THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY
Carson City (Wednesday), February 26, 2003
Senate called to order at 11:11 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Dr. Ken Haskins.
Our loving, heavenly Father, we see order throughout Your
magnificent and well-designed creation. You have ordained government in order
that Your children might lead peaceful and orderly lives. Bless these Senators
who serve in accordance with Your will and for the betterment of society. In
the Name of the Prince of Peace, we pray.
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 was referred Senate Bill No. 65, 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 Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 162, has had the
same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the
recommendation: Do pass.
Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
Madam
President:
Your
Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, to which were referred Senate
Bill No. 37; Assembly Bill No. 39, has had the same under consideration, and
begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Maurice E. Washington, Chairman
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 208—AN ACT relating to education; requiring the transfer of money from the Fund for School Improvement to the University and Community College System of Nevada to provide scholarships for students pursuing degrees in teaching; 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. 209—AN ACT making an appropriation to the Retired Justice Duty Fund for salaries for senior judges to increase coverage in the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts and for emergency requests in the smaller counties of Nevada; 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. 210—AN ACT relating to education; requiring the boards of trustees of school districts to pay increased salaries to teachers who provide instruction in a field of mathematics or science and to teachers who provide instruction to pupils with disabilities; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt regulations identifying the endorsements in the fields of mathematics and science that qualify a teacher to receive an increase in salary; revising provisions governing the regional training programs for the professional development of teachers and administrators and the Statewide Council for the Coordination of the Regional Training Programs; making appropriations; 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 Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 211—AN ACT relating to civil practice; increasing the fees for filing certain documents relating to decedents’ estates, guardianships or trusts; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 212—AN ACT relating to salvage vehicles; revising the definition of “total loss vehicle”; revising provisions relating to ownership documents and salvage title required for the sale of total loss vehicles; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 213—AN ACT relating to motor vehicles; authorizing the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish a pilot program pursuant to which the period of registration for certain motor vehicles is expanded; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 214—AN ACT relating to motor vehicles; requiring the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish a toll-free telephone number for the reporting of certain violations relating to the registration of a vehicle; requiring the Department to notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency of violations; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By Senator Shaffer (by request):
Senate Bill No. 215—AN ACT relating to the Public Employees’ Benefits Program; requiring the Board of the Program to ensure that rates established for coverage are the same for all persons who participate in the Program for that coverage; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Shaffer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations:
Senate Bill No. 216—AN ACT relating to the Legislature; creating an interim legislative committee to review the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and to oversee the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and other federal, state, interregional and interstate governmental entities within the State of Nevada; providing the powers and duties of the Committee; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Washington moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.
Motion carried.
By Senator Neal; Assemblymen Anderson and Leslie:
Senate Bill No. 217—AN ACT relating to capital punishment; abolishing the imposition of a sentence of death; amending or repealing related statutes pertaining to the existence, imposition and execution of a sentence of death; reducing the sentence of any person sentenced to death to a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Neal moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By Senators Rawson and Cegavske:
Senate Bill No. 218—AN ACT relating to public safety; revising certain provisions relating to the program that provides the public with access to certain information in the statewide registry concerning certain sex offenders and offenders convicted of a crime against a child; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Taxation:
Senate Bill No. 219—AN ACT relating to state finances; temporarily increasing the amount of certain taxes on businesses, liquor and cigarettes and certain gaming license fees; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 73.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 11.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 4, following sec. 3, to read as follows:
“Sec. 4. The provisions of NRS 354.599 do not apply to any additional expenses of a local government that are related to the provisions of this act.”.
Senator O'Connell moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Amodei.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 10.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 12.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 11, by
deleting the period and inserting: “[.] , currency or other monetary instrument or through the use of a calling
card, credit card or debit card.”.
Amend the title of the bill, fifth line, before “repealing” by inserting: “revising the definition of public telephone for the purposes of the statute prohibiting a person from refusing to relinquish a public telephone for an emergency call and from falsely stating that it is needed for an emergency call;”.
Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:
Senator Amodei moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Amodei.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Bill No. 28.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 28:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 28 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 54.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 54:
Yeas—19.
Nays—O'Connell, Tiffany—2.
Senate Bill No. 54 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 79.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, O'Connell and Rawson.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 79:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 79 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 103.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and Tiffany.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 103:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 103 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 38.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 38:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Assembly Bill No. 38 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess until 4:45 p.m.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 11:38 a.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 5:02 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
MOTIONS,
RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
The Sergeant at Arms announced that Assemblywoman Koivisto and Assemblyman Geddes were at the bar of the Senate. Assemblywoman Koivisto invited the Senate to meet in Joint Session with the Assembly to hear Chief Justice Deborah A. Agosti.
Madam President announced that if there were no objections, the Senate would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Senate in recess at 5:03 p.m.
IN JOINT SESSION
At 5:05 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
The Secretary of the Senate called the Senate roll.
All present except Senators Care, Coffin, Mathews and Nolan, who were excused.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly called the Assembly roll.
All present except Assemblyman Mortenson and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall, who were excused.
Madam President appointed a Committee on Escort consisting of Senator O'Connell and Assemblywoman Leslie to wait upon Chief Justice Deborah A. Agosti and escort her to the Assembly Chamber.
Chief Justice Agosti delivered her message.
Message
to the Legislature of Nevada
Seventy-second
Session
Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker pro Tempore,
Attorney General Sandoval, Controller Augustine, Treasurer Krolicki, Chief
Secretary of State Parker, my colleagues at the Supreme Court of Nevada,
colleagues, the judges present here tonight from all levels of the courts of
Nevada, invited guests and friends, good afternoon. My name is Deborah Agosti.
I am here, today, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Nevada. Just a few short
weeks ago, I assumed the duties of Chief Justice, and so it is my privilege and
my responsibility to speak to you about the State of Nevada's Judiciary. I
particularly want to thank you for permitting me this opportunity to inform you
of some of the major substantive developments within the judicial branch of
government in Nevada.
I would
like to introduce my colleagues who are here with me: Justice Robert Rose,
Justice Bill Maupin, Justice Myron E. Leavitt, Justice Nancy Becker and our most
recently invested colleague, Justice Mark Gibbons. Also present is the
President of the Nevada Judges Association (NJA), Judge Dan Ward, Justice of
the Peace in New River Township, Fallon. The NJA’s membership includes
Nevada’s justices of the peace and municipal court judges, and he is here
tonight representing that organization. Judge Jim Hardesty, Vice President of
the Nevada District Judges Association, is standing in for President Dan Papez,
who lives in Ely, and was unable to be here. There are many judges here from
all levels of the Courts in Nevada. They are eager to meet with you, the
Legislators, at the reception following my remarks, to tell you about
challenges for them today and the solutions they are attempting. Would the
judges please stand.
I've
invited a number of guests to be here because of their close association with
the Courts of Nevada and their contributions to the strength of the Judiciary.
I would like to introduce the President of the State Bar of Nevada, Gloria
Sturman; and Alan Kimbrough, the Executive Director of the State Bar. The bench
and the bar have enjoyed an excellent working relationship as we've addressed
matters of mutual concern. I would like to introduce the Dean of the Boyd
School of Law at UNLV, Richard Morgan. Please join me in congratulating Dean
Morgan for accomplishing so much at Boyd Law School in such record-breaking
time. We learned just several days ago that the school has been awarded full
accreditation by the American Bar Association. That is a credit not only to
Dean Morgan, his students and his faculty but also to you, the Legislature, and
the many interested and involved individuals across the State that made the
school possible. I also want to introduce to you the President of the National
Judicial College, William Dressel. The College, which is situated in Reno, as
you know, plays a fundamental role in providing education to all levels of the
State Court Trial Judges in the country. The Nevada Judiciary has been
particularly blessed by its close association with the College and has
benefited from the many educational opportunities it presents. This is a
special year for the National Judicial College, which is celebrating forty
years of service to judges and to justice. Next, I would like to introduce to
you two people who haven't directly contributed anything, not one tin nickel,
to the judicial system in Nevada, but they make my day, every day. These are
two of the finest young men I've ever met, my sons, Anthony and Austen Walsh.
