me also say that our attorneys and judges, almost without statistical exception, take pride in the fact that our democracy depends on lawyers and judges to make sure rights of redress are speedy, fair and competent. But we cannot do that vital work without your assistance. In this, over the last several years, the members of this Legislature have stepped up to the plate and given us the essential tools to do this important work. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for this. Again, I say, the great strides of our judiciary that I have enumerated here tonight could not have happened without the partnership formed between you and us.
I ask that you continue to embrace this very important partnership. In that partnership, we will make this great State a much better and safer place for our fellow citizens.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the Senate and Assembly in Joint Session extend a vote of thanks to Chief Justice Maupin for his timely, able and constructive message.
Motion carried.
The Committee on Escort escorted Chief Justice Maupin to the bar of the Assembly.
Senator Shaffer moved that the Joint Session be dissolved.
Motion carried.
Joint Session dissolved at 5:29 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 5:34 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 12.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Friday, February 23, 2001 at 10:30 a.m. and that it do so in honor and remembrance of the Father of our Country, George Washington.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Approved:Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Claire J. Clift
Secretary of the Senate