MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 1, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:39 a.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. David Brown

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn

Mr. Marcus Conklin

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. William Horne

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Mr. Rod Sherer

 

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, District No. 23, Clark County

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Carrie Lee, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

James W. Hardesty, Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court, Department 9

Mike Haley, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Cheryl Runyon, Senior Fellow, National Conference of State Legislatures

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and representing the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association

Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Operations, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Judy Stokey, representing Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum

David Slattery, Physician, University Medical Center, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas

Kathy Deuel, Citizen

Jeff Page, Lyon County

Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association

Steve Walker, representing the Truckee Meadows Water Authority

Mark Foree, Director, Operations, Truckee Meadows Water Authority

Fergus Laughridge, Supervisor, Emergency Medical Services, Division of Health, Nevada Department of Human Resources

Rick Bareuther, representing the City of Sparks

Richard Mirgon, Director, Emergency Management and 911-Communications, Douglas County

Laura Mijanovich, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union-Nevada

Andy Belanger, representing the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority

Ron Dreher, Small Business Owner and Licensed Private Investigator

Lucille Lusk, Cochairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Chairman Anderson:

[Called the meeting to order.  Roll called.  The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette.]  A quorum is present. 

 

Let’s begin with Assembly Bill 303.

 

Assembly Bill 303:  Revises provisions pertaining to local facilities for detention. (BDR 16-578)

 

Jim Nadeau, representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:

[Introduced himself.]  The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office asked for this bill to be brought forward on behalf of both the courts and the sheriff’s office to try to deal with an overcrowding, or potential overcrowding, in the Washoe County Jail.  Captain Mike Haley and District Court Judge Jim Hardesty will handle the testimony on why we came forward with this bill.  What we would like to do is to submit an amendment.  I submitted a copy to your office a while back, and also have copies today (Exhibit C).  We would like to amend the bill as a whole, and take all of the language that is in here and make a nice, clean, one-page bill.  Judge Hardesty will talk about the process, and Captain Haley will address some of our overcrowding issues.

 

James W. Hardesty, Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court, Department 9:

[Introduced himself.]  In Washoe County, we have what is called the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee.  It is a committee that is appointed by the chief judge of the district and has on it representatives of all phases of the criminal justice system.  Among the things that we examine is the issue of jail overcrowding.  This is a serious problem in Washoe County.  Our jail currently handles a capacity of approximately 1,100, yet many more people are assigned to the jail and we deal with that through alternative sentencings and incarcerations.  The issue is how you deal with jail overcrowding, and as we examined this issue last fall, we looked at Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 211.130 and NRS 211.240 and discovered that the statute, as currently written, is very restrictive in the ability to deal with jail overcrowding.  In talking with my counterpart in the south, then Chief Judge Mark Gibbons, he indicated that Clark County has, for a number of years, utilized an order signed by the chief judge to the sheriff to deal with jail overcrowding.  The order provides more flexibility and allows for the chief judge to release certain people under certain conditions when there is a jail overcrowding condition.

 

My concern is that the order that was used did not exactly track the statute and I thought we ought to clean it up.  We are simply asking that the statute be amended to empower the chief judge to enter an order dealing with jail overcrowding issues.  At the request of the sheriff, a request is made identifying the presence of a jail overcrowding condition and the chief judge will enter an order to deal with that situation.  Jail overcrowding conditions in Las Vegas are different than jail overcrowding conditions in Washoe County and how we deal with them is different as well.  This allows us the flexibility to handle these matters through the chief judge of the district and the sheriff, and that is the purpose behind the bill.

 

Through our Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, we have formulated a plan on how to deal with jail overcrowding.  The plan would become embodied in the order, and would be periodically reviewed and modified, based upon the conditions that may exist.  That is the purpose behind the bill.

 

From the judiciary’s point of view, we would not mind if this executive branch function was totally handled by the executive branch.  However, there are a lot of issues that need to be considered when releasing defendants.  In Washoe County we probably have right now 1,050 or so in the jail.  We are always bumping up against the maximum capacity of the jail and the sheriff constantly has to release a large number of people on alternative incarceration—house arrest and supervision of 600 or more.  We have the “worst of the worst” in jail.  When you are considering reducing overcrowding conditions, one needs to be very careful in examining which defendants should be released and under what conditions they should be released.  Many times you are releasing people who may be in there as a result of a municipal court or justice of the peace order.  It is the collective view of all the people involved in the system that the chief judge is probably in the best position to make those determinations, so this is an added responsibility on the chief judge working with the sheriff.

 

Chairman Anderson:

In submitting this original bill draft, which obviously the Legal Division must have put a little bit of time into coming up with all the verbiage here, did you participate, Mr. Nadeau, in helping draft this piece of legislation the way it came out from bill drafting or is this how you requested it? 

 

Jim Nadeau:

This is the way we requested it.  We based it on language that we found in a Michigan State statute that dealt with jail overcrowding.  The difference in Michigan is that they have a unified court system, wherein in Nevada we do not.  We spent a lot of time putting this together and working with the bill drafters, but by the time we came up with the alternative language, it was so far into the drafting process and they were bumping into some deadlines, it was easier for them to just draft it with this language.  The old language was very cumbersome and required significantly more work than what the new language does.  The new language still requires the cooperative effort of all the individuals involved, but does not require as cumbersome a process.

 

Judge James Hardesty:

The original bill did track a Michigan pattern and it was proposed by Washoe County’s jail consultant.  The principal point he made is we have to do something about jail overcrowding in Washoe County and he was making his proposals from different states.  But all we had to do was look to our sister jurisdiction in the Eighth Judicial District, get a copy of their order, pattern the approach that they take, and clean up the language, and we found that we have a much more efficient operation.  The only thing that I am authorized to tell you is that the judges from the Eighth Judicial District support the amendment, as does the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. 

 

The other point I wanted to make is that we discovered there are different approaches in the way we handle jail overcrowding and the release of defendants, and I think the preference is to allow each of the chief judges to approach their respective districts in the way they prefer to handle it, through the order entered by the chief judge.  The one problem that is presented with the existing legislation is that Clark County, even though they currently handle it through order has to renew the order every 30 days because that is what the current legislation provides for.  We would like to be able to have a more permanent situation.

 

Chairman Anderson:

In striking the language under NRS 211.130, “unless the judge or justice of the peace sentencing the prisoner for good cause orders otherwise,” are you then going to take away judicial discretion?  I hesitate to point that out because the Committee gets into trouble taking away judicial discretion.

 

Judge James Hardesty:

What you are doing is transferring the judicial discretion to the chief judge of the district, and that is the purpose of the bill, to allow that decision to be made by order of the chief judge.  The situation that is presented is this:  The sheriff is faced with orders from some judges who routinely prevent or preclude any consideration of alternative incarceration by some defendants.  This can complicate jail-overcrowding situations, and in effect, the chief judge of the district is in a position to look at that file and change that determination if it is appropriate in that circumstance. 

 

But you are not removing discretion from the judge in sentencing; it is only in a jail-overcrowding situation that you are empowering the chief judge of the district to override that sentencing decision by that municipal judge or justice of the peace.  Municipal court judges and justices of the peace sit on the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee and are in agreement with this bill and this approach.

 

Jim Nadeau:

We have also spoken with justice and municipal court organizations and they have indicated that they support the amendment.

 

Chairman Anderson:

We will see how our Legal Division deals with it, recognizing that it may not come out the way you have planned it but the way the Legal Division is going to look at it. 

 

Mike Haley, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:

[Introduced himself.]  I’d just like to run through some issues that weigh on this particular decision.  Right now we have 1,585 inmates that are under the control of the Washoe County Sheriff.  Approximately 450 of these inmates are outside of our facility on other creative programs that keep the jail population down.  We have a jail cap of 1,124; if the inmates that we have outside of our facility were to come back into our facility, and budget cuts can dictate that, you can see how overcrowded that facility would be.

 

Our jail is divided into four different area controls and each area houses a different type, sex, and protective level of inmate.  We have to be able to provide some vacant rooms in order to be able to classify and move different inmates around the facility, which allows us to run a very safe facility and keeps the disagreements, fights, and other attacks between inmates to a minimum.  The pending budget cuts that the sheriff’s office and everyone in this state are up against will have a huge impact on the jail population if we aren’t allowed to be creative in keeping inmates out of jail through programs that we have now, or through the ability of the chief district court judge to make critical decisions at critical times to keep the jail population to a manageable level. 

 

Our average daily population this year is 1,048.  Every day we book between 60 and 75 inmates, and on special events throughout the year, we traditionally will fill a housing unit overnight, so we have some very small margins of error that are available to us, and we believe this additional margin of error will be very much to our benefit in continuing to run a very quality facility.

 

Jim Nadeau:

Washoe County is addressing this issue, as far as the overcrowding aspect, and they are in the process of accumulating capital in order to build an additional facility so that we can address it both from a jail management position and from increased bed space.  We are working on it, and we view this more as a temporary measure at this particular time.