I also wish
to acknowledge the presence of our State Court Administrator, Ron Titus, and
our Clerk of the Supreme Court, Janette Bloom. Mr. Titus and Ms. Bloom are
joined tonight by several members of their capable staffs. Rather than
introduce all the Court's personnel to you now, I would instead remind you of
the Supreme Court's invitation for all of you to join us after the conclusion
of my remarks for a reception at the Supreme Court building next door. It's a
short walk, neighbors! I hope you will have the opportunity there to visit,
informally, with me, the justices, the many judges from across the State that
are here this evening, the staff of the Court, and the staff of the
Administrative Office of the Courts. Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank
my judicial assistant, Jeannette Miller, for all her hard work in connection
with this address.
I want to
briefly tell you a little bit about myself because I realize that for many of
you, I am a new face. I have just begun my twenty-first year as a judge, and
people have long since stopped calling me “that young lady on the bench.” I
served for two years as a justice of the peace in Reno Township and for
fourteen years as a judge in the 2nd Judicial Court in Washoe County. I am in
my fifth year of service as a member of the Supreme Court.
We expect
much when we speak of justice and the judicial system. We want fairness, equal
treatment under the law for all, accessibility regardless of wealth,
opportunity to be heard, swift determinations, harmony and happy endings. Yet,
when we speak of justice and the judicial system in America, we hear the words
overcrowded, unresponsive, expensive, slow, cumbersome and inaccessible. Albert
Einstein described a fundamental law of Physics that applies to modern
institutions as well. He said, “Nothing happens until something moves.” I am
proud to tell you the Nevada Courts are on the move.
In
preparation for my report to you concerning the state of the Judiciary, I
corresponded with judges at every level; the District Court, the Justices Court,
the Municipal Court, and I asked the representatives of these courts to
describe for me, so I could describe for you, some of the more substantial
developments that have taken place in the two years that have passed since the
last time this address was delivered. The responses I received were so
overwhelming that it is, literally, not possible for me to tell you about all
or even a good portion of the programs, experiments, services, projects and
innovations taking place in the Courts across Nevada. I have assembled a binder
that contains the many letters I received from the Courts. The binder will be
at the reception and I invite you to peruse it there. This binder documents a
phenomenon that has taken place in the Judiciary in Nevada. That is the very real
changes that have taken place in the way judges think about justice and in the
way they view their mission to the communities they serve. That change in
thinking is now reflected in the way the Courts of this State do business.
From my
vantage point, observing the Courts on a daily basis from within for over
twenty years, I believe the changes in approach and performance by the
Courts represents a very real and substantive shift in the way we dispense
justice in this State. We are witnessing the coming of age within the Courts of
a new approach which is an active management style with respect to cases; a
pro-active address of societal problems like poverty, drug and alcohol abuse,
domestic violence; a problem-solving philosophy and community oriented in
nature. No longer is the judicial role limited to dispute resolution through
the traditional adversarial mechanism of trial. Our judges no longer perceive
their function as solely and slowly to decide the cases that come to them. The
Courts are now addressing broader societal problems in a systematic way and
attempting to improve the delivery of justice and to do their part in
partnership with other entities to improve their communities and the delivery
of justice. I am so proud to be here representing a vital, pro-active, socially
responsive, problem-solving Judiciary and conscientious men and women who have
dedicated themselves and given of themselves for the cause of the improvement
of the quality of justice in Nevada. We observe this phenomenon of physics and
institutions as described by Einstein, this movement that creates and foments
change, in specific, identifiable areas of law. And again, I will describe some
of the highlights, but there is no way I can talk about all the work of all the
Courts in the time I have.
First, in
the area of families and children; this year we celebrate the tenth anniversary
of creation of the Family Court as a specialty area within the District Court.