 

Judge James Hardesty:

Always a concern is the influence of the federal court in criticizing the way a jail is managed or its conditions, and this is an important step in avoiding any involvement by federal judges in telling the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office how to run their jail.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I agree that it is our concern.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I have a couple of questions.  First, where prisoners are deemed “sentenced to labor,” I want to follow up on the question asked by the Chairman.  You said that, right now, some judges are not doing this.  What are the reasons why they are not allowing this?  Also, the chief judge would not be in the position to individually assess, for example, the physical ability of a defendant.  The chief judge would be dealing with a paper review, unlike the judge actually in the courtroom.  Could you address this issue a little bit further?

 

Judge James Hardesty:

Some judges in Washoe County, I can’t speak to Clark County, have routinely placed a “no alternative incarceration consideration” on their sentencing.  The reasons for doing so are not clear, and there are differences of opinion between judges, and between judges and the sheriff’s office, over why they would do that.  The effect of this, however, is to preclude any consideration of that defendant for release from the jail to house arrest or to work programs that exist in the sheriff’s alternative incarceration unit. 

 

We have had discussions with some of the judges who engage in that practice about its appropriateness, and I think the discussion in the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee has changed the minds of some of those judges.  Nevertheless, there are still some judges who do it, and more importantly, it is a contributing factor to jail overcrowding.  It is not the factor; it is one of several.  The number of defendants is a big factor, as is the number of cases.

 

With respect to the second question you asked, and that is how to deal with jail overcrowding and a paper review, I would anticipate that it is more than a paper review; it might even involve a hearing to determine whether certain defendants should be released.  There are some categories of defendants who, for example, might not be considered for release such as those who are more violent.  It depends on the level of jail overcrowding you are experiencing and how much you need to reduce it. 

 

We have had discussions in the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee about whether certain categories of defendants should not be considered under any circumstances, and there are differences of opinion when you look at this from a policy standpoint.  Ultimately, somebody has to make that decision. 

 

The statistics in our jail show a large number of defendants who are incarcerated might be on their tenth or twelfth misdemeanor conviction and are serving a six‑month sentence; they may not be violent, but they need to be under some alternative supervision program.  If we can put them on an alternative day reporting, house-arrest-type of supervision or a labor program for a temporary basis for release, then we would be able to release them.  The current statute limits consideration of those defendants.  They cannot be released unless they are in the last five days of their sentence, so this isn’t an acceptable alternative.  We want to be able to be more creative than that.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Nevada Revised Statute 211.130 is just labor, so if a judge wants to have somebody considered for a diversion or early release program, that is not affected by this statute, right?

 

Jim Nadeau:

What we have experienced in the Washoe County Jail is that an inmate will be sentenced to six months in the Washoe County Jail, with no alternative sentencing considered; that is basically what the order from the court is.  About 10 percent of our population is in that capacity, which is 100 to 150 inmates, where the judge has sentenced that individual to jail time.  In other words, he cannot be considered for our house arrest or alternative program where he works within the community.  By that order, the judge has precluded us from any alternative program.  From that perspective, with this language in here, he wouldn’t be able to be considered for any early release or overcrowding consideration.  That is the reason we felt that that language needed to be struck, in order to give that inmate under the district judge’s court order, which is going to contain those elements into the restrictions that the chief district court judge sees as important.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Can we get copies of the various court orders in the different jurisdictions?

 

Jim Nadeau:

Of course.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I am a little concerned about this.  We spent so much time passing so many laws and debating the penalties, and then with one bill, that could go away.  I want to make sure because we would have no guidelines.  On the statute, it makes me a little uncomfortable, and I would like to see more of what exactly the jurisdictions are doing in their court orders.

 

Judge James Hardesty:

We will be happy to provide that, but this is only in a jail overcrowding condition, and you are only talking about a release of a certain number of defendants in order to accomplish that jail overcrowding issue.  It is not as though the chief judge is going to overturn all of the sentences that exist.  As a chief judge, this is a very weighty decision because the people who are in Washoe County’s jail are the worst of the worst, so when you are evaluating whether to release someone, you are making a very critical decision about putting that person back on the streets.  They are not going to be put out on the streets free, which is what the current statute would provide with no alternative supervision and no way to keep track of them.  We can impose those conditions through our orders and that is what we are going to do.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Let me draw your attention to NRS 211.130, subsection 2, the last paragraph, “unless the sentencing court has otherwise ordered in a particular case or has restricted the prisoner’s eligibility.”  Since you have removed the opportunity for the sentencing court to establish that, apparently there would be no need for that either.  Then, if we remove from NRS 211.240 the numerical requirement to demonstrate the need to the court, what is preventing the chief district court judge from overruling another judge after somebody’s sentenced off to a county jail?

 

Judge James Hardesty:

This has to be a request from the sheriff to the chief judge for relief from jail overcrowding.  The chief judge cannot initiate a change in sentencing unless there is a request made from the sheriff to relieve overcrowding.

 

Chairman Anderson:

So this is a relationship between two individuals?  The sheriff and the chief judge with no requirement that the judge has to say, “Show me the number of beds and the differences in beds and all the rest of those things,” as the original bill.

Judge James Hardesty:

This is a flexible issue.  We currently have a study taking place to determine our jail capacity.  Obviously, as you are able to adjust the facility or perhaps bring on other beds and other facilities, the jail capacity changes.  This jail capacity is set by Washoe County’s jail consultant, who is on a regular contract with Washoe County, and through the commissioner’s determination.  It is an arbitrary number in a sense that it is formulated through the jail consultant, county commissioners, and sheriff, but it is that number that is used to determine the overcrowding condition.

 

Capt. Mike Haley:

The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, as I am sure with Las Vegas, has been through a consent decree before.  A consent decree is somewhere we do not want to go because we lose the ability to be creative and to design and structure and have a say at this level as to where we want to go with our correctional environments.  We would be dictated to and it is a very costly process.  I think this is very well thought out.  We have professionals that are trying to find unique ways to avoid a jail that is over capacity and that creates increased liability for us.

 

Chairman Anderson:

With all due respect, while it may be very well thought out from the point of view of the person who is going to make the recommendation, moving from Black’s Law Dictionary to this doesn’t necessarily raise our comfort level when we can look down here and say that you have to look at 90 percent of the time having been spent and the number of beds available.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I know how difficult it is when the federal government comes in, because I was county commissioner in Elko when they came in on our jail before we built a new one, and you really have to stay out of that arena because you don’t have any leeway at all.

 

Judge James Hardesty:

With respect to the issue of discretion, the sheriff is charged with the responsibility of running that jail and the current statute is too arbitrary; it doesn’t even accomplish a jail overcrowding solution.  The current statute, as written, requires a defendant to serve 90 percent of their sentence, and may not be the best approach for that defendant.  We have so many different approaches to sentencing, it just doesn’t make sense to handle it in that fashion.  I would question the underlying testimony or thesis that was used to establish those numbers in the first place, because things have changed dramatically in being able to handle jail‑overcrowding conditions.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Anybody else testifying in support of Assembly Bill 303?  Anybody in opposition to Assembly Bill 303 with the suggested amendment, which guts the bill in its entirety?  I am going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 303.

 

Let’s open the hearing on Assembly Bill 441.  We have a video link to the National Council of State Legislatures in Colorado.  Mr. Speaker, good morning.  How are you this morning sir?

 

Assembly Bill 441:  Enacts provisions relating to ensuring security of State of Nevada and its residents with respect to acts of terrorism and related emergencies. (BDR 19-1139)

 

Speaker Richard Perkins, Assembly District No. 23, Clark County:

Very well sir, thank you.  It is great to be here.  I am here today to present to you Assembly Bill 441, which is a second bill that I have introduced to address the issue of terrorism.

 

I presented A.B. 250 on March 19, 2003.  While Assembly Bill 250 provides for criminal penalties relating to acts of terrorism, Assembly Bill 441 takes a comprehensive approach to protecting the state’s infrastructure and its citizens against terrorism.  Less than two weeks ago, the United States Department of Homeland Security raised the terror alert to orange, the second highest of five levels.  States across the country have responded by increasing security at airports, state buildings, chemical plants, nuclear facilities, symbolic sites, and national monuments.  The various states have also beefed up police presence along the United States border and at ports, and have added more inspections of vehicles at border crossings and access roads. 

 

These actions are very relevant to this bill and its provisions to protect Nevada’s infrastructure.  We all recognize that the war to protect our freedom against tyranny and terrorism did not start with the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, and that, unfortunately, the war against terrorism will not end any time soon.

 

All Americans should be familiar with the tale of Paul Revere, the patriot who rode into the Massachusetts countryside to warn the residents around Boston of the British soldiers approaching on April 18, 1775.  The following day, the battle for America’s freedom began when Minutemen, ordinary farmers and craftsmen, faced the British troops on Lexington Green.  As much as the front line in America’s first war for freedom was fought in the villages and the colonies, the front line of today’s war for freedom against terrorism will be fought in our local communities and states.  

 

[Speaker Richard Perkins continued.]  The Minutemen of today are those individuals we have designated as our first line of defense, or the first responders: the state and local police officers, firefighters, emergency responders, public health officials, and National Guardsmen.  Because I recognize that it is critical to protect the residents of Nevada and our visiting tourists against any possible act of terrorism, I introduced Assembly Bill 441 to give our first responders the tools they need to better respond to acts of terrorism and all emergencies.

 

During the past year, I had the privilege of serving as a member of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Task Force on Protecting Democracy.  The bipartisan task force was comprised of a handful of other legislative leaders and several legislative security staff, representing states in every region of the country.  The Task Force worked closely with several federal agencies including the Office, and now, the Department of Homeland Security and its director, Tom Ridge.  My idea for drafting and introducing A.B. 441 came about because of my work on the task force and my recognizing that Nevada needs legislation to improve several key elements of state security and emergency response.

 

The provisions of Assembly Bill 441 are consistent with what has been recommended by the NCSL Task Force and with legislation enacted or proposed in many other states.  For those of you who have not had the benefit of it, the task force did publish a report that is much more encompassing than this particular bill. 

 

Let me present a brief overview of Assembly Bill 441 and its major provisions.  In a very general sense, the bill enacts state security provisions concerning emergencies and acts of terror.  The bill addresses, among other things, critical infrastructures, government oversight and continuity, communications and interoperability, and government documents.  Section 12 creates the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security, appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Governor. 

 

Section 17 sets forth the duties of the Commission to include:

 

• Making recommendations to the Legislature

 

• Proposing goals and programs to counteract acts of terrorism

 

• Insuring the safety of Nevada’s residents and the critical infrastructure of the state by identifying the susceptibility of those infrastructures to terrorist acts

 

• Examining the use and deployment of response agencies

 

• Reviewing the interoperability of the state’s communication systems and the efficacy of the emergency 911 telephone systems

 

• Coordinating between government agencies to avoid duplicative emergency response programs and policies

 

• Conducting other activities to protect and enhance the safety of the state of Nevada, its residents and its visitors.

 

[Speaker Richard Perkins continued.]  Section 21 provides that certain documents are confidential and not subject to inspection by the public if the Governor determines by Executive Order that the disclosure or release of that document would threaten or jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the public.  Documents subject to this Executive Order power by the Governor include:

 

• Documents relating to information technology

 

• Assessments and plans that evaluate or reveal the susceptibility of buildings

 

• Communication systems and facilities to acts of terrorism

 

• Drawings, plans, maps or records revealing the design or internal structure of buildings

 

• Alarms, security systems, and other critical infrastructures

 

• Logs and records showing the location and movement of security personnel

 

• Facilities housing sensitive data or materials that are important to responding to terrorist acts

 

• Handbooks, manuals, or other forms of information detailing procedures to be followed in the event of a terrorist attack

 

• Maps and records of caches of equipment or pharmaceutical drugs for use during times of emergency

 

• Documents revealing the whereabouts of government officials during times of emergency.   

 

[Speaker Richard Perkins continued.]  To summarize the other major provisions of the bill, it revises provisions governing the issuance of state driver’s licenses and identification cards, and establishes a plan for the continuity of state government in certain cases of disaster or emergency.  In addition, it requires state agencies and political subdivisions to develop emergency response plans and plans for continuity of operations; it requires public utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments regarding potential terrorist attacks; and it requires certain public buildings to have one or more automated external defibrillators (AED) on the premises.

 

There are a number of concerns with the bill and I have full recognition of that.  We did not have the opportunity to do much refining, as the bill came out on the last day of bill drafting.  I consider many of the suggestions made to me very friendly to the bill, and would make the bill better.  With as many pages as it is, there are a number of things that need to be addressed.  There are some concerns by the Nevada Press Association about various documents that would be held outside of the public view.  As strongly as I feel about that, I think there are some areas that we can tighten up so that we are not just taking all documents from view, when necessary.  In my overview, I talked about plans and maps and architectural renderings.  It is not my intention to not have the public and the press provide some oversight when we build various public buildings to ensure that they are being built properly and with the most efficiency and the lowest cost.  That is not the intent there. 

 

There are some concerns from local government that the bill restricts their ability to do some things.  I think that some of those things need to be fixed, and I would also tell you that I think there are times when state government, as an umbrella, needs to coordinate the local government activities to make sure that they are being coordinated as efficiently as possible.  There was a concern raised about utilities providing information to the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security that they would not otherwise provide because they have their own internal security.  That, too, is something I think we can address.

 

The Office of the Governor has brought forward some concerns about the appointments to the Commission, how that Commission would work, and logistics.  Just as one anecdotal comment, I heard from the Emergency Management Coordinator from my own city and they wanted to—and I guess it goes to some of the public records issues—hold a homeland security or an emergency management-type meeting at the National Guard Building in Henderson.  Given our international state at this point in time, nobody can enter that building without providing some identification.  It was relayed to me that they were not allowed to have a “public meeting” in a building that required somebody to show identification.  That is just one example of some of the things that we probably will need to fix if we are going to move forward.

 

[Speaker Richard Perkins continued.]  An additional concern with the bill is in Section 15, where it states there will be no compensation for those members that participate on the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security.  In our efforts to be frugal this legislative session, that was provided in the bill.  It certainly makes no sense to me to have people with expertise give time out of their day, make sacrifices to do this, and not provide the normal compensation we would to somebody that does these types of things.

 

Section 5 relates to the definition of an “act of terrorism.”  I know that members of this Committee had some concerns with that definition in A.B. 250.  Whatever balance we can strike, that bill needs to be consistent with this one, as well as the first handful of sections in this bill need to be consistent with A.B. 250.

 

In Section 22, concerning the political subdivisions and continuity of government plans, I don’t know if it needs to be that detailed as long as the local governments have a plan for continuity of government.  I think that flexibility in the local arena should be granted.

 

Section 21 is the confidentiality of records; I have already spoken to that.  Section 27 precludes local and other governments from purchasing systems of communications or information systems until there is a plan in place, and that also provides a date of July 1, 2003.  That date, being a couple of months away, is certainly unrealistic and would need to be changed. 

 

There was a concern relayed to me about the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security having overly broad powers.  Section 17 defines what the Commission does and it does not dictate anything to anyone.  It is just a repository of information to review and provide that basic information back to those entities that are going to need it.

 

Section 25 talks about identification cards, and ultimately, to driver’s licenses later in the bill.  Part of this came from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  They may have a representative here that might have some language changes, but in essence what we are doing in Section 25 is making a felon out of somebody who has a false identification.  We did not want to make a felon out of some 19-year-old who wanted to use a fake ID to get into a place that they should not be in, so it does exclude somebody for the sole purpose of establishing false proof of age as listed in subsection 3 of Section 25.  We do know that various folks who are trying to commit criminal acts in this country have used false identification to perpetrate their crimes and that specifically is what Section 25 is trying to get at.

 

Section 30 addresses the automated external defibrillators.  I colluded with Vice Chairman Oceguera on that.  If there are questions about that, I will refer them to him. 

 

On page 18 of the bill, in Section 31, it further addresses driver’s licenses and identification cards.  We have interstate agreements with other states to receive their driver’s licenses, as they do ours in exchange, when we have somebody move.  What this allows the DMV to do is refuse another state’s driver’s licenses if their requirements aren’t as strict as ours in trying to determine the identification of somebody.  There are some public utilities commission’s issues on pages 22 and 23, having to do with utilities and their security.  I would be happy to try and field any questions if you have them.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Speaker Perkins relative to the bill?  Issues that anybody wishes to raise?  Speaker Perkins, would you like me to move to Ms. Runyon at the National Council of State Legislatures next?

 

Speaker Perkins:

That would probably be best.  Ms. Runyon did attend the Task Force meetings and could speak to what other states are doing, the consistency of this particular proposal with those states and other things.  I do recognize there are some things in this bill that need to be changed and I would leave it in your good hands.  I am sure you have members of this Committee that are already working on such things, and I would pledge my time to work with them to accomplish any of those goals.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Good morning Ms. Runyon.  Have you had an opportunity to review Assembly Bill 441?

 

Cheryl Runyon, Senior Fellow, National Conference of State Legislatures:

[Testifying from Denver, Colorado.]  Yes, I have reviewed the bill and I am amazed at the depth and breadth of it.  It certainly covers a wide variety of issues that we have raised through the “Let’s Roll!” report that Speaker Perkins referred to.  Speaker Perkins and Steve Watson, [Chief Deputy Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau], served as members of the Task Force on Protecting Democracy and they participated in the drafting and the development of the recommendations on a number of these topics, so I do appreciate this bill.  It looks at a number of the issues that our task force was trying to address, and I think they have made every effort to address some of the recommendations and include them in the bill, that we had included in the Task Force’s report.

 

If you need copies of that particular report, any other information that NCSL has developed related to terrorism, crimes, and penalties to driver’s licenses, state identification cards and fraud, or defibrillator legislation, please let me know as we have information available in print form and through our World Wide Web location.

 

Chairman Anderson:

We appreciate the hard work of the National Conference of State Legislatures.  For the people who are listening on the Internet who may not realize the purpose of the NCSL, it is a group of legislators throughout the United States who meet to discuss common problems, and we coordinate through NCSL those kinds of things that we find of common interest.  It is an important national organization that we all belong to by virtue of our election to the Legislature.  Ms. Runyon, how does this conform, or what do you want to share relative to how it conforms, to other states and what they are doing for our comfort level?