It isn't just about hearing divorce cases anymore. Both the 2nd Judicial
District, Washoe County; and the 8th Judicial District, Clark County;
offer self-help centers where self-represented individuals, primarily indigent
persons, can obtain information and reliable forms to assist them in preparing
themselves for court in such matters as divorce, custody, visitation, support
and domestic violence cases. If you can, I encourage you to visit the Clark
County’s self-help center. It is a beehive of constant activity, and it hums.
Washoe County has acquired some grant funds and used the funds to hire for its
self-help center a part-time Spanish speaking paralegal to assist
Spanish-speaking victims of domestic violence. Also, under the domain of the
Family Court jurisdiction, are guardianship proceedings. These can be very
difficult cases, where the court wants to protect the ward’s person and
property but may have no way to independently assess whether a guardian’s
actions are truly in the ward’s best interests. Washoe County, this past year,
began the Special Advocates for Elders (SAFE) program, which is the first of
its kind in the Nation. The SAFE program functions much like the Court
Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program does in the area of children. SAFE
trains and assigns volunteers to assist elderly wards in guardianship cases and
to provide the Court with valuable information to help guide the Court to
humane and appropriate decisions affecting the lives of our elderly, who as the
result of infirmity, can no longer make these decisions for themselves.
Both of our
State’s large urban courts have instituted specialty drug courts within the
juvenile and family court systems. In Clark County, the ribbon was cut in 2002,
opening Donna's House, a supervised visitation center and a supervised safe
exchange point for parents in conflict. Once again, grant money was sought out
to bring about this badly needed pilot program. Donna’s House, by the way, was
named for a woman who had worked in the Clerk's Office in Clark County. Her
daughter witnessed Donna's violent death which was the result of domestic
violence. We hope Donna's House will prevent repetition elsewhere in Clark
County of that tragedy. Mediation is encouraged and supported in the family
courts and, indeed, in every district court that hears family matters in
Nevada. Clark County’s Family Mediation Center provided mediation services to
well over 3,000 families in the last two years. In 2002, 88 percent of the
families there successfully mediated their child custody issues. The savings
are not just in the time the Courts might have spent hearing otherwise
contested matters, but in the lives of the children whose parents are learning
to resolve their differences in positive, meaningful and nonadversarial ways.
In the 6th
Judicial District, which encompasses Humboldt, Lander and Pershing Counties,
and in the 7th Judicial District, which encompasses White Pine,
Eureka and Lincoln Counties, the Courts have focused attention on the
prevention of juvenile delinquency. In the 7th, the Juvenile Diversion Program
was launched in 2002 in partnership with Ely State Prison. The program teaches
children about choices through a tightly controlled visitation experience at
the State Prison. And unlike the controversial and ultimately unsuccessful
Scared Straight programs of the past, this program is positive in nature,
emphasizing responsible decision-making.
In the 6th
Judicial District, the Court has partnered in Lovelock and Winnemucca
with the boards of county commissioners and school districts there to actually
purchase or build and staff alternative education schools for at-risk youths.
Negotiations are underway to do the same in Battle Mountain. Once again, the
6th Judicial District has searched out grant money to bring these changes to
these rural communities. In the 4th Judicial District, which encompasses Elko
County, Teen Court has been operating very successfully for several years under
that court’s direction. Elko County’s court has also instituted the Divided
Family Workshop, at a modest cost to the participants, which again stresses to
parents who are in dispute over custody and visitation issues the importance of
working together, despite their personal differences. A mental health
professional facilitates the workshop and helps the participants to learn
communication skills and cooperation strategies.