 

Cheryl Runyon:

In looking over the bill and some of the major components such as establishing the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security, our staff has been tracking what states have been doing relating to the development of homeland security committees, commissions, and divisions within either the Executive Office of the Governor or the Emergency Management Agency.  We do have some states, though there are not a large number of them, that have decided to develop a joint commission of both legislative and executive branch members and then involve the local government, the firefighters, the police, etcetera, so this would be even more reaching than what some of the states have done.  Again, I think this ensures that the legislature continues to have an oversight role in the development of policy.

 

Regarding the exceptions to open meeting laws, it recently occurred in Florida, where they had passed legislation following the September 11, 2001, attacks that they did hold their first-ever closed session under their new law providing for these special uses.  So there are other states that are using that particular form of legislation when the need arises.

 

[Cheryl Runyon continued.]  The local emergency response plan would most probably dovetail with the state comprehensive, or all hazards, plan.  In reviewing state emergency management legislation, there are a number of states that are requiring that local governments develop and write their own local emergency response plans, and even require them, as a term of art or practice, to establish an infinite command system, which I am sure we can get you more information about if you would require that.

 

We have also been working on another project related to continuity of state government.  Looking at the proposed legislation, it is very similar to legislation that we have already reviewed from other states.  Again state legislation varies in the level of detail regarding continuity of government, but this is very similar to what has been enacted in a number of states including New Mexico and Washington.  Some states probably developed their legislation in response to civil defense concerns and later rescinded their legislation regarding continuity of government, so I see this as an issue that is going to continue to arise.  We had a federal Continuity of Government Commission, which is looking at what the federal government should do, and they have been looking at state legislation.

 

Regarding the effect on utilities’ vulnerability assessments and developing an emergency response plan, our staff is working on a report.  It is in the draft stage at this point and regards energy security.

 

Regarding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) concerns, we have been tracking that related to energy and water security.  We have a document that tracks what has been enacted in a number of states at this point and we would be more than happy to share that information with you and your staff (Exhibit D).  Regarding interoperability, in looking at emergency management statutes, Nevada is probably almost ready to leapfrog over some of those states where they have had study groups at the executive branch level to look at the interoperability issues.  By tasking the proposed commission to look at that and then requiring that both the state and local governments work through those recommendations in making any purchases, I would say that Nevada will be leapfrogging over some of the other states that have not gotten to that point yet.

 

Regarding automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) and their placement in government buildings and other facilities, this appears to be the next generation of AED legislation.  We have seen one bill enacted before this, in New York, that required placement in schools, especially related to sporting events, but we have several other states that are looking at similar legislation this year.  In Illinois, although their bill requires the state to have the local governments place AEDs in schools and other public locations, they are not providing any state funding to purchase the AEDs, and that is raising some concerns about unfunded mandates.  Pennsylvania is also considering legislation requiring the placement of AEDs in schools and other public facilities. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Section 21 of the bill talks about what records are confidential if the Governor determines, by Executive Order, that their disclosure could compromise or jeopardize health, safety or welfare.  In looking at the list, documents related to information technology (IT), that could be our IT system that we discuss all the time.  It is so hard to specifically refine some of this material, while not being overly broad and, obviously, that is the goal.  What are other states looking at in this regard and can you count on the press not to do an exposé on where the alarm systems are in every building?  We have such a great tradition against censorship, and I am wondering if any other state has found a way to specifically write its statute to address some of these issues?

 

Cheryl Runyon:

We have been tracking the Freedom of Information Act statutes and had a conference call about two weeks ago with a gentleman at the University of Missouri who is with both their journalism and law schools.  This is one of the huge key issues, and he has helped us out through his web page, and through talking to him about what state legislation is available to try to balance the concern both of the media and the public for this information, and about what information needs to be protected because of potential security concerns. 

 

Our staff has been tracking the state FOIA legislation.  I will get that information and share it with Don Williams, [Chief Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau], and the other staff of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.  I know there were at least 20 states that have legislation related to this, and the perspective coming from the gentleman from the University of Missouri is that he would like the FOIA information to be as broad as possible, but he also understood what some of these concerns are.  He had raised the legislation based on what access was still available to the media and the press, and he had a few bills that we could point out to you where he has definite concerns about whether it should be applied in the future that the media would not have the access or would it take a length of time of going through the judiciary system in order to gain access to information.

 

Vice Chairman Oceguera:

Some of those building plans need to be held confidential, and what criminals do with the strategic plans in the movies is exactly what they do in real life.  Some of those strategic plans absolutely need to be held confidential.  We have seen on the national media where a newsperson shows where the troops are going.  It is the same kind of thing when they know our plan, and what the police and fire departments are going to do, they can go around that plan. 

 

Assemblyman Brown:

I happen to be a construction attorney, so plans and those types of things are documents that, on behalf of my clients, I have needed to subpoena from large-scale hotels, federal veterans homes, hospitals, etcetera.  Have any of these states, by Executive Order or otherwise, made such plans confidential and has there been any reconciliation with litigation that may need some of that litigation on construction projects?  In this state, it is fairly prolific.

 

Cheryl Runyon:

I will look through the Web pages that have been cited to us, both from the University of Missouri and a couple of other locations, to see whether they have an update on litigation and whether this has become a factor.  With the fact that many of these bills were passed during the 2002 legislative session, it may be that the issue has not been raised at this point, but I will get back to our contact on that and I will share that information with staff as soon as we have it.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Thank you very much for your time and for your expertise.  We will look forward to your providing some of those additional pieces of information for us and the Research Division so that we can facilitate getting this into the legislation.  We are under a time restraint in terms of having to have everything done within the next 10 days, so if you can facilitate that as quickly as possible, that would be helpful to us so we can move forward with the legislation.

 

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and representing the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:

We support the concept of Assembly Bill 441.  We also have concerns, as do a number of people, and we understand that.  We stand ready to work with anybody in drafting some legislation that, hopefully, we will never have to use.

 

Clay Thomas, Administrator, Field Operations, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles:

The Department supports this bill as it pertains to the sections regarding the DMV, which are Sections 31 through 34, found on page 17 through 21.  The DMV had the pleasure of working with Speaker Perkins on identifying the change in language within existing statute and, if enacted, it would increase the integrity of the Nevada driver’s license and identification card.  Passage of this bill will allow the DMV to refuse certain documents from other states whose requirements are less stringent than our own when an individual applies for a Nevada driver’s license or identification card.  We also support the change pertaining to the penalties and will be more than happy to work with members of the Committee to voice our recommendations.

 

Michael Hillerby, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor:

We have representatives of a number of agencies who are involved with the bill here today; they will not come [to the witness table] unless you have specific questions.  Speaker Perkins was good enough to spend some time with us, and if you go with the recommendation to put this into subcommittee, we will happily have all of them there to offer their suggestions and answer any questions. 

 

I would like to briefly bring up a few concerns that we talked about with Speaker Perkins beginning with page 4, Section 11, where it refers to utilities.  The bill does not specifically address pipelines and it may be one of the things that the Committee wants to do.  Public utilities generally don’t own and operate those pipelines, those are outside companies, but obviously we don’t get gasoline, and we don’t get the natural gas to run electric generating plants and other things without those pipelines, so that may be one of the things that the Committee may want to talk about as you process this bill.

 

[Referring to] Section 12 and the makeup of the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security, as you know, we have an existing Nevada Homeland Security Steering Committee that has been part of the Nevada State Emergency Response Commission.  Our Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, involves local agencies and others.  We appreciate the focus on homeland security and the work that these people do, both at the state and local level, and feel very strongly that this an important step to take. 

 

With regard to the appointees on the commission itself, I spoke with Speaker Perkins, Don Williams, and other staff.  There are some people that, potentially, are missing from this that are very important, or crucial, to this discussion:  someone with specific expertise in information technology, a public health representative of the Division of Emergency Management who currently coordinates much of the activities that will be interfacing with this commission should it be created, and a standing representative from the Department of the Military. 

 

Obviously the [Nevada] National Guard has an important role in responding to any emergencies.  I was talking with Major General Giles E. Vanderhoof (Adjutant General for the State of Nevada) and the Nevada National Guard has satellite coverage of the state, down to a significant level of detail available on very short notice to respond to emergencies, so there are very specific reasons to have some of those people on there.  Whether we need to come up with some language that allows for some flexibility to who is appointed, or allows for adjunct or ex-officio members to be pulled in as their specific expertise would be needed, we would be happy to work with that in terms of the specifics. 

 

[Michael Hillerby continued.]  The other would involve the term limits on the members of the commission.  It may not make sense, depending on if or how the bill is ultimately passed out, if it is, to have term limits on some of those standing members from the state agencies that have very specific roles.

 

Regarding Section 12, subsection 5 at the top of page 5, I spoke with Speaker Perkins and he did not seem to have any objection to the Governor or his designee being a voting member, I don’t see any particular reason to have them as a nonvoting member.  Speaker Perkins has addressed Section 15 and we are in full concurrence that the issue of coordination of our homeland security and state security is important and is probably not something that we should try to do on the cheap.  While many of the members of the commission are likely to be employees of either state or local government who will probably be released from their regular duties to be a part of this, we should provide, as we do for most other boards and commissions, establish some mechanism to pay them, and perhaps more importantly, to pay for their travel.  If the commission is tasked with meeting at least quarterly, that can add up to a significant expense, particularly if we have representatives from local governments on it, or agencies that don’t have that sort of flexibility in their budgets.

 

Regarding Section 17, a lot of this activity is going on within agencies and if you decide, with a subcommittee or with a full Committee, to process the bill, we will work with you to identify which of these activities are currently being handled and by which agencies, what kinds of assessments may not be getting done, and how we can be sure that we identify the right people.  I think Speaker Perkins stated fairly clearly that it was never the intent that the commission would actually be doing this work, but that it would be the repository, so we want to be sure we have identified what is already being done by those agencies.  A lot of that is currently being coordinated by the Division of Emergency Management.

 

Section 19, on page 7, also addresses the issue of funding the commission.  If we are going to staff it, then we need to be sure that we have acknowledged what that takes.

 

[Michael Hillerby continued.]  Beginning on page 9, Sections 23 and 24 talk about succession planning in the event of a catastrophic event.  Either Speaker Perkins or Cheryl Runyon from NCSL mentioned that there is some federal guidance coming.  Our Division of Emergency Management is already working with many of the local governments on their succession and response planning.  I think Speaker Perkins said he would not be against providing some flexibility for the local governments.  We can mandate that you have to submit a plan, but may not need to show all of the details.  But while federal guidance is being undertaken at that level, we need to see where that pans out as we move forward with the bill.

 

Speaker Perkins addressed Section 27, which was the timeline for the communications plan.  For those of you who have been around this legislative process, particularly on any of the money committees, you know the amount of time and resources that have gone into trying to identify communications needs and the difficulty therein.  There are probably representatives from local governments who will speak to their concerns about mandating communications systems and the cost involved with that.  Speaker Perkins talked about perhaps extending that date to July 1, 2004.  Coming up with those communications plans and getting the necessary buy in and cooperation with all the groups is probably not going to be any small task. 

 

For the automated external defibrillators in Section 30 on page 15, there is a fiscal note attached to the bill.  Our Health Division would have the responsibility, particularly in the state buildings, to do the maintenance and inspections of those, and we want to be sure that as we work with the subcommittee, we have firmly identified the exact cost on that fiscal note, particularly for the local governments who we have mandated have these.  I will be happy to work with Mr. Oceguera on this, and we have provided enough grant funding in that pool to pay for these for those local governments that are mandated to have them. 

 

The DMV has already spoken about their portions of the bill and that wraps up our general issues that we have talked about with the bill.  I want to thank Speaker Perkins for bringing this forward and we will have our agencies present at your request with the Committee or subcommittee, as you move forward to answer any questions. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Any questions for Mr. Hillerby?  I have quite a few of you who have indicated that you want to speak, so Judy Stokey, Nevada Power, and you are in favor of the bill, but you have an amendment?

 

Judy Stokey, representing Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company:

[Introduced herself.]  I do not have an amendment with me, but I did want to let you know that I had talked to Speaker Perkins about putting some together.   At a time that our nation and the state of Nevada are under threat, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company fully agree with additional security provisions.  We are in support of A.B. 441, but as Speaker Perkins mentioned, we have a couple of concerns.  The concerns are based on the requirement to provide copies of vulnerabilities and site assessments.  These documents must be held in complete confidence. 

 

The companies already fully coordinate and cooperate with the Nevada Division of Emergency Management and the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security, as well as liaison with state, federal, and local law enforcement personnel.   The companies already receive assistance in performing threat vulnerability and site assessments from these law enforcement agencies.  While Assembly Bill 441 goes to great lengths to address confidentiality issues, confidentiality of these site assessments and vulnerabilities remain a grave concern for the companies.

 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Council, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Gas Association, and the U.S. Department of Transportation have all issued security standards for both physical and cyber security, which must be met for each succeeding threat level advisory issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Tom Ridge.  Our companies are in full compliance with the security standards.  In regard to the makeup of the proposed 12-member Nevada Commission on Homeland Security, we would like to request that a utility representative be on that Commission. 

 

Other aspects of the bill we are in full support of:  the new ID requirements to obtain a driver’s license, and the sections on requiring AEDs in public places are excellent. We fully support Section 26 regarding revision of NRS 207.345.  The increased penalty for impersonating a utility employee will benefit our customers who are frequently targeted by criminals posing as utility employees to gain access to their homes. 

 

We also agree with the language to enable utilities to recover all “just and reasonable costs” regarding security assessments and improvements.  In closing, I would like to say we are greatly concerned with the potential damage associated with the disclosure of highly confidential site assessments.  Under new federal legislation, there are new exceptions from the long-held Freedom of Information Act.  Information about utilities’ critical sites, lines, and assets fall under these exceptions.  We would appreciate the opportunity to work with the subcommittee, or the Committee as a whole, in making some amendments.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Ms. Hansen, you are in favor of this? 

 

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:

Yes.  Your secretary is passing out an amendment (Exhibit E) that I suggested for A.B. 250 on the definition of terrorism, which we have already discussed in this Committee.

 

Chairman Anderson:

We are not doing A.B. 250 now, so this would be inappropriate.

 

Janine Hansen:

This is the same amendment I would suggest for the definition of terrorism that is found on this bill on page 3, Section 5.  I wasn’t able to hand it out to the Committee at that time because I had not written it up; I just did it orally, but, this is exactly the same one I would recommend, following the recommendation of Speaker Perkins, which cited the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.

 

I appreciate the issue in this bill that talks about the continuity of government, and follows up on Article 4, Section 37, of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and provides a workable way to have continuity of government if there is a disaster.  I appreciate that thoughtful approach to this. 

 

I would like to make a couple of comments on that.  One is with regard to the fact that it provides for elected officials to take these places.  For instance, on the county level, elected officials such as the county treasurer or county clerk would be taking the place of the county commission if some of them were gone.  I think that is a thoughtful approach.  To allow the Legislature to appoint or elect someone as the Governor if the Lt. Governor is not available is also a thoughtful approach.

 

One of the things I particularly appreciated on the homeland security, as was mentioned by Carol Runyon from NCSL, was the fact that the commission provides some legislative oversight.  One of the problems that we found in the forerunner to S.B. 82, which came out of the Legislative Committee on Health Care for the 2001-2002 interim, which was the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, was that the Governor became a virtual dictator with regard to issues in emergency response.  I think it is very important to bring the Legislature in on this so that they can have some participation in this aspect of it. 

 

With regard to that, I don’t know if it is a problem or just something that I am seeing, but on page 11, line 4, it says,

 

After a catastrophic emergency has taken place, the Governor or, in the absence of the Governor, the Lt. Governor, shall: (a) determine and announce publicly when conditions have normalized within this state or the portion thereof affected by the catastrophic emergency. 

 

[Janine Hansen continued.]  Perhaps we need some more expansion on this.  Does that mean that he determines if we are in the state of martial law?  I don’t know.  Are we in a state of emergency?  Have we suspended all constitutional rights?  Is he the only oversight in any of this?  Is there no legislative input or oversight with regard to the state of emergency or martial law?  I couldn’t find any legislative oversight provided for in the Constitution [of the State of Nevada] and I think it might be very wise at this time to have some kind of legislative input, oversight, or cooperation with regard to this.

 

One of the things that he can do as a part of this in cooperation with the Secretary of State, starting on page 11, line 10, is to work out the fact that, after the state of emergency, they can elect new people to these offices.  It is important that the Governor has some input from the Legislature with regard to this because, if he simply suspends this process, that concerns me.  There is no one except the Governor that is placed in a position of doing this and I think it is very important, because of that, to have the Legislative oversight.

 

In Assembly Joint Resolution 13, Mr. Mortensen has brought forth an idea that the Legislature, ultimately, could petition for a special session, but that would take five years for A.J.R. 13 to come to fruition.  In the meantime it might be important to provide for some kind of legislative oversight in a state of emergency.  There was tremendous concern expressed by all the members of the committee during the interim hearing on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act that there was no participation of the Legislature regarding these emergency situations.  That is one issue that this bill does not address and I would encourage you to do so.

 

I have one other issue on page 18, Section 21, that has to do with the DMV.  On line 21, page 18, it says,

 

The Director shall adopt regulations setting forth criteria pursuant to which the Department will issue or refuse to issue a driver’s license in accordance with this section to a person who is a citizen of a foreign country.  The criteria must be based upon the purpose for which that person is present in the United States. 

 

[Janine Hansen continued.]  This is very important when we see what has happened with people from foreign countries who have been involved in terrorist acts in the United States.  I bring forth a word of caution with regards to this.  Yesterday in the Senate during a hearing on S.B. 21, we discussed the issue of the “matricula consular,” which is an identification card issued by the Consulate of Mexico that is issued in the United States.  They are issued almost exclusively to illegal aliens who do not have any other form of ID.  They are issued by the Mexican government and they are now being accepted by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and others, as a form of ID.  If these are accepted by the DMV without any prerequisites, with regards to this particular issue of the citizen of a foreign country, we may have a problem in determining whether or not this person is an illegal alien because, essentially these matricula consular IDs circumvent the immigration policies of the United States. 