In the area
of criminal law, the courts have forged ahead with highly successful specialty
therapeutic court programs. I would like to introduce Judges Archie Blake from
the 3rd Judicial District, which includes Lyon and Churchill Counties, and
Peter I. Breen of the 2nd Judicial District, which is Washoe County. Judge
Breen is the longest sitting District Judge in the State of Nevada, having
taken the bench in January of 1974. I was privileged to work with him for
fourteen years in Washoe, and I can personally attest that he is the moving
force behind Washoe County's highly successful Drug Court and Mental Health
Court. Judge Blake, a 15-year veteran of the District Court bench, presides
over one of the most important innovative programs in our judicial system, a
regional drug court. This very unique drug court was created by the rural
judges to address drug-driven criminal activities in their jurisdictions while
also solving the chronic rural problem of scarce resources by sharing resources
among the 1st, 3rd and 9th Judicial Districts, the 1st being Carson City and
Storey County and the 9th being Douglas County. Again, the 3rd is Lyon and
Churchill Counties. With grant money and with funds authorized by the
Legislature and the cooperative efforts of the district attorney's, law
enforcement, public defenders and local governmental bodies, offenders are
treated in the Western Regional Drug Court at an extraordinarily successful
rate. Since September of 2001, 140 offenders have entered the program and only
12 percent have washed out.
In civil law, the Courts have searched, studied, experimented and
found better ways to actively and successfully manage the growing case loads
and the increasingly complex cases. Time doesn't permit me to provide the kind
of detail their efforts truly deserve, but I do wish to highlight two
significant innovations in Clark County. The first is a new tool to permit
parties with cases that are not of substantial monetary value to access the
Court in a speedy and less expensive way than through the traditional trial
process. Called the Short Trial Program, it uses four-person juries and
accelerates the actual trial presentation process with the goal of concluding
the case in one day. Uncomplicated cases of modest monetary value are heard by
attorneys who preside as pro-tem judges, thereby freeing up valuable time for
the District Court. The potential for the Short Trial Program is enormous. In
2002, 47 cases were resolved through trial or settlement in this new program.
The second
innovation, one you can actually touch, walk into and observe, is the Complex
Litigation Center space leased in Clark County and converted for use in
extremely complicated multiple party cases, primarily the construction-defect
cases. This courtroom accommodates up to fifty counsels along with their
clients and has a public seating gallery of one hundred. It is done
inexpensively. The chairs for the lawyers and the public and counsel tables are
all collapsible and movable for maximum flexibility and functionality. If the
size of the case is larger, bring in more chairs and more tables. If smaller,
move them out. It is wired for visual aids, computer access, PowerPoint slides
and the like. When I visited the Center with Justice Gibbons, I had the
opportunity to watch Judge Alan Earl, an incredibly hard working and competent
judge in Clark County, conduct a construction-defect case. We didn’t mean to
interrupt the proceedings, but to my embarrassment, Judge Earl halted the
proceedings and introduced Justice Gibbons and me to the jury, litigants and
attorneys. The jurors actually expressed to us their satisfaction with the
facility.
A
combination of programs and policies in Washoe County, including its no-bump,
no continuance for little reason policy of civil cases set for trial, pre-trial
conferencing of every case within 60 days of its being filed, comprehensive
case settlement mediated by a sitting judge and the institution of Business
Court has resulted in significant delay reduction and enhanced case disposition
there despite a 23+ percentage increase last
year in case filings.
All the
District Courts and significant numbers of the justices and Municipal Courts
are using technology to increase their efficiency. The 8th, Clark
County, has recently implemented an impressive e-filing system for complex
litigation cases. Several courts at all levels and the Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC), on behalf of the rural courts, have adopted software known as
Court-View which will permit them to communicate electronically with less
possibility of error and increase standardization which is always desirable.
The Sparks
Justices Court, in a pilot program, is the first court in the State to actually
receive traffic citations from the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department,
electronically. The deputies use hand-held computers to issue the citations;
the citations are downloaded to the Sheriff’s main computer. From there, clerks
at Sparks Justices Court retrieve and print all the citations meant for their
court. By passing citations electronically, data entry by court clerks is
virtually eliminated, in turn, eliminating delay and waste, reducing staff time
and the possibility of error when the same data is entered again and again.
Once the case is concluded, the Sparks Court can forward the dispositions
immediately to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) once they are in a
position to retrieve them. And that is expected in the near future.
The 8th
Judicial District's web site in Clark County makes self-help legal forms
available over the Internet. Even the 4th, in Elko, makes court forms in
domestic relation cases available on the Internet.
The MC-IJIS
project, the Multi-County Integrated Justice Information System, which is also
known as the Griffin Project because it is the brainchild of District Judge
Mike Griffin here in Carson City, began as an electronic information-sharing
system for all the criminal justice entities in Carson City, Storey, Churchill
and Lyon Counties. It has grown. It is nearing completion. When it becomes
operational, it will permit the sharing of data in criminal cases among the
Courts, law enforcement entities as well as the State Criminal History
Repository. What began as a rural project soon demonstrated its potential for
statewide application. It should be on-line this year.
And not to
be outdone, the Henderson Municipal Court expects this year to provide
real-time video/audio streaming access via the Internet to all its court
proceedings. You can watch your spouse take their speeding ticket to Henderson
Municipal Court, and you don’t have to leave home.
At the
Supreme Court level, we have been busy both administratively and in addressing
the caseload. We commenced and completed the Jury Improvement Commission; the
results of which we hope will benefit the Courts and the public we serve in
terms of cost savings and improvement in the procedures of trial, which we hope
will advance the cause of justice. We look forward to working with the
Legislature as you consider statutory changes in exemptions and the method of
juror compensation that we will request as a result of the commission’s
recommendations. We have worked closely with the State Bar Association on the
multi‑jurisdictional practice of law making Nevada the first state in the
Union to adopt comprehensive rules regulating multi-state practice. We have
revised our own bar admission rules and will begin offering the bar examination
two times a year in 2004.
We revised
our rules governing the limited admission to practice in Nevada under
circumstances that will benefit the work of Legal Services Corporations and
public service with the district attorney and the public defender, primarily,
in rural areas. In capital cases, we have adopted rules governing the appointment
of panels. Many other projects were undertaken to address such areas as the
management of construction-defect cases, expansion of drug courts and the
expansion of alternative dispute-resolution programs, including the Short Jury
Trial Program and mandatory arbitration. We have worked closely with the
District, Justices and Municipal Courts to revitalize the state and regional
judicial councils. At the Supreme Court, we have extensively revised our
internal operating procedures as we continue our efforts to expedite justice in
our case dispositions. On that point, 1,711 cases were filed in 2002. We have
not experienced an increase in our annual filings over the last five or six
years. We have continued to attack the backlog, with further case reductions in
the past two years of 341 cases. Our total case inventory is currently at 1,363
cases. We can’t properly call this a backlog anymore, as many of these cases
are not yet at issue; they are still in the pipeline awaiting full briefing, or
records from the trial court or argument or disposition discussion.
The panel
system has been very helpful in addressing the backlog but as we gain
experience with the panel process so do the attorneys. As a result, we are
seeing the same case several additional times in the form of motions for
rehearing by the panel and reconsideration and rehearing by the en banc Court.
When a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is made, by its nature it
activates a complete review of the case and the record by the Court. These
motions require, then, a great deal of time and resources to be handled
responsibly.
We have
given a great deal of thought to our aspirations for the institution of an
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) in Nevada. We consider the eventual creation
of such a court an indispensable feature of the court system in Nevada in its
future. However, we are cognizant of several realities. First, filings in the
Supreme Court have not increased. In graphing out the development of our
caseload, you can actually see that the Court’s filings seem to increase and
then level off, increase and level off, each time at a higher level. But, while
we are in a period of level filings, and while we have done so much to decrease
the backlog and expedite cases, we recognize that during this time of financial
uncertainty and fragility, the citizens of Nevada may be hard pressed to agree
to spend tax dollars to fund a new appellate court. They would have the final
say because they would vote. As Justice Bob Rose has said so many times in the
past, in reference to the expected increase in the Supreme Court’s caseload,
“We know the train is on the track, we just don’t know when it will get here.”
After much reflection and discussion as a court and with somber hearts, we will
ask you to enact legislation authorizing the creation of an IAC as a first-time
process. We will also seek to change the language of the proposed
constitutional amendment from the mandatory language used in the past, “the
Legislature must create an IAC,” to permissive language, “the Legislature may
create an IAC.” We would then leave it to you to decide when the time is right
and the money is available for the implementation of this Court.