 

United States Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado, who is the chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, has introduced legislation and expressed serious concerns about this.  I bring that to your attention so we would not have this coming in the back door when we are trying to be so careful with this.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to make my concerns known, but I do support the objective of the bill and appreciate much of its careful consideration.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Hansen?  Seeing none, thank you very much Ms. Hansen. 

 

David Slattery, Physician, University Medical Center, University of Nevada School of Medicine:

[Introduced himself.] I am an emergency physician, and I also serve as the Education Director for our Department of Emergency Medicine, as well being the immediate past President of the Nevada Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians.  I am speaking in support of Assembly Bill 441, specifically Sections 30 and 46, which deal with the automated external defibrillators.  I am currently the Medical Director of the MGM Mirage Resorts Automated External Defibrillator Program, and I would like to just offer myself today, not only to show support of this bill, but also to answer any questions the Committee members may have regarding implementation, deployment or the set up of an AED program. 

 

I have sent up my testimony to be entered into the record (Exhibit F), but I want to talk about sudden cardiac arrest.  Roughly 220,000 patients a year die from this across the United States.  It happens when the electrical system of the heart, which normally contracts in a normal regular fashion, malfunctions and starts fibrillating, shaking like Jell-O.  The only treatment is to be shocked out of that rhythm with a defibrillator.  The time for that shock to occur after someone collapses is very important, and that is why AEDs are so important.  Despite even the best EMS (emergency medical service) systems, there are logistical concerns in terms of getting those defibrillators, by paramedics, to the victim in time. 

 

The key to survival is early defibrillation.  One important point is that for every minute that goes by after someone has collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest, their response and survival decreases by about 10 percent. 

 

Nevada casinos have the highest published, in medical literature, success rates from cardiac arrests because of successful AED programs through their security officers.  Around the country, survival is about 5 to 10 percent.  An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that security officers who are trained to use AEDs increase survival to 59 percent in this state, and when they look at those who receive that shock within three minutes, the survival rate improves to about 74 percent.

 

I have brought a defibrillator, and with your permission would like to demonstrate it.  It will take about 45 to 60 seconds.  It is up to you if you find that valuable or not?

 

Chairman Anderson:

I know I would find it valuable if I needed it to bring me back to life, there are no two ways about it.  We have had the opportunity to see it in operation.  While I appreciate the opportunity to see it demonstrated again, I think we will be OK without it.  But I want it right close at hand when I need it. 

 

Kathy Deuel, Citizen:

I am here to support the AED provisions of this bill.  I would like to start with some words from our beloved son, David, who wrote a short biography to describe himself for his church class. [She held up his photograph.]  

 

I was born on July 13, 1985 in Las Vegas.  I started playing sports when I was seven.  I played youth soccer for three years.  I started playing youth basketball when I was eight. My teams finished first or second, all but one year, in both baseball and basketball.  I played youth football for the first time last year.  My favorite teams are all the teams from Detroit.  My favorite sport is basketball.  Saturday, I scored 20 points in three 10-minute quarters.  My second favorite sport is baseball.  My dad coached my team three times.  My favorite college team is the UNLV (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) Rebels.  I went to their game Saturday.

 

I never thought it would happen to us, but it did.  I will never again see the sun touch golden on my son’s hair.  I will never again look into the light of his sky blue eyes.  I will never again hear his, “I love you,” in his calm soothing voice or feel his gentle kiss goodnight before I sleep.  I will not see the potential of his greatness played out.  I will never have to worry that he has been in a car wreck since he will never get his license. I will not have to fear David a casualty of war, as David has already done the unthinkable.

 

David was our dream come true in a son.  Our son, David Deuel, died on February 6, 1999, of a cardiac arrest at the age of 13.  He was playing in an organized youth basketball game at Silver Springs Recreation Center in Henderson, Nevada, when his heart stopped.  He was an accomplished athlete and won so many awards.  He was an honor roll student his entire life.  His goals were to become a UNLV basketball player and then one day to play professional ball with the Detroit Pistons.  The heart specialist and the coroner said that in order for David to have been revived, he would have needed an automated external defibrillator, called an AED, on the scene.  The cardiologist said had David been saved, he could have lived to old age with treatment.

 

I am sorry to say that I now know many other parents who have lost a child from cardiac arrest.  On the other hand, I have been blessed knowing a family in Las Vegas, the Giorgionni’s, who have experienced cardiac arrest of their young and exceptional son, Nick.  He collapsed at a football practice while jogging; his heart stopped.  Fortunately, Nick is alive and well today because there was an AED on the scene within five minutes, which delivered the shock and saved him.  He is presently playing basketball for his school and has a defibrillator implanted in his chest.  One would never know by looking at Nick or David that they had a silent heart condition that is known for killing athletes in their prime with few or no symptoms until sudden death.  Hidden heart defects affect all ages, and often go unrecognized until it is too late.  I am so happy that Nick has been saved and I know that David is happy for Nick in heaven.  We want to see more lives saved.  Nick’s parents would like to donate an AED to his high school in Las Vegas, and the principal of his school has already volunteered to be the pilot school for the athletic program.  We need this bill to be passed in order to encourage donations for AEDs in our state and in order to save lives.

 

While I have been speaking, approximately four people have died from cardiac arrest.  The average ambulance response time in Las Vegas is between 8 and 9 minutes.  This is good compared to many cities, but way too late to save someone from sudden cardiac death.  We need AEDs in as many public areas as possible, not only for the elderly and middle aged, but also for children.   Please spare another mom the pain of having to talk to you like this two years from now.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I think we have heard from those who wish to support various aspects of the bill.  Let me move to those who have an issue that they wish to bring to our attention in opposition to a particular section of the bill, or to the bill in its entirety. 

 

Jeff Page, Lyon County:

For the record, Lyon County and Lyon County Sheriff’s Department do support the major portions of this bill.  We did have some concerns, which have already been addressed.  We are happy to see that there is a possibility of having a subcommittee to get some of these issues dealt with and that is where we would like to keep it at this time.

 

Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association:

As Speaker Perkins mentioned, we do have some concerns with Section 21.  That section, as written, gives the Governor too much authority to declare records confidential. We are particularly concerned with denying access to building plans.  Closing off those documents would make it impossible to monitor government construction projects, like the new courthouse in Clark County.  Another example would be a school.  If you close off the building plans to a school, there would be no way for the public to know if that school had any problems with safety systems.  For example, was it built properly with enough sprinklers?  We would be more than willing to work, if there is a subcommittee appointed, to address some of those concerns with Section 21, keeping in mind that there must be a balance between security and the public’s right to know what its government is doing.

 

Steve Walker, representing Truckee Meadows Water Authority:

After hearing Speaker Perkins’ presentation, we don’t oppose this bill, and would like to offer friendly suggestions to improve the bill.  Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA), being the second largest purveyor of water in the state, can specifically contribute to that section of the bill that deals with a very critical part of homeland security water supply.  With that, Mark Foree has some specific suggestions.

Mark Foree, Director of Operations, Truckee Meadows Water Authority:

The TMWA is very concerned about the security of our facilities, as well as homeland security in the state and nation.  We certainly appreciate what this bill is attempting to do.  We like several aspects of the bill, including the idea that the legislation recognizes that certain water utility data, including vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans, are confidential documents.

 

We also have some concerns about the bill.  With some minor modifications, we would certainly support it, and we would certainly be willing to work with the Committee, or subcommittee, related to that.  Water utilities are already regulated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and required to complete a vulnerability assessment and emergency response plan.  Therefore, in relation to water utilities, this bill is a duplication of effort to what is already required for water utilities at the federal level.  The requirements of this bill could to be contradictory to EPA’s guidelines and requirements.  The bill in Section 17, subsection 7, strives to avoid duplication as it reads,

 

To the extent practicable, cooperate and coordinate with the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Public Safety to avoid duplication of effort in developing policies and programs for preventing and responding to acts of terrorism and related emergencies. 

 

The Environmental Protection Agency has gone through great lengths to insure that the information submitted by water utilities is secure.  Only a small number of EPA employees have received security clearances and will be reviewing the vulnerability assessments.  Water utilities are expected to maintain the same degree of confidentiality of the vulnerability assessments due to the sensitive nature of the data.  This bill does require the vulnerability assessments to be submitted to approximately 100 more people between the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security, the Public Utilities Commission staff, and the Office of Consumer Advocate staff.  The more people who have access to this sensitive data, the less secure the data becomes.  For these reasons, we request that the bill be changed to exempt water utilities from having to submit vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans to the commission as we are already required to do so by EPA. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

It is a new world.  My only observation is that emergency management and terrorism have become a great fear in the country, and the homeland security and the state security questions have become a major issue for all of us because of the unthinkable events of almost two years ago now.  While it may seem that we are all trying to bring some of these emergency questions all together at one time, I think we are only trying to get people to cooperate instead of being so “turf conscious.”  It always upsets me that some group within thinks that because they are talking to these 12 people they don’t fit in, and that is good enough for the security of all.  I think we learned that already, but sometimes turf becomes an element that we really don’t have time for when we are trying to get groups to work together. I am a little disappointed, personally speaking for myself alone, but that is the prerogative of the Chair.