The
Settlement Program at the Supreme Court continues to support our efforts with
the caseload as well. We could not deal effectively and expeditiously with the
current incoming cases without that program. The money appropriated for the
Settlement Program is money well spent. Of the cases referred to the Settlement
Program, we continue to experience a successful settlement rate of around 54
percent.
What is the
Supreme Court’s direction, and the future direction of the Courts of this
State? In a word, technology. The heart of our proposed budget is technology.
As I speak, the Supreme Court is in poor shape technologically. With the
institution of an in-house Information Technology Committee, comprised of
representatives of the AOC, the staff of the Court, and Justices of the Court,
we have identified our areas of deficiencies and extended our existing
resources as best we can to address the deficiencies. We are possibly the last
state Supreme Court in the United States to go on-line with a web site. That
happened just a couple of months ago. It is a small website, and it is not an
interactive website. It is static. The site does not allow for e-filing, access
to the Court’s calendar, docket, schedule, documents, or records of cases, or
for any case status. We were the last state in the Union to put our published
opinions on-line, and they are only on-line now due to the largesse of the
Legislative Counsel Bureau which maintains them for us on their website.
We have no
imaged documents in the Supreme Court. I have no ability to electronically
access briefs or pleadings filed by the parties. Because of inadequate storage
space, we do not require the parties to file seven copies of every document.
So, if I want to see a brief in a case, because of a question that I have, I
need to order the briefs from the Clerk’s Office. Aside from the stress this puts
on the Clerk’s Office to locate, pull and deliver the material requested, by
the time it gets to me, some time has passed. I may be on to the next case, and
I’ve forgotten my question. In the daily use of our computers, we have no one
readily available on staff to assist any of the Supreme Court’s 84 staff
members and Justices in answering questions concerning the software we utilize
much less to provide needed training in the software we all use daily, like
Word, or could use if we knew how to use it. We have it; we just don’t know how
to use it, which is why I am not up here with PowerPoint. It is things like
PowerPoint and Excel that we have not yet learned. I admit it.
We have no
one but the Clerk and her hardware-technical staff with sufficient knowledge of
our Case Management System to provide training to the Judges on that system.
And the Clerk and the hardware technicians are stretched far too thin in their
duties to do anything other than answer questions when posed. We rely upon the
AOC staff, which we share with the rest of the Courts in the State, to assist
when we experience glitches.
With
respect to the Internet and e-filing, the public and the legal community have
come to expect and demand electronic services and electronic access to the Courts.
And yet, no member of the public can access our records here at the Court, nor
as mentioned, our schedules, dockets, calendar or cases.
With
respect to the future of the Courts in Nevada, I will convene two commissions
this year. Neither one is going to be front-page news but will help the Court
to operate with integrity in the future and will allow us to plan for the
future needs of the Courts.
First, I
plan a commission to achieve consensus in the application of administrative
assessments and in their collections. It is important to the integrity of the
judicial system that people who are charged with infractions, no matter how
minor, be treated fairly and uniformly by the various courts. Right now, there are differences in when
administrative fees will be assessed and collected. I believe that, if the
Lower Courts can agree upon and then buy into a uniform process, the entire
system will benefit, and we will learn much about the volatility of this source
of revenue and perhaps enhance its stability to some degree.
The second
commission is to study the funding of every court in this State. The
Legislative audit of the Courts of Nevada pointed out the need for Courts at
all levels to have uniform collection practices. And yet, we know that all the
Courts of this State are not funded at the same level. Each municipal and
justices and district court must seek its own funding from its city council or
county commission. As a result, some courts are treated more generously than
others and some are better equipped than others to respond to requests to
change and enhance local practices. But until we know more about the financial
health of each court in this State, we are not in a position to evaluate
whether any possible changes are realistic to suggest to them. Also, because we
anticipate that at some point there will be a discussion concerning whether
Nevada should explore a unified court system, we must have this baseline data
and some preliminary recommendations from the commission in order to, intelligently,
evaluate the health of these courts and what position the Courts might take.
It is one
thing to talk about the Supreme Court of Nevada as the administrative head of
all the Courts. It is quite another for the Supreme Court to attempt to
exercise close supervision of the Lower Courts when we have no say over and
little knowledge of their financial health. For the Courts to continue the
great collegiality that has come to exist from working together, I believe we
must respect the positions we might put the Lower Courts in if we tried to
require them to do things they cannot afford to do. I hope this Commission on
Court Funding will benefit the Courts and the Legislature in evaluating future
proposals for changes in the court structure.
As I close,
I want to tell you about the Justice of the Peace in Austin, Nevada. Judge Jim
Anderson runs a small court in a small rural community. When a member of his
community comes in to file a small claims action, Judge Anderson calls to
action his courtesy letter program. Before accepting the case for filing, the
judge offers to send a letter to the proposed defendant, from the Court,
letting that person know that the plaintiff might take action. Knowing that
people who can settle their differences are often happier than those who go to
court, and knowing that in a small town, resort to the Court can lead to years
of hard feelings and tension, this judge has taken it upon himself to give the
parties a chance to work things out. Last year, out of 24 cases that might have
been filed, only 11 actually needed to be filed. Now, true, this might not work
in Las Vegas, but Judge Anderson’s resourcefulness and concern for the well
being of his community exemplifies, to me and I hope to you, the spirit that is
moving within the Judiciary of this State, a desire to be the something that
moves to make things happen.
The
principle upon which all the attributes of a well functioning judicial system
rests is allegiance to the rule of law. Ours is a government and society of
laws. Whether it be the Magna Carta,
the Ten Commandments or the Justinian Code, faithfulness to the rule of law
creates order, predictability and result; harmony provides for fairness and
equal application of justice so that we do not descend into lawlessness. In
knowing the boundaries, we respect them and one another. We protect the rule of
law. We honor it. The many judicial programs, projects and innovations I’ve
outlined for you exist because judges want to assure that the Judicial System
continues to operate as it should, so that the rule of law might exist in a
healthy fashion.
What does
it take for the system to work? It takes you. It takes me. It takes everyone,
all of us, supporting the system, behaving reasonably, agreeing to the broad
principles upon which the system is based, even if there is disagreement as to
the details.
Socrates
said: “Four things belong to a judge:
to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide
impartially."
It is with
pride that I represent to you, the lawmakers of Nevada, that the state of the
Judiciary here is good, sound, principled and heading for the future. We look
forward to a positive interaction with you through the days remaining in this
Legislative Session.
I thank you.
Senator Neal moved that the Senate and Assembly in Joint Session extend a vote of thanks to Chief Justice Agosti for her timely, able and constructive message.
Motion carried.
The Committee on Escort escorted Chief Justice Agosti to the bar of the Assembly.
Senator Carlton moved that the Joint Session be dissolved.
Motion carried.
Joint Session dissolved at 5:50 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 5:55 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Cegavske, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Jessica Kincaid.
On request of Senator Rhoads, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following staff and students from the Winnemucca Junior High School: Jessica Ragan, Ryan Guariglia, Kody Young, Melissa Ragan, Ashley Maden, Alicia Echevarria, Ty Braginton, Codi Miller, Jessica Green, Ashley Angus, Jessell Owens, Allyson Raynor, Heather Boni, Amber Padilla, Molly Kinkalaar, Meg Gust, Jay Brissenden, Michael Forney, Laura Klegseth, Madison Gray and teacher: Herb Criswell.
On request of Senator Titus, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Bonnie Duritsa, Dave Duritsa, Kelly Burns, Eddie Schmidt, Troy Moyers, Anthony DaRoss, David Eising, Homer Morehead, Paul Callahan, Jan Dwylitis, Bob Hebel, Dick Grobe, Dick Lash and Stewart Katz.
On request of Senator Wiener, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Tya Mathis.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, February 26, 2003, at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President
of the Senate
Attest: Claire J. Clift
Secretary of the Senate