 

Mark Foree:

I would say that we certainly will be working with the local authorities, the law enforcement authorities, the health departments, and so on, in regard to our emergency response plans.  That is something that is part of the EPA program and we are certainly going to be doing that.

 

Chairman Anderson: 

Other questions?

 

Fergus Laughridge, Nevada State Health Division:

[Introduced himself.]  I am here only to answer questions as they pertain to the automated external defibrillator devices that are related into the bill.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I think we are Okay. 

 

Rick Bareuther, representing the City of Sparks:

[Introduced himself.]  Our concern with this bill lies strictly with Section 27, and that would be the mandates in regard to information and communication systems.  I was happy to hear there may be some openings for modification in that regard.  Our concern would lie in regard to the definition of “interoperability.” We are 100 percent in favor of interoperability.  Within Washoe County, the City of Sparks, Reno, Washoe County, 16 agencies in total, we are on the brink of bringing up a new radio system that will have 100 percent interoperability within the state.  There are all sorts of degrees of interoperability.  Full interoperability can only be achieved, in my belief, if everyone is on a like computer system or like radio system.  If you have disparate radio systems, you can take measures to link them together and you can provide some degree of interoperability. 

 

Our concern with this legislation is the intent.  Are we striving towards full interoperability with computer and communications systems?  That would be desirable, but I think it is a very long‑range goal that we all need to work towards, and it would be an extreme cost for all the agencies within the state to achieve.  If we can work on the definition of what we are striving towards within the Committee structure, stretch out our time frame a bit, and work on Section 27.  I think the overall bill is excellent and we are 100 percent behind it.  We would just like to see a little flexibility in regard to this particular section.

 

Chairman Anderson:

The radio system you are using is not interfering with the railroad train traffic, as one of our state agency’s is, is it? 

 

Rick Bareuther:

Absolutely not.  We have no problems with the railroad system with our new 800-megahertz radio system.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for the gentleman from Sparks?  Do I have anybody here from the Highway Patrol?  I am concerned, because the Highway Patrol has a new radio system they just got through putting in that currently operates on the same frequency as the train traffic. 

 

Richard Mirgon, Director, Emergency Management and 911-Communications, Douglas County:

[Introduced himself.]  I am also cochair of the State of Nevada Homeland Security Steering Committee for Terrorism, which was known as the WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Steering Committee.  I also cochair the state Emergency Response Commission.  I spent four years of my career as an analyst for the National Security Agency, collecting intelligence against the United States to see what we are losing and collecting it from foreign sources.  I have spent 12 years in a major metropolitan area as a police officer.  I spent the last 12 years in Nevada doing emergency management and communications, so I have a very good understanding of all the issues in front of us.  I will try not to touch on the issues that have already been addressed.

 

Douglas County clearly has an issue with the bill on the unfunded mandates. We support the bill in concept; however, as an example on the communications issue, to change our system we are talking about a cost of over $5 million.  The language is so broad in the bill that it could actually reach into our 9‑1‑1 systems, our computer dispatch systems, our networks on how we move, public safety information to the state, which literally could run into millions of dollars, because there is no definition of what that should be or how that should work.

 

We have some issues in the bill with planning.  The Homeland Security Steering Committee has been operating for four years.  There is a considerable amount of work that we have done in doing threat vulnerability assessments throughout the state.  We have reported that information to the FBI.  A lot of the data has been collected.  Most of the counties and agencies in the state currently have plans that fit into this definition.  All of this has been done under the leadership of the Office of the Governor and the Division of Emergency Management.  We feel that the issues covered have already occurred, but we have intentionally kept them at a low profile throughout the state because we realize that, due to the open records law, they are susceptible to being exploited. 

 

We currently have an issue with utilities being allowed to recover costs, where there is cost by local governments, but no mechanism to recover that cost, or to fund some of these issues.  We hope to be able to work with the Committee on some of these issues and get into some of the finer details. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Any questions?

 

Vice Chairman Oceguera:

This is the second speaker that has talked about how they liked this interoperability part, but they don’t like it.  Maybe it is something that the state should require because, I don’t know how to put it, other than there are some egos getting in the way between all these folks and maybe that is why the state should require that. 

 

Richard Mirgon:

If I could expand on that sir?  I suppose what Mr. Bareuther said depends on how you define “interoperability.”  Currently we have two issues in Douglas County.  One is we have to work with our wildland fire partners in the Lake Tahoe Basin because the threat up there is just like Oakland, California.  We could lose thousands of lives in one firestorm in a matter of a few minutes.  Those people are mandated by the federal government to be on VHF (very high frequency); we have to, we really don’t have any choice.  If the Assembly Committee on Judiciary should select, from my position, the worst-case scenario, the NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) system, it is an Erickson system.  Only one manufacturer makes that radio.  It is proprietary and it cannot operate with the federal system without additional equipment. 

 

The problem is that equipment doesn’t exist behind a mountain range where that wildland fire is.  Today, that is our single largest threat for disaster on an annual basis.  It has to be taken into consideration.  It doesn’t talk about how interoperability is achieved, so if this Committee should choose the fact that we are all going to go to this one system, that potentially causes a problem for us.  If the interoperability is you have to create a mechanism to talk between agencies, that is completely acceptable to us.  It depends on how it is accomplished.

 

Vice Chairman Oceguera:

I am very familiar with how police and fire organizations and all the other folks talk together from my day job, but I understand your point. I also think that there are some egos involved.

 

Laura Mijanovich, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union- Nevada:

[Introduced herself.]  We oppose the bill as drafted.  We agree and support Speaker Perkins’ points as to the need to provide the tools to fight terrorism, but we reiterate the need to narrowly define the scope and breadth of acts of terrorism.  We have brought it up in all related bills pertaining to antiterrorism.  In some instances, when the act involved the persecution of individuals who are in prison and with death penalties, we have proposed a very narrowly tailored bill.  In other instances such as the present bill, or S.B. 175 which already passed, we have proposed a more expansive definition of terrorism.  I refer you to S.B. 175, which similarly involves the secrecy of information and provides some possible language for purposes of this bill.

 

I am going to voice some concerns regarding A.B. 441.  One of them pertains to Section 31, subsection 5, involving the provision regarding driver’s licenses, which says that the DMV will not accept licenses from out of state if other states’ requirements are less stringent.  I would like to point out our long standing principle in our nation of constitutional statute which is the principle of comity through which one state will recognize the acts and laws of other states.  If the provision is to be kept, it needs to be clarified as to what requirements are the ones at stake because there are many that are minimal, and should not trigger the application of this act. 

 

The other point pertains to Section 45, subsection 5, which relates to the provision of false information for driver’s licenses and the reference to “Category C felony.”  We believe this would also be subject to constitutional challenges as cruel and unusual punishment and it would particularly and disproportionately affect immigrant communities.

 

Regarding the composition of the commission, I want to point out that our system is based on checks and balances.  There is a need, in our view, to include as a representative on this commission, someone who will voice the concerns regarding public accountability, civil liberties, and civil rights.

 

The last point was raised very clearly by Mr. Lauer of the Nevada Press Association regarding Section 21, the confidentiality of documents.  I don’t want to reiterate the point other than there is a need to balance security with the public’s need to know.  What we have offered in S.B. 175 is a mechanism for review of the Executive Order of the Governor, and the possibility of a report to the Legislature on these issues.  

 

I want to ask your permission to, in the next couple of days, provide you with specific language on the definition of terrorism, which will mirror the language that we provided in S.B. 175 and was adopted verbatim.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Mijanovich?  The only observation I would make relative to the makeup of the commission is the fact that it has two assemblymen and two senators.  Generally speaking, the elected representative of the legislatures do consider themselves to be representatives of the civil rights of the people of the state.  I just thought I would bring that to your attention.

 

Laura Mijanovich:

I knew you would.

 

Andy Belanger, representing the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the Southern Nevada Water Authority:

I want to make sure that, as the largest water utility in this state, we are on record in support of this bill.  We support the provisions of this bill and believe it will do many things to promote homeland security.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Is there anybody else who feels that they need to speak on Assembly Bill 441 who has not had an opportunity to speak?  Let me close the hearing on Assembly Bill 441.  Mr. Horne, on behalf of the Committee, I would ask you to take the amendments that are being submitted, talk to the individuals involved, work them, and see if you can bring it back to us.  I am going to singularly charge you with the task. If you need to have an additional hearing, you may do so; if they wish to address you individually you may follow that path.  If I could have that completed by Tuesday of next week at the latest.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Does this include the sister bill as well, A.B. 250?  Altogether or separately?

 

Chairman Anderson:

I would like to be able to move with the other bills as soon as you have them into position.  So, as you complete the other, that would be helpful so that we end up with something to send over to the other side, recognizing that we have until April 11, 2003 to finish our total workload and that we have set aside both the dates of April 10 and 11, 2003, as workdays.  That would give you until approximately April 8, 2003, that we would be looking at.

 

Let’s then turn our attention to Assembly Bill 462. 

 

Let me give the Committee a 15-minute break. [Meeting reconvened.]

 

Assembly Bill 462 is a Committee introduction. 

 

Assembly Bill 462:  Limits access to records related to homeland security. (BDR 19-1282)

 

Lt. Stan Olsen:

Assembly Bill 462 is a bill that is designed to protect certain critical plans, designs, and structure information in order to prevent the planning of some sort of terrorist attack.  It moves to protect structures such as police departments, places where tourists gather such as hotels, infrastructure, water facilities, electrical, and things of that nature.  We feel that this is, as most states found out after September 11, 2001, an area where all of us were lacking in protection and vulnerable without some sort of protection.  That is the intent behind this.  Are there any questions?

 

Chairman Anderson:

I don’t see any questions.  It looks like this is partially contained within A.B. 441. 

 

Janine Hansen:

I would like to bring up on one or two issues in the bill that I have concerns about.  I don’t have a problem with the rest of the bill. 

 

On page 2, line 11, it talks about including immunization statistics in records related to homeland security that would not be available for access.  I am not sure why that is included there, but I do have a couple of concerns.  I have distributed a copy of an article that was in the Reno Gazette Journal (Exhibit G).  You may have heard that 10 states, including California, have suspended the use of the smallpox vaccine as a result of three people who have died of heart attacks, and 17 others who have been injured.  Washoe and Clark Counties have also suspended their intended implementation, which was to start in the month of April.  I think it is very important for people to have access to information about vaccines. 

 

For instance, I have given you a packet of information (Exhibit H) from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Web site.  It has a lot of information about many different vaccines from a couple of years ago, but it allows people to find out about the potential adverse effects of many different vaccines.  If you are a diligent parent who is concerned about this issue, perhaps this kind of information would no longer be available to you as an individual in trying to make a responsible decision. 

 

I have provided some information from the National Vaccine Information Center (Exhibit I) as well.  Parents would want to know of potential risks and have this information in advance.  I don’t exactly know why they are placing immunization statistics as a part of these protected records, but it is important for people to have access to that information.

 

About 85 percent of the vaccine adverse events reported are minor, but 15 percent of those can be life-threatening and involve death.  The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) reports that only 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are even reported.  I don’t know why it would be harmful for people to be able to get that information, but perhaps I am missing something, so I would like to see that deleted from the bill unless there is some very important need. 

 

At the bottom of page 2, on line 42, it talks about, “A person is not required to indicate the purpose of inspecting a record…”  They have to do it, unless they are an employee of the news media.  I am glad to see that.  I hope this means that a responsible member of the public will be able to review this information if they sign in and give the reason for being there, but I might point out that just giving an employee of the news media access does not insure that the information will not go into the wrong hands; it could go to al-Jazeera, or I could get a press badge from an organization for just $100. 

 

Although I am very much in favor of making sure the public knows as much as it needs to know, I want to make sure that the news media doesn’t have more rights than an individual organization or person that wants to look at those records.  That is the same thing it mentions on page 3, line 9, and I want to be assured that responsible members of the public would have access to that information.  The Nevada Eagle Forum distributed 75,000 copies of a large article in our statewide voter guide of the potential problems of smallpox.  It is very important for people to have the facts before they determine to take a health step that might affect the rest of their lives.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Hansen?

Assemblyman Horne:

You said “responsible members of the public.”  Who would you define as a “responsible member or the public?”

 

Janine Hansen:

I suppose that some people might define me as not being a responsible member of the public.  I am not sure how you would define that.  I am just saying that I don’t think, that responsible members of the public should have fewer rights than a member of the news media in accessing information.  I understand there is a concern that some of this information needs to be protected, but I do think that public watchdog groups and others have just as much right to access that information as the news media.  I just don’t want their opportunity diminished.  It does allow them to access it in this bill. 

 

On line 42 of page 2, it says, “A person is not required to indicate the purpose for inspecting the record related to homeland security if the person presents satisfactory documentation.”  I am assuming that means, for instance, if I wanted to look at the records, I would have to indicate the purpose, but someone from the news media would not have to. I don’t object to that; I just want to make sure that if the news media can have access, so can responsible watchdog groups or individual people. I am just trying to make sure that’s what this bill means, that people would have access to it if they provide the information that is required.

 

Ron Dreher, Small Business Owner and Licensed Private Investigator:

[Introduced himself.]  I speak before you today, not as the President of the Peace Officers Research Association, but for the limited purposes of this bill as a private small business owner and as a licensed private investigator in the state of Nevada.  I spent more than 26 years as a police officer, and after that I took a licensed test under the Attorney General’s Office that controls private investigators and became a licensed private investigator and a process server.    I speak before you today in support of A.B. 462, and ask that you amend Section 7, subsections 3 and 4(b) to include licensed investigators within our state (Exhibit J).  The way the bill is worded, obviously they have no problem putting my name down and, having the experience that I have, there may come a time where a client would retain me or another licensed private investigator in our state to look at records such as this, so the relevance for having licensed private investigators is real and I would ask that you amend the bill in those two sections to include private investigators.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions?

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Do you know how many licensed private investigators are in the state of Nevada?

 

Ron Dreher:

Well, my number is 1,002, and that means that there were at least 1,001 [licensed private investigators] when I took the exam in 2000. I believe there are probably about 1,100 to 1,200.  There is a record of it at the Office of the Attorney General.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Are you comfortable with the character of all of 1,002 private investigators?

 

Ron Dreher:

Yes, the test in Nevada is not an easy test.  For example, it takes several months to study for the test; it is very detailed.  I think that NRS Chapter 648 is very definitive of who can be a licensed investigator in this state.  It is very controlled, and the licensing board regularly accounts for all of those members.  If there is anyone that acts against the criteria for the standards that they uphold, they fine you and/or suspend your license, so there is a lot of accountability to that. 

 

Steve Walker:

Assembly Bill 462 is generally supported.  My client is sensitive to major distribution facilities within their water system becoming general knowledge, and they would like to offer an amendment to protect from that becoming available to the people listed in the bill.  We would like to work with Assemblyman Horne if we could.

 

Lucille Lusk, Cochairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens:

[Introduced herself.]  We support the concept of a tracking log, as found within this bill, to keep track of the individuals that are looking at records that may be sensitive.  I understand this bill to say that everyone has access to these records, but in order to have that access, they need to provide identifying information, etcetera.  That creates some concern because the listing on page 2 in Section 6 contains some items that probably should be open and available for duplication while it contains others such as records of training exercises for emergency management, that should perhaps be entirely confidential. 

 

The overall concern is with the broad scope of records designated as related to homeland security and the resulting prohibition on any form of copying.  On page 3, lines 10 through 11, it says that records “related to homeland security must not be copied, duplicated or reproduced in any way.”  I would interpret that to mean that you could not even make an abstract and that you could not write down what you found.  When you are looking at information on health plans, immunization statistics, information the press might be looking for with regard to construction projects, etcetera, you couldn’t even write down what you found. 

 

The concept of a tracking log does make sense.  We do have some concern with the automatic exemptions for individuals who would not have to write down their purpose.  For example, automatically exempted would be government employees, news media, registered architects, etcetera, but a registered architect has no more reason to want access to immunization statistics than any other citizen so that automatic exemption doesn’t make sense in relationship to the records that they may be accessing.  By hearing the previous testimony, it seems that there is some confusion as to whether these records are to be made confidential, or whether they are to be accessible to the citizenry through the tracking process.  We would request that you make that clear and that you look very carefully at each category that is considered as to whether it should properly fall into a confidential or restricted access.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Lusk? 

 

Kent Lauer:

I have spoken at length with Lt. Olsen regarding this bill, and there are some aspects of the bill that I do support.  The key is to strike a proper balance. We recognize that certain documents should remain confidential, such as specific vulnerability assessments and the like.  I would like to continue to work with Lt. Olsen and Assemblyman Horne in trying to iron out some details regarding this bill.

 

Laura Mijanovich:

I am here to raise some concerns regarding A.B. 462, which seems to be an overlap, or very similar to S.B. 175, and again I refer to what was adopted by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. 

 

Our concern is particularly focused on page 2, the breadth of Section 6.  Some of the items are reasonable, but there are some that are excessively expansive, particularly Section 4, regarding health plans and reviews of those plans; Section 3, immunization statistics; and most particularly Section 9, which refers to blueprints of plans in a myriad of facilities.  We believe there is a need for the public to have access and open discussion on some of these records that maybe should not be kept secret, and, as I mentioned, the need of establishing some mechanism of overview, or a report made to the Legislature on these particular confidential records. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Mijanovich?  Anybody else who has a desire to be heard on Assembly Bill 462?  Anybody else who has a desire to be heard either in favor or against Assembly Bill 462?  I close the hearing on Assembly Bill 462.

 

Mr. Horne, it would appear that A.B. 462 may not need to move forward, but you might want to take it into consideration as you look at the major terrorism bill.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

I’m already ahead of you.

 

Chairman Anderson:

The meeting is adjourned [at 10:25 a.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Carrie Lee

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

DATE: