MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-second Session

February 6, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark Amodei, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 6, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4406, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Mark Amodei, Chairman

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Dennis Nolan

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Terry Care

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections

Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Northern Nevada, Department of Corrections

Jerry Bussell, Special Advisor on Homeland Security, Office of the Governor

Jeffrey A. Bachert, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors

Judy Cook, Lobbyist, Cook & Company, Ltd

R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association-South

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriff’s & Chief’s Association

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Association and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association-North

May A. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County

Jody Esposito, Concerned Citizen

Sandy B. Toles, Concerned Citizen

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers

David Howard, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association (SNMA)

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association

 

Chairman Amodei:

The hearing will come to order. Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, will present the committee brief and overview of session deadlines.

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst:

At the request of Chairman Amodei, I will present an overview of the committee brief and a review of the 120-day deadlines. Placed before each of you is the “Committee Policy Brief Senate Committee on Judiciary” (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which outlines the jurisdiction of the committee, provides a brief review of major topics addressed during the last session, provides an overview of issues likely to be considered by this committee during the 2003 Legislative Session, provides important deadlines for the 120‑day session, and finally, includes a list of key judiciary contacts which may be of use throughout the session.

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciary Senate Standing Rule No. 40 governs the referral of bills to the committee. The Senate Committee on Judiciary has jurisdiction over the first 16 Titles of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), with the exception of chapter 118B of NRS. The committee also oversees Title 41 of NRS on gaming, and chapter 719 of NRS on electric transactions.

 

During the 2001 Legislative Session, the Senate Committee on Judiciary received over 16 percent of total bills referred to all Senate committees. Out of the 159 bills referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, 122 were approved or reported out of committee.

 

Turning to pages 3 through 13 (Exhibit C), you will note a detailed summary of each major topic addressed by the committee during the 2001 Legislative Session. In the area of criminal justice, the Legislature increased the penalties of many crimes, including domestic violence, aggravated stalking, assault and battery, sexual conduct between pupils and persons of authority at schools, and abuse or neglect of children. In the topical area of civil law and liability, the Legislature passed measures to update Nevada’s business laws and limited civil liability in certain circumstances. In the area of courts, in 2001 the Senate Committee on Judiciary also considered court programs treating the mentally ill, and increasing the number of judges, and increasing judicial salaries in retirement. In domestic relations, the committee approved measures to improve procedures for adoption, child custody and visitation, and child support. In the area of gaming, the committee passed measures on Internet gaming, gaming work permits, and international salon gaming.

 

Issues likely to come before the committee during the 2003 Legislative Session include the interim study on the death penalty, chaired by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. The study adopted 17 recommendations on topics including race, gender, economic discrimination, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, counsel, juries, three-judge panels, rules of procedure, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, mental retardation, and costs of the capital punishment system. It is my understanding these issues have been combined in five bill draft requests (BDRs) and numbered Assembly Bills 3 through 17. It appears the bills will start on the Assembly side and are scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary next week.

 

Another interim study on misdemeanors was chaired by Assemblyman Mark Manendo. The subcommittee adopted six recommendations, including four BDRs that may come before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, addressing the major topics of crimes committed in prison, domestic violence, graffiti, outdated laws, and prosecutorial responsibility for state boards and commissions. In addition to the two interim studies, there is an updated list of possible BDR referrals that may be referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

 

I would like to point out the key dates on the State of Nevada 2003 Legislative Session 120-Day Calendar (Exhibit C). February 10, 2003 is the final deadline for BDRs for Legislators and is limited to four per member of the Senate; February 24, 2003 is the deadline for final committee BDRs; March 17, 2003 is the deadline for introduction of all bills requested by an individual Legislator; March 24, 2003 is the deadline for introduction of all bills requested by a standing committee; April 11, 2003 is the deadline for bills passed out of committee; April 22, 2003 is the deadline for first House passage; May 16, 2003 is the deadline for all bills to be passed out of committee in the second House; and May 23, 2003 is the deadline for all bills passed out of the second House.

 

Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today and I look forward to working with you this session. If there are any questions, I would be pleased to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, we will consider adoption of the Senate Committee on Judiciary rules (Exhibit D).

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO ADOPT COMMITTEE RULES–72ND SESSION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei:

At this time we will have an overview of the Department of Corrections programming.

 

Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections:

My name is Dorothy Nash Holmes and I am the Programs Administrator for the Nevada Department of Corrections, and with me is the Assistant Director of Operations, Glen Whorton. We are here to talk to you about why and how the correctional philosophy of Nevada has changed. The correctional policy and philosophy in Nevada are different than they were 2½ years ago. It is not because we obtained a warm and fuzzy, kind and gentle woman director, it is because we got a director with 30 years’ national experience who knows what works. She knows programs are behavior-modification techniques and inmates do not have to be strong-armed to keep control of them in prison.

 

We are now focusing on programs in a way never tried before in Nevada. An inmate who is involved with education, treatment, a job, or vocational training is too busy to carve a shank out of a toothbrush, conspire to smuggle in drugs, or beat up on correctional officers. Inmates who live in a levels system where their abilities and productivity are rewarded by increased privileges have motivation and hope for improving themselves and getting out of prison. We now have a levels system. Inmates come in at the lowest level and when they program and perform, they receive more privileges and move to a higher level. The levels system works and has been proven all over the country. We are using it in our prisons and inmates strive to reach the highest level because prison is not a nice place to be.

 

When inmates reach the highest level they are given access to the best jobs to earn money to send to their families, or put in savings accounts to use after their releases. They can buy more things at the store, have longer visiting hours, and have more appliances when they can afford to buy them. Contrary to what most people think, those things are not gratis to the inmates. Therefore, the level system is very effective.

 

We are changing our focus to help inmates earn their way out of prison. I was a prosecutor for most of my 25 years as a lawyer. I have been an elected district attorney, a federal prosecutor, and a deputy attorney general handling death penalty cases. I do not believe anyone could say our system is soft on crime. Our philosophy is to help inmates and let them earn their way out of prison. In most cases it is not rehabilitation because they have never been habilitated in the first place. It is giving them skills most of them stopped acquiring at age 13 or 14 when they began doing drugs.

 

Ms. Holmes:

Statistics show, depending upon which of the 15 measurements are used in the system, 60 to 90 percent of inmates come to prison with drug or alcohol problems. There are two treatment programs. One began March 2002 with a federal grant, and one began after legislation in 1997, for 400 treatment beds, 200 in each program. With an average of 10,300 inmates, that is not enough beds. With the addition of the March 2002 program, 6 substance abuse counselors were added. Prior to that there were 3 in the entire system. At present there are 5 social workers, 32 psychologists, and 85 caseworkers, which is not an abundance of programming staff for 10,300 inmates.

 

Howard Skolnick, Assistant Director, Prison Industries, Department of Corrections, says more jobs are needed. Since Director Crawford “held his feet to the fire,” he has more than doubled the number of inmate jobs in the last year or so. There are almost 800 inmates working prison industry jobs, and 12 or 15 different industries that make drapes and mattresses, refurbish cars, and make clothes for the inmates. There are approximately 800 paid prison industry jobs. Mr. Skolnick is available to answer questions.

 

There are approximately 1600 inmates working in forestry. This is one of the partnerships of which we are most proud. The Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) runs the conservation camps, which are called “honor camps.” That work program was started almost 40 years ago in partnership with the Nevada Department of Prisons. The inmates, women as well as men, work 40 hours a week, 4 10-hour days, must be able to carry a 45-pound backpack, and walk so many miles in so many minutes in order to work on fire crews. The pay for firefighting inmates has not been raised in almost 30 years. Adult inmate firefighters working for the NDF make $1 an hour. On the other hand, teenagers at the Caliente Youth Center in Elko working for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Forestry Division, performing the same kind of firefighting work, earn $9 an hour. The NDF is aware of this inequity and attempting to find ways within the system to allocate resources in order to raise the income. This cannot be done with budget increases because there is no funding. We are in a very bad money crunch. I am not suggesting prison inmates should make a lot of money, but $1 an hour for putting a person’s life on the line in a fire is ridiculous.

 

Ms. Holmes:

The NDF needs help with crew chiefs. The Warm Springs Correctional Center will open July 2003 as a minimum-security facility and will include almost 500 inmates who are capable of working. The NDF had to cut down on crew chiefs who take the inmates out to work due to the budget crunch. Inmates can make more money on the outside and the NDF meets the revenue requirements. The NDF must earn approximately $2 million from its various camps. Some of the more remote camps are unable to earn money because communities cannot pay, therefore, the communities are kept alive by the NDF volunteers. We need to find a way, with the help of the NDF, the Legislators, the Governor, and the Department of Corrections, to put more inmates to work in rural communities. The Warm Springs Correctional Center will be one way to do it if more jobs can be obtained.

 

We are focusing on workforce development. Over 65 percent of inmates, nationally and in Nevada, have no training, skills, or job experience. In Nevada, the average income for a female inmate upon incarceration is $2000. Almost half of Nevada’s inmates come to prison functionally illiterate and not functioning at eighth-grade level. By law, in Nevada, if an inmate is not functioning at eighth-grade level, he or she is not allowed to attend high school, adult education, or get a job within the prison system. Currently, out of 10,300 inmates, 3500 are illiterate and attend literacy classes. If those individuals cannot move on to jobs or programs, one-third of the prison population will sit idle, which is a severe security threat. This situation affects the budget. The four literacy teachers are paid from a $1.3 million grant due to expire August 2003. When the grant expires there will be no more money to pay those teachers.

 

Although this is not a finance committee, as Senators, you will be asked to vote on our budget. One of our two requests for funding in regard to programming is to take $575,000 from the General Fund to pick up the four literacy teachers. It is a security issue with the Department of Corrections.

 

There are four chaplains in the system. The American Corrections Association (ACA) accredits prisons to ensure they meet national standards of professionalism and excellence. By its standards there should be one chaplain per 500 inmates. We should have 20, but there are only 4. However, with those four we have managed to organize resources. There are over 400 volunteers coming into the prison and a list of 1100 from which to draw. There are 700‑plus religious events or services each month throughout the prison system, and 90 percent of the inmates attend some sort of religious service. That is a better ratio than the free population. We are doing a fine job with what we have, but we need more in the way of drug treatment, jobs, and education.

 

Ms. Holmes:

Most people do not realize that 95 percent of the 10,300 inmates in Nevada will be released from prison. The number on death row or in for life-without-parole sentences is very small. The concern is when they are released they will live next door to you and me. We want them to be released in better shape than when they entered prison. When I was district attorney of Washoe County I did not believe in rehabilitation of inmates because I never saw any. I am now on the other side of that issue. An inmate asked me why I crossed over and was now working for the inmates. My answer was, I did not cross over and the issue is still about accountability and addressing the problem of crime. When people are put in prison, that is punishment. They are placed in an 8-by-10 cell, away from their families and friends, must follow someone else’s orders, have no freedom, and make no decisions. That is the punishment part. Prison should be about discipline, education, treatment, and reform. We do not need to dehumanize these people further in prison. Once there, they need to be given discipline, teaching and instruction, and programming is the focus to gain that end.

 

At this point in time, I am the programming division. There has never before been a position such as this in Nevada. I was appointed by Director Crawford June 2001, and originally came to the office as her special assistant. She appointed me to a vacant position in the medical division and requested me to organize programs in all 19 facilities and institutions. There were 19 different territories doing things differently. Some applied for grants, some did not. We have applied for and received $5.9 million in grants since May 2000 when Director Crawford arrived. We never had that before. My job is to work with all the associate wardens of programs and programming staff to coordinate resources. We have attempted for a year and a half to convince people to work differently and evaluate the program to determine what is good, get rid of what is not, and learn the best practices.

 

Director Crawford requested the Governor to appoint a Study Committee on Corrections which included some members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, namely Senator Amodei and Senator Wiener. We thank them for their diligent participation on that committee. The Study Committee on Corrections helped us ascertain the good and bad about the system and what should be done differently. A copy of the Study Committee on Corrections (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) was sent to all Nevada Legislators. The study sets the direction for the Nevada Department of Corrections. We want to stop building hard prison beds. Five thousand of the 10,000 prison beds are referred to as “hard cells” for medium- or high-security inmates. More focus needs to be placed on community corrections and getting inmates into lesser levels of security and work. I am not saying the bad guys will be released from prison. We do not want them out.

 

Ms. Holmes:

There are over 1700 sex offenders in Nevada. Most of them are in prison on multiple sentences and need to stay there as long as required. A new program has begun for them entitled “Sexual Treatment for Offenders in Prison” (STOP). Five psychologists in five different institutions were trained in the same exact program entitled, “Best Practices Recognized Nationally,” and the program is now offered the same way in all the institutions. Therefore, if an inmate is moved from one prison to another, he or she can complete the program and receive credit. That was not possible before the programs were coordinated.

 

Educational credit is an issue and a BDR is forthcoming this session in regard to it. Nevada law allows a person to earn both a General Education Diploma (GED) and a high school diploma. Under the merit system, which is statute in Nevada, an inmate is given 30 credits for a GED and 60 credits for high school. Until recently the only real programming available to inmates was through high school programs. There are four districts providing high school in counties where prisons reside. The inmates would attend high school and GED classes forever because they received credit. There are 3500 student inmates in high school and GED programs, but barely 500 graduate a year. Some are in high school for 10 years.

 

A BDR is forthcoming to equalize the credit for GED and high school, both at 60 credits, and stipulate that an inmate can obtain one or the other and then move on. The reason is not to excuse, minimize, or diminish the value of high school, it is to get it done and get the inmates into job training. A job is what will keep them out of prison. Most of the inmates were unable to “do” high school when they were in high school.

 

The purpose of another BDR, sponsored by Senator Wiener, is to create what is entitled, “A Correctional Education Authority in the State Department of Education.” The issue is too many people are in charge. The Department of Corrections has no say in regard to the prison education system. The high school programs are run by four different school districts, in four different counties, each in its own way. Some school districts have more resources, or their resources are used in different ways. Some school districts have many good electives and inmates can learn auto mechanics and computers while others do not operate in that manner and electives do not count when the inmate is transferred to another school district.

 

Federal funds are available for inmates under the age of 21 in adult prisons. None of the school districts have chosen to apply for the funds because there can be only one lead education authority in the state connected to corrections. Therefore, supported by the State Department of Education, we are requesting one school district officer in adult education be designated as the correctional education authority in order to have somebody in charge of organizing, coordinating, and obtaining funds.

 

One of the recommendations of the Study Committee on Corrections was to separate my division, which at present is me, into an actual correctional programs division. Nevada is only one of four states in the country that does not have a separate correctional programs division. At the present time, I occupy a position in the medical division. The budget request is to remove 55.51 positions, including mine, into a separate correctional programs division. We would move social workers, substance-abuse counselors, and chaplains, who are in three different budget categories at the present time. Some of the positions are in different prison categories and some are in the central office.

 

We are asking to move some psychologists who perform outpatient mental health services. Individual counseling and therapy, and instruction in education would come under programs. The psychologists who monitor psychological medications, suicide watch, and such, would remain in the medical division. There would be no change in the level of constitutional care provided, in fact, it would be better because programming services would be better-coordinated. There would be a centralized resource to apply for grants, partner with the community, and clarify the chain of command.

 

Are there any questions?

 

Senator Nolan:

With respect to the sexual offender treatment programs, we tried to initiate a bill to make it compulsory versus voluntary for people convicted of sexual offenses, particularly higher-tier individuals. Did that ever come about, or is it still voluntary?

 

Ms. Holmes:

The bill did not pass, but Director Crawford committed us to take responsibility for the “psych panel” and the sex offender program. The psych panel process was changed. A legislative audit made recommendations to standardize the panel because there were north, south, and regional panels reaching different conclusions. In January 2003, we went to a complete videoconference system, as is done with parole board hearings. We are using the same three board members, one in Las Vegas, one in Lovelock, and one in Carson City, and they appear on the video to conduct statewide hearings. There will now be consistency. The standard has changed. The members of the panel find whether or not the person is at high risk to re-offend.

 

A federal court decision said certain types of drug treatment could be imposed on an inmate, in other words, if they refuse to take the drug, they will not be released from prison. Nevada has not done that due to a lack of resources. There was a pilot program for a year in Lovelock in which two psychologists drove from Carson City twice a week to augment the Lovelock staff in order to teach a program. Two hundred inmates got through the program in a year, but 200 out of 1700 is not a lot. Half the inmates are at Lovelock, the other half are spread throughout the system.

 

Five psychologists are teaching the program at all institutions; therefore, more inmates can participate. The yearlong program, which began in July, includes 4 different modules, takes 48 weeks to complete, and approximately 275 to 300 inmates are participating. As inmates see the benefits of the program, we expect more of them to participate. The program has not been made compulsory because there is not enough staff. Inmates with multiple sentences are only being offered the program on their last actual sentence.

 

Senator Washington:

Out of 1700 inmates who are sex offenders, how many are rated levels one, two, and three, and when will they be released from prison?

 

Ms. Holmes:

Inmates are not classified into tier levels until released and classification is not done by the psych panel. The psych panel process is totally independent from the treatment program. Going through one does not necessarily guarantee success in the other. We offer treatment to those who want it, but all inmates must go through the psych panel, which is required by law on every one of their sentences. Therefore, if an inmate has multiple sentences, he or she will go through the psych panel again and again. Information can be obtained for the committee through the Division of Parole and Probation (P&P).

 

Senator Nolan:

It is still a voluntary treatment program, but you have provided more incentive for convicted individuals to participate. Level 2 and 3 offenders can still flatten out their time, but not receive treatment before they are released.

 

Ms. Holmes:

One of the problems in Nevada is the worst inmates often are released with no community supervision. The inmates remain in prison and expire their sentence rather than go out on parole. Sex offenders do it because they cannot find housing and cannot be released without a housing plan. Therefore, often the worst offenders who need the most supervision in the community are released without any, which is a dangerous situation. Some states have gone to mandatory parole. Nevada has a mandatory parole review date, but some states actually mandate a person be on parole for certain crimes when they are released.

 

The other thing with which Nevada will eventually have to come to grips is the different qualities or classes of sex offenders. A person who exposes himself is not the same as a sexual predator who beats up and rapes people. Research shows certain types of sex offenders are not amenable to treatment, some are very amenable to treatment and rarely re-offend, and some rarely re-offend without any treatment. There is research behind this, but the Nevada Department of Corrections is just starting to get into it. Dr. Robert Scofield, from Lovelock Correctional Center, is head of the program.

 

Funding was obtained to set up the program through the State Health Division and I want to compliment them. They used a rape prevention grant received from the centers for disease control to fund the program. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gave the program national acclaim, deeming it was creative use of the funds. The funds paid seven psychologists to attend sex offender treatment programs in Nevada in order to get up to speed. We are very thankful for the partnership with the State Health Division.

 

Senator Washington:

Is there a way to ascertain the statutes used by other states in regard to mandatory parole for certain sex offenders?

 

Ms. Holmes:

Some members of the Study Committee on Corrections studied Oregon’s system. In Oregon, when an individual is sentenced to 12 to 48 months, he or she must serve 40 percent of the sentence, and the judge decrees at sentencing that the person will serve an allotted time in custody and an allotted time out of custody. The decree is set at the time of sentencing and is not considered parole.

 

Senator Washington:

Since Nevada has already categorized its sentencing structure, I assume it would be easier to add mandatory parole to sex offenders before release.

 

Ms. Holmes:

There are ways to accomplish it, but we must be willing to do it.

 

Senator Washington:

I would like to request the staff to obtain information regarding this matter. I know sex offenders must register, but releasing sex offenders with no tracking could become dangerous to our communities.

 

Ms. Holmes:

Yes, it could. Sex offenders cannot be released from prison without housing; it is difficult for them to find housing, which makes the situation almost catastrophic.

 

Senator Washington:

During the 2001 Legislative Session, a transitional home bill passed out of the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Senator Wiener and I were privy to the testimony. I was caught in the middle of it this past year and observed flaws in the bill. Although it went under the jurisdiction of the department of health, it should have gone to P&P or the Department of Corrections in order to set guidelines to ensure an easier way to obtain housing.

 

In addition, there is no coordination between counties and municipalities to find housing for sex offenders after their release. Of course, everybody wants them to find housing, but “not in my backyard.” The argument is simple: without housing, released sex offenders will be scattered throughout the community making it more difficult for P&P to trace them and enhancing the possibility of repeated crime. I am hoping to consider that bill again and obtain suggestions from you and P&P in order to streamline it.

 

Ms. Holmes:

I understand from providers in both southern and northern Nevada that housing availability has been lost because some halfway houses operating for 30 years were shut down due to improper fire protection and zoning issues. One result of the Study Committee on Corrections is the formation of a nonprofit organization in Las Vegas that will build an apartment complex to house released sex offenders.

 

Glen Whorton, Assistant Director, Operations, Northern Nevada, Department of Corrections:

Even though an individual passes the psych panel and, from the standpoint of the State Board of Parole Commissioners, is suitable to receive parole, Dorla M. Salling, Chairman of the State Board of Parole Commissioners, often receives letters from inmates who have abandoned parole due to lack of appropriate housing. There are restrictions and stigma attached to that sort of housing. Our job is to protect the community and releasing those individuals into the community without some kind of supervision in transition will create more victims.

 

Senator Washington:

It is a terrible problem. Perhaps the Senate Committee on Judiciary can revisit the statute and work with the Department of Corrections and P&P to find a solution to the problem.

 

Senator Care:

In the next 116 days, we 63 legislators will receive numerous E-mails from people who say there is no budget problem, we need to cut. These are people who, by and large, will be more concerned with their property bills than whether a sex offender in Elko can be rehabilitated. What data can you give me that the public will be better served in the long run if you get everything you want, as opposed to just cutting back whatever programs currently exist so property owners in my district of Clark County will be satisfied to some degree?

 

Ms. Holmes:

Nevada puts less than 1 percent of its correctional budget into programs. At the present time, money in programs comes from inmates who pay into the inmate welfare fund. There are two 75-25 drug treatment, federally funded grants, with a 25 percent cash match paid by inmates from canteen sales. There is no program money in Nevada. Everything that has been done in the past 2 years has come through grants. We are trying to organize programming by organizing people differently and working better. We are asking for a grant position because I and the other four or five individuals who have been doing this work for the last year and a half, cannot continue to work nights, weekends, and overtime. There is a lot of accessible money, but we need the ability to obtain it.

 

In Nevada, 95 percent of inmates will be released. We would rather see them released with education paid for by the federal government, with treatment paid by grant money from the federal government, and with job skills acquired by partnering with nonprofit organizations in the community. Most of the $5.9 million in grants were obtained through workforce investment boards in Las Vegas to which a nonprofit organization applied for a grant and brought services to the Department of Corrections. There are culinary, horticulture, and construction programs in Las Vegas for one group of inmates, a landscaping program for female inmates, and a general workforce development program for women in the Jean facility teaching automobile emissions testing and computers, but that grant is about to expire. There are many studies mentioned in the Study Committee on Corrections that demonstrate a good prison correctional program can reduce recidivism by 30 percent. International research shows recidivism among inmates who receive substance abuse treatment can be cut down by 75 percent.

 

In 1990, a group at Carlton University in Canada did a commonsense study identifying eight “criminogenic factors,” which are the things criminals have in common, such as poor education, bad associations, drug use, and criminal thinking errors. The study verified, validated, and quantified the factors, and proved through thousands of inmates that these eight factors can be influenced through treatment, training, or education, and inmates can change should those factors be affected. There is an evaluation instrument we wish to use in the prison system, the cost of which is $8400 a year. It is called the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), is based on the criminogenic factors study, and identifies areas on which to focus on each individual because each inmate is different.

 

In Nevada, inmates are classified upon incarceration to determine how dangerous they are, to ascertain how likely they are to escape, and to discover what security issues they raise. However, we have never classified them by their programming needs. One of the undone tasks given me by Director Crawford is to create within the system a way to classify inmates upon incarceration by their programming needs. First, an inmate obtains a GED, because in Nevada an inmate should not leave prison or work without a GED. Then they receive job training. If they have drug problems they receive treatment upon release because it is required by federal law. Sex offenders receive treatment when it can be given, which is usually upon release. In the meantime they are given different types of life skills such as coping with criminal thinking errors and cognitive restructuring. The inmates are literally taught how to rethink their criminal values, such as: “I am a victim. I have had a bad life. I am entitled. I am going to take what I need.”

 

Research has proven that recidivism is affected. Nevada has never reported on recidivism. It needs to be done and was recommended by the Study Committee on Corrections. We need to look at what we are doing and evaluate it. If it does not work, quit doing it. If it works, do more, and report and evaluate it.

 

Senator Washington:

Are you aware of a program in Mexico called “Second Chance”?

 

Ms. Holmes:

Director Crawford traveled to Mexico with a Legislator to observe the program. The state of Arizona is looking at Second Chance as a demonstration project in its prison system. Second Chance is a type of detoxification drug treatment program with reportedly high success. We are looking into it and a bill is going to be introduced in regard to it. The controversial program detoxifies inmates through a vitamin health food cocktail with interesting results.

 

Senator Nolan:

I spoke with Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel, Department G, Family Division, Eighth Judicial District, in southern Nevada yesterday. The judge expressed concern about the juvenile population being housed in lockup due to closure of the Summit View Youth Correctional Center. She said a number of judges are concerned about juveniles serving sentences with no programming. Are there any plans for the Summit View Youth Correctional Center?

 

Ms. Holmes:

In Nevada, children as young as 14 are sent to adult prisons. A 14-year-old may be a murderer, but is still a 14-year-old child. We began a program called the Youthful Offender Program at Southern Desert Correctional Center after the 2001 Legislative Session. The program was funded in our budget. Basically, all inmates age 18 and under were removed from the main population and placed at the Southern Desert Correctional Center. Unfortunately, some of them have been “on the yard” and in the general prison population since they were 14 years of age. Some are hardened criminals at age 17 or 18; consequently, they washed out and were returned to adult prison. At the present time, all youngsters coming to prison straight from the courts, and all younger inmates who have not been to adult prison, are placed in the Youthful Offender Program. Seventy have completed the program and seventy-five are in it at this time. Juvenile inmates are kept for approximately 1 year or longer, depending upon their age, in order to get started on school and age-appropriate programming. They are housed in Unit 7 at the Southern Desert Correctional Center. Inmates under 18 can get into the program. There are approximately 700 offenders ages 19 to 21.

 

The Southern Nevada Correctional Center at Jean is being refurbished by inmates. It will be completed in approximately a year and a half and house about 600 inmates. Budget permitting, Director Crawford’s ultimate plan is to move young offenders into their own prison and totally segregate them from the adult population. A 14-year-old murderer should not be in prison with a 40‑year‑old Hell’s Angel, an Aryan Warrior, or a fellow with tattoos all over his arms. It is not a healthy or safe environment.

 

Senator Nolan:

When will the Jean facility be open?

 

Mr. Whorton:

Due to budget constraints, the correctional center at Jean will not open for several years. The population projection would not support opening in the present biennium. The Southern Nevada Correctional Center at Jean, Unit 8 at High Desert State Prison, and the South House at Nevada State Prison, which was 200 beds, have all closed. There is a surplus of beds at this time due to budget constraints and the fiscal situation. The Jean facility is Director Crawford’s plan for the future. Obviously, by the time it opens, the population would perhaps support that kind of mix at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center. It is a softer institution, but has a secure perimeter. We would optimize staffing and provide training to specifically deal with youthful offender issues. It is a complex and difficult population. As Ms. Holmes said, it is not fair to put a young offender with an older one; however, it is equally unfair to the older person because of specific behavior traits of the younger offender.

 

Ms. Holmes:

There are other special populations to be considered in the future, one being elderly inmates. There is a graying prison population. Since truth‑in‑sentencing legislation of the mid-1990s, inmates are given longer sentences and remain in prison longer. At present there are more than 300 inmates over 60 years old, with the standard geriatric problems of old age such as ambulatory problems, and health and memory issues. One of the recommendations of the Study Committee on Corrections is to begin looking at the Northern Nevada Correction Center and the area around our regional facility as geriatric prisons in the future. It is a sad commentary.

 

The other population is individuals with developmental disabilities. There are no special programs for these individuals in the correctional system or school districts. We need to work together to apply for federal money to initiate special programs for individuals in the system with low intelligence quotients (IQs) who are unable to function at a normal level and will remain in prison.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. You covered issues that will be considered in other legislation coming to the committee, such as honor camp pay. Senator Care’s question on the cost benefit of programming was a revelation to me, perhaps not as much for Senator Wiener who served on the Senate Committee on Judiciary and interim task force. The committee will hold hearings on some of the operational impacts of the proposed budget and Legislators will be asked to be part of a two-thirds majority to vote on revenue enhancements. Speaking for myself, part of what will happen on the other side of the budget, in terms of programming and public safety issues, will affect my voting consideration. Therefore, when Senator Care and others discuss the cost benefit of programming versus being tough, I think they make a case. I hope during the course of committee hearings regarding operation of the budget you will provide information that will enable Legislators to feel comfortable making the case for cost benefits, as well as dealing with these issues.

 

Ms. Holmes:

We will do that, Senator. We are not asking for programming money, we are asking for reorganization of what we have in place. Basically, we are asking to reorganize in order to begin working differently, and then ascertain whether or not we will attain the success that has been attained by others. Statistics on the 30 percent reduction in recidivism and 75 percent reduction in substance abuse have been reported by others, but we want the chance to develop our own statistics. We can do it by simply moving 55 positions into a group, organizing, and getting started.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Based upon the questions of Senator Nolan and Senator Washington, I have six or seven bill draft requests on which Mr. Anthony and the Senators can work in order to ascertain whether or not there might be an appetite for mandatory parole legislation.

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel:

I would like to point out that the lifetime supervision program was created in 1995, but did not apply retroactively. Anyone who committed an offense before that time and was released would not be subject to that program.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Perhaps we should look at that program to see how it might dovetail into this proposal.

 

Ms. Holmes:

There is another issue. Many people do not realize that hookers in Nevada, who are arrested for soliciting for sex knowing they have human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), are classified as sex offenders and must report for their lifetimes with lifetime supervision. I am not sure whether or not it needs to be done that way and it is not my policy decision to make, but work is needed in supervision of street prostitutes.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Welcome, Mr. Bussell. Please identify yourself for the record.

 

Jerry Bussell, Special Advisor on Homeland Security, Office of the Governor:

At the close of Nevada’s 71st Legislative Session, I would venture to say no one thought we would be at war in the next 3 months and fighting asymmetric enemy terrorism. No one thought we would be on the brink of war with Iraq. No one thought because of terrorism our federal government would be in the greatest transition since the National Security Act of 1947. No one thought Congress would be creating a new Department of Homeland Security combining 22 separate agencies and 170,000 employees. No one thought Governor Kenny Guinn, like other governors, would need to appoint a homeland security advisor. No one thought Nevada would be living in clear and present danger.

 

The commonly accepted definition of terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to instill fear, to coerce and intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Simply put, terrorism is intended to produce fear in someone other than the victim. The attack on the World Trade Center was carried out for one purpose, to spread fear in America. Terrorists know what they are doing. Their selections of targets are planned, resourced, practiced, and rational. They know the effect they seek. Their violence is neither spontaneous nor random. Terrorists do not recognize innocent people. They, in fact, target them. The terrorist’s primary objective is publicity. The requirement for publicity will almost always drive target selection. The greater the symbolic value of the target, the more publicity the attack brings. Given this information, it is clear that Nevada should be prepared.

 

Let me begin by asking you to turn in your packet on homeland security (Exhibit F) to page 3. The homeland security advisor position was appointed by the Governor in late November 2002, became effective January 2003, and telephones and different situations are still being put into place. The position was funded by two grants, one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the other from the Department of Justice. The position has no budget, no formal authority, and no employees, although I have an executive assistant.

 

Mr. Chairman, I will not read all the material before you; however, allow me to direct you to a couple of points. On page 4 (Exhibit F), in regard to my role, I am to advise the Governor, coordinate with various agencies, chair the homeland security committee, be a liaison with the Nevada Legislature, work with State, local, and private officials, oversee federal terrorism-related programs through a number of agencies, attend meetings, and oversee media and public information.

 

On page 5 (Exhibit F), I defined my mission differently. During the next several years, significant homeland security federal dollars may be available to Nevada. As the homeland security advisor, I will serve as a single point for these federal funds. With the approval of the Governor and the Legislature I will oversee the process of obtaining these funds and coordinating investment decisions with all agencies to avoid conflicts, redundancies, and misallocation of resources. In the event of an incident I would serve as the Governor’s advisor and key point of contact for operational decisions. How am I going to accomplish this? I will accomplish it through observation at all levels, federal, state, local, and the private sector, with sound analysis, good judgment, and timely advice.

 

Senator McGinness:

Who is on the Committee on Homeland Security?

 

Mr. Bussell:

I am going to reorganize the committee. I will take a look across a completely different spectrum of what the committee should do and how it should be formed. It is in the process of being changed at present and I will provide you the names.

 

Senator McGinness:

I would appreciate that.

 

Mr. Bussell:

I would like to direct your attention to the Nevada Homeland Security Web Site (Exhibit F). This is a great source of information for the public and allows them to observe what is going on. It is important for the citizens of Nevada to receive answers to their questions on the Web site, or they can telephone the homeland security office. This completes my formal presentation to you.

 

Senator Care:

As you pointed out in your presentation, your office will have no formal authority. Nonetheless, because of your title, people will be looking to you for guidance. I anticipate several pieces of legislation this session relating to homeland security. We will get into a balancing act between national security, state security, and the Bill of Rights. You know that is coming, primarily the Fourth Amendment.

 

I would be interested in knowing your views on the distinction between an act of war, an act of terrorism, and a criminal act. People now refer to the event in Oklahoma City as an act of terrorism, but it was not done very much prior to September 11, 2001. The argument could certainly be made it was an act of terrorism, although Timothy McVey appeared to be working alone or as part of a fringe group.

 

What do you consider an act of terrorism as opposed to a criminal act, and must there be a degree of foreign element involved? In other words, Al Qaeda may or may not have cells operating in the United States, but I would regard those as terrorists as opposed to some sort of domestic anarchists. Would you please embellish on that.

 

Mr. Bussell:

What an interesting question. My personal opinion is a terrorist is trying to attack our way of life, change the way we function in our government procedures by having us pull inward, take a look at what we are doing, or live in fear of another attack. A criminal is seeking money or funds. The acts of both terrorist and criminal are the same and could cause death or serious injury; however, their motivations are completely different. A terrorist is trying to send a message of fear, whereas a criminal is trying to get something for himself. How will that affect legislation? I do not know.

 

Senator Washington:

Does your office work with national defense to provide security or coordinate information for the protection of, or possible terrorist attack at Fallon Naval Air Station?

 

Mr. Bussell:

My office would coordinate with the base commanders of Fallon Naval Air Station and Nellis Air Force Base, and any other Department of Defense (DOD) installations. However, greater than that, I have a responsibility to the Governor and citizens of Nevada to expand my view of observation as far as I can so should there be an event, I would understand the resources. To give an example: I met with prison officials to discuss the capabilities of a prison hospital with relation to the Rural Conservation Camps at Indian Springs. In case of an event, we could go to a less-than-normal procedure of taking injured people to the prison. Is that the kind of information sharing and discussion that should take place prior to an event?

 

Senator Nolan:

An event would be catastrophic to Nevada’s fragile economy. I think your role in coordinating training and information and disseminating it to areas throughout the State is absolutely vital, particularly in the resort corridors. The resort areas will require help in training their employees to be vigilant and observant. The most pressing concern at present is to protect the economy and our citizens from an attack in those areas.

 

I would like to relay an event I observed last week. I was in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas and observed a man standing in a corner looking around to ascertain the location of security officers who were busy at that moment. The man then walked to the middle of the atrium, took a small camera out of his pocket, took two pictures of the atrium, and exited. I went to the capitol police, told them about the incident, and reported the identity of the man matched what has been profiled. The officer asked me what I wanted him to do about it. I told the officer I thought he should ask the man his purpose in taking pictures. The officer answered the man might just be interested in the architecture of the building. Although the architecture in the Grant Sawyer building may be better than many state buildings, in my opinion, it is not that attractive.

 

The incident raised a high level of concern about the training of people in public buildings and our own security forces. I think you have a vital and imminent role in what is being done at this time.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Thank you, Mr. Bussell. We will have other legislation coming before us and if there is anything we can do to help, please let us know.

 

Senator Washington:

Last session we heard a bill dealing with the interstate compact for adult offenders (S.B. No. 194 of the 71st Session). It has come to my attention that The Council of State Governments (CSG) is also putting forth a proposal to do the same compact for juvenile offenders. I would like to request the committee to propose a BDR in that regard.

 

Chairman Amodei:

I am sure that is fine.

 

Senator McGinness:

I have a BDR that came through juvenile probation of Washoe County on juvenile sex offenders which may be a related issue. I will work with you to ensure it does not conflict with your BDR.

 

Senator Washington:

That would be fine. Perhaps we could submit it into your BDR if it is germane to the subject and we would not have to create another bill.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Mr. Anthony, would you please give the summaries of the BDRs for introduction.

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst:

Bill Draft Request (BDR) 7-335 was requested by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. Bill Draft Request 32-186 was requested by the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor. Bill Draft Request 40-297 was requested by the Subcommittee on Industrial Explosions.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 7-335: Allows formation of certain professional corporations. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 65.)

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-186: Revises provisions governing certain agreements relating to sale of cigarettes. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 66.)

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-297: Makes various changes to provisions governing regulation of highly hazardous substances and explosives. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 67.)

 

Chairman Amodei:

I would like to put on record that a vote to request committee introduction does not obligate you to support the legislation. Also, I think it unusual that the Senate Committee on Judiciary was given three bills with a commerce and labor genesis that were actually given up by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. This may be a historic event. With that, if anybody is prepared to make a motion to introduce the BDRs, the chair would accept same.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 7-335, BDR 32‑186, AND BDR 40-297.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Comment on the motion by Senator Care.

 

Senator Care:

It sounds as though research will have to be done on BDR 32-186 on the manner in which the master settlement perhaps impacts the whole course regarding prohibitions on advertising.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Are there any more comments on the pending motion? Seeing none, all in favor of introduction of the three BDRs signify by saying aye.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei:

Thank you, we will consider those BDRs introduced and open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 13.

 

SENATE BILL 13: Revises provision requiring landlord to disclose emergency telephone number to tenant at or before commencement of tenancy. (BDR 10-662)

 

Senator McGinness:

Senate Bill 13 was requested by me on behalf of realtors. I believe Judy Cook is present to testify on the bill.

 

Jeff Bachert, Lobbyist, Governor Affairs Director, Nevada Association of Realtors:

On my immediate right is Melody Luetkehans, General Counsel, Nevada Association of Realtors (NVAR) and on my far right is Judy Cook, one of our foremost property specialists. We are here today to support S.B. 13, a property management bill. The NVAR is prominent in promoting housing opportunities, home ownership, portable housing, property rights, and so forth. A good minority of our membership consists of property managers. Senate Bill 13 would allow greater flexibility for property managers and property managers in rural areas. I would like Judy Cook to elaborate on the merits of the bill.

 

Judy Cook, Lobbyist, Cook & Company, Ltd.:

My name is Judy Cook and I am a property manager and speaker-trainer in property management issues throughout the State of Nevada. I am also a licensed broker salesman and property management permit holder. Senate Bill 13 is a positive change in existing legislation which takes into consideration the realities of managing property in rural areas. It allows for managers who are quite often in one county while managing properties in two or three surrounding counties, but still in close proximity to the property. I, therefore, support S.B. 13.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Are there any questions or testimony in favor of or opposed to S.B. 13? Seeing none, the hearing on S.B. 13 is closed. Is there a motion on S.B. 13?

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 13.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Washington:

Could we move this to the consent calendar?

 

Chairman Amodei:

Is there any objection to moving S.B. 13 in the context of the consent calendar? Is there any further discussion?

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON S.B. 13.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR S.B. 13.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei:

I will open the hearing on Senate Bill 17.

 

SENATE BILL 17: Provides penalty for person who leaves child 7 years of age or younger unsupervised in motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 15-586)

 

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of my home committee. I am here today to present S.B. 17. Before I address the bill, I would like to explain how I came to introduce it. Several months ago I received a telephone call from Jody Esposito who asked me to sponsor a measure on a subject that was a personal issue for her. Jody’s 5-year-old son, Michael, was a student at Louis Wiener Elementary School. Due to the loss of her child, she contacted me to bring the bill forward. She is in Las Vegas to testify in more detail about the story that prompted me to bring S.B. 17 forward. With great passion and sincerity I would like to thank Senator Titus. I contacted her after being notified she had a similar BDR and she was gracious enough to allow me to go forward with S.B. 17 and agreed to be the primary cosponsor on the legislation. Thank you, Senator Titus.

 

When drafting the bill, I gathered together a team of people with vested interests or concern about the issue. The key participants on the team, which changed from meeting to meeting, were regularly 10 people at the table to draft the bill. Jody Esposito was there, as well as representatives from the “Kids ‘N Cars” organization, from which there is a letter of support contained in a packet of information distributed to you (Exhibit G). Bob Teuton, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police and Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association, Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, and Kathleen Boutin Clark County Health District, as well as the aforementioned individuals met three lengthy times, and had several telephone conversations, drafting language with Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to bring forth the consensus bill before you.

 

Senate Bill 17 basically addresses leaving a child 7 years of age or younger in a car unattended or unsupervised. You will see in section 1 of S.B. 17 the language, “a child who is 7 years of age or younger.” As we looked, state to state, at what would be an appropriate age, every age up to the age of 18 was probably listed in statute somewhere. We chose the age of 7 years or younger because in Nevada there is a presumption a child of that age is not able to distinguish right from wrong. There is also language in section 1, subsection 1 of S.B. 17, “at least 14 years of age,” which is also based on the legal presumption in Nevada that a person must reach at least 14 years of age before being able to distinguish right from wrong.

 

Two key factors that apply to the situation of leaving a child unattended in a car, whether it be the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child, would be danger to the health and safety of the child if the engine is running, or if the keys to the car are in the passenger portion of the car and accessible to the child. Penalties in section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 17 create a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $300, with a provision to give discretion to the judge hearing the case and addressing the citation. The judge may waive any and all of the fee if the person cited attends a court-approved program in education learning about the responsibilities of children traveling in automobiles.

 

Initially I did not like the word “penalty” because the focus of S.B. 17 is to educate parents and responsible adults who care for children about their responsibilities. We wanted this part of the bill to create an incentive to educate parents about the dangers of leaving children alone in vehicles, especially in the southern part of the state.

 

Section 1, subsection 3 of S.B. 17 allows law enforcement, or anyone else who reasonably believes a child is in danger, to enter a car to retrieve the child in order to protect him or her. An individual would not be deterred from entering a car, nor would there be any civil liability if there is reasonable belief a child is in danger. Law enforcement expressed concern about the ability to seek a greater penalty if there were more egregious circumstances.

 

Section 4 of S.B. 17 does not preclude the application of other abuse and neglect allegations if the circumstance rises to that level. In southern Nevada there is substantial concern about entering a vehicle in order to protect a child because doing so could rise to the level of felony. Often children are overlooked or passed by because of the nature of the penalty at this time. The team and I hope S.B. 17 will create awareness, educate adults, protect children, and not let the situation rise to the level of abuse and neglect, but help children in danger when it may not be at the highest level.

 

Basically, that is S.B. 17, and I urge committee support to protect children in southern Nevada and help parents and people responsible for children to learn about protecting those children when in motor vehicles.

 

Senator Nolan:

In subsection 3 of S.B. 17 you indicated law enforcement may incur some type of liability as a result of removing …

 

Senator Wiener:

Subsection 3 of S.B. 17 indicates they would not incur liability if they reasonably believe a child is in danger.

 

Senator Nolan:

I understand that. I was asking whether, at present, a person would incur liability if a child whose life may be in danger is removed from a car.

 

Senator Wiener:

I do not know. Based on our conversations when drafting the bill, if liability was a factor, law enforcement would be highly reluctant to enter a car to protect a child, partly because of the felony attached under abuse and neglect in current law. Liability did not come to the table. We did not want to deter anyone from entering a car if a child were perceived to be in danger due to fear of reciprocal lawsuit civil liability.

 

Senator Nolan:

Thank you.

 

R. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney’s Association:

We are in support of S.B. 17. It is interesting to note that Robert Teuton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Clark County District Attorney, expressed concern about the language in section 1, subsection 4 of S.B. 17. We wholeheartedly support the bill but want to make certain, as does Senator Wiener, we are not precluded or do not provide mischief for an inventive defense counsel to use to frustrate the purpose of the legislation. We would appreciate a work session and being allowed to work with Senator Wiener.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Is your concern in section 1, subsection 4 of S.B. 17?

 

Mr. Graham:

It is on page 2, line 9, of section 1, subsection 4 of S.B 17. Our criminal division sent some suggested language, but I have questions about it. It will take some time to iron it out. I want to ensure we are not precluded or the defense would try to say it needed to be prosecuted under this misdemeanor even though something worse happened.

 

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association-South:

We support the bill and agree with Mr. Graham.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Association and Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association-North:

We also support S.B. 17. Thank you very much.

 

Senator Care:

I support and sponsored S.B. 17, however, I see scenarios down the road. Would you give consideration during work session regarding a person 14 years of age or older in possession of a car and the conditions present a danger to the health and safety of a child, would it mean a reasonable person would believe the conditions present a danger, or the person should have reasonably believed it? Secondly, what happens if a person borrowed the car and is unaware of the keys being somewhere else in the car?

 

May Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County:

Although we do not believe this problem exists in Washoe County, police officers cite for these situations and refer them to child protective services when appropriate, but we support S.B. 17 if it is a problem elsewhere.

 

Jody Esposito, Concerned Citizen:

I am here today to tell you how important S.B. 17 is to me (Exhibit H). I am the mother of Michael Esposito who lost his life May 10, 2001 at the age of 5 years. Michael was a happy and outgoing child who was filled with laughter and love. There never was a dull moment with Michael. He was someone you would never forget and I, as his mother, never will. It only took a moment after an innocent game of hide and seek. He chose the trunk of my car as his hiding place. He was not left unattended, he was right behind his father and me.

 

Since that time I have become adamant about preventing others from facing the tragedy my family had to face. I have donated a lot of time and energy to educate the public on the dangers of leaving children unattended in or around vehicles. Since 1990 there have been 438 deaths throughout the United States from children being left in or around a vehicle unattended. At least 12 of those deaths occurred in Nevada. Many other children have been injured or hospitalized due to this dangerous practice. There have been an average of 60 calls per month to our local “911” to remove children from the danger of being left in or around unattended vehicles.

 

Please be reminded that all the deaths and calls to 911 were not heat-related. There are a wide variety of dangers when leaving a child unattended around a car. Among those are a child being run over by the vehicle, car fires, carjacking, trunk entrapment, strangulation by car windows and sun roofs, just to name a few. It surprised me to find there is no one in Nevada to protect our children from this dangerous habit. Unfortunately, parents and caregivers are too preoccupied to remember the safety of children for whom they are caring. In this fast-paced world it is unfortunate that parents and caregivers forget what is important in their lives.

 

In the months following Michael’s passing, two children died due to parents forgetting their children in cars and it continues to worsen throughout the United States. This is one of the main reasons it is so important to pass S.B. 17 and stop these horrible tragedies.

 

I spoke with Senator Wiener about the possibility of getting a law passed in memory of my son, Michael. Senator Wiener graciously agreed to assist me. This bill is more about education than punishment and the possibility a person can waive a fine if they attend an educational class on the dangers. I believe by passing S.B. 17 many children’s lives will be saved and those who are unaware of the dangers will be educated. Unfortunately, it seems as though laws and education are the only way to make people respond to such dangers. I hope you will join me in the urgency of passing this bill. Thank you.

 

Sandy B. Toles, Concerned Citizen:

I am the inventor of “Remember Your Baby,” an early alarm warning system that reminds parents to take their baby out of the car seat. I am here in support of S.B. 17. I have worked for the past 2½ years on this device because I have seen parents go through the tragedy of losing their child in a car and know what it does to a family. I am in full support of educating parents, reminding them of their children, and the need to protect our precious resource. Thank you.

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens:

I participated in various meetings preparing S.B. 17. We began with concerns regarding some of the proposals. The opportunity to meet with the team and work out the provisions resulted in a cleaned up bill that ties down protection of children in dangerous situations that do not spill over into erroneous use. We would be happy to continue working on Mr. Graham’s concern with Senator Wiener.

 

I want to express our appreciation for Senator Wiener’s efforts to streamline the process. Thank you.

 

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers:

I wish to be on record that we also support S.B. 17 and see no problems with it.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Seeing no further testimony, I will close the hearing on S.B. 17. I would not be averse to a motion to amend and do pass subject to the amendment returning to the committee for approval.

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 17.

 

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Washington:

I would like to state for the record that I applaud Senator Wiener for her efforts and testimony and I recognize the seriousness of the situation, but I did not sign on the bill. I understand a child should not be left in a vehicle, however, parents should assume responsibility for the safety and conduct of their children. There are some occasions when a child may be left in a car by accident, or something might happen while groceries are being placed in the trunk and the car accidentally locks. I know the anticipated effect of the legislation is to educate the public in this particular case, but I assume reasonable parents would look out for the safety of their children. I am reluctant to vote for S.B. 17 because it infringes upon God-given parental rights provided in our Constitution. Therefore, I am hesitant to support the bill.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Thank you, I appreciate that and it is noted. Are there any other comments on the pending motion? Seeing none, please signify by saying aye, opposed no.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei:

Mr. Wilkinson will confer with Mr. Graham to prepare the amendment. I assume there will no formal work session.

 

I will open the hearing on Senate Bill 39.

 

SENATE BILL 39: Requires landlord to change entry locks of dwelling unit before delivering possession of dwelling unit to new tenant. (BDR 10-592)

 

David Howard, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Multiple Housing Association:

With me this morning is Misty Davies, a recent graduate of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), who agreed to be my intern this session. Senate Bill 39 was requested by the Southern Nevada Multiple Housing Association (SNMA), an association of 580 members in the Las Vegas Valley. The SNMA is a merger of two former apartment associations, the Silver State Apartment Association and the Nevada Apartment Association, which represent 60,000 units in the Las Vegas Valley.

 

This measure is a proactive piece of legislation meant to help and protect tenants. It is something most responsible landlords do anyway, but SNMA felt it would be good to have a law to ensure this particular function of the landlord-tenant relationship is carried out.

 

There are a number of amendments (Exhibit I). Various associations in the State have expressed concerns and I hope I have satisfied them with the amendments. On line 5, section 2 of S.B. 39, we want to add the language, “or rekeyed” after “change.” This will provide for the varied number of types of locks and closures on doors. On line 6, section 3 of S.B. 39, we want to add the words, “or rekeyed” after “change.” Finally, the third amendment, found on line 9, section 3 of S.B. 39, would be to remove, “recover damages and obtain injunctive relief.” There have been concerns about putting this particular function within the realm of adjudication and litigation. We suggest replacing the language with, “change of rekey entry locks at landlord’s expense not to exceed $75,” so the responsibility would be on the landlord.

 

Senator Care:

You mentioned a number of landlords already do this, but traditionally landlords are not responsible for the tortious or criminal acts of a third party, such as somebody burglarizing an apartment. Why do you want to do this when you say the practice is already done by many landlords? What is the necessity for doing this? I am sure there are some landlords, probably in the lower rental-fee area, who would object to it. Why would we have to do this if an apartment complex has no history of burglaries, nor does the landlord have knowledge of any history of burglaries?

 

Mr. Howard:

I was not aware there is no responsibility for a third party, however, you being an attorney, I will readily accept it. I questioned why we needed to do it when I first saw the bill. First, SNMA wants to be seen as proactive for responsible landlords and, second, SNMA wants to demonstrate to the insurance industry they are looking out after loss and theft.

 

Senator Care:

Let us say the landlord does not change the locks and a previous tenant, or a person who had possession of the key from a previous tenant, enters the front door and does something more than just injury to personal property. If the landlord does not change or rekey the lock, would that make him or her liable for injury or damages suffered by the new tenant? I guess $75 would get the landlord out of that predicament, but there will be reluctant landlords. I wonder whether or not we would be creating a problem.

 

Mr. Howard:

Not being an attorney, I am reluctant to speculate on that.

 

Senator Titus:

The way the bill is written, it seems the landlord would be liable. However, with the amendment language, “may recover damages and obtain injunctive relief,” and “rekey at the landlord’s expense” would take care of the problem.

 

Mr. Howard:

We were hoping it would put the responsibility back on the tenant. If the locks are not changed or rekeyed, it would be the tenant’s responsibility to get it done, and any problem would be the tenant’s responsibility. Again, back to Senator Care’s question, I would not want to speculate on it. It is just an effort to satisfy everyone.

 

Senator Washington:

Would the landlord be responsible for changing locks in weekly apartments where tenants pay a weekly rate, stay there for two or three months, and then move out?

 

Mr. Howard:

My one experience in this regard is with some individuals in the Reno area. It is my understanding they have key waves that are exchanged weekly. It is a problem.

 

Senator Washington:

If the landlord did not change the key he or she could still be held liable.

 

Mr. Howard:

That is correct.

 

Senator Barbara Cegavske, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8:

You have heard everything and Mr. Howard knows what he is talking about.

 

Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association:

We question the necessity of S.B. 39. Many SNMA members do not own apartments nor do the types of companies that generally build single-family homes, such as Lewis Operating Company, Pacific Properties, Del Webb, and Castle Properties, who handle senior citizens. I called some of these companies and was told, in most cases, they already rekey the locks. The locks are rekeyed on a voluntary basis to protect the tenant, but also to protect their own property. An apartment may sit vacant for approximately 15 to 30 days and somebody with a key could get in and vandalize it. Landlords rekey on that basis, but it is not a formal procedure. I agree with Senator Care on the liability issues if this bill is put into law.

 

We question whether or not S.B. 39 would be of assistance in the long run because landlords who rekey now will continue to do so. If S.B. 39 passes, some sort of procedure will have to be established. Lewis Operating Company has someone rekey locks the day before a new tenant moves in, or the day they move in, or within a couple of days. However, if we follow the intent of S.B. 39, they will need an acknowledgment from the tenant that the lock has been rekeyed, and should the tenant have a break-in, he or she will challenge whether or not the lock was rekeyed. Consequently, this will set a lot of other things in operation.

 

If the committee decides to go forth with this legislation we consider it important to talk about changing the lock because that is different than rekeying the lock, which we do now. If the real intent is to protect the tenant, certainly getting injunctive relief in seeking damages is not going to get his or her lock changed or provide protection. A better idea would be if a landlord did not change the lock at the tenant’s request within 72 hours, the tenant could get the lock changed and charge up to $75 against their next month’s rent.

 

I made some telephone calls to ascertain how much it would cost to rekey a new single-family home and it is $75. I am sure it would be less for an apartment because there are fewer doors than a house. Most people moving into a brand new single-family home in a subdivision have the locks rekeyed or install extra locks because construction people have keys while a house is being built. The builder is not required to rekey it for them, but some builders do so. It is something for which most people take responsibility.

 

I think S.B. 39 was done with good intent, but it probably would give us more grief trying to keep track of all of it, with more procedures, and potential for greater liabilities. In any event, we suggest amendments if you go forth in an attempt to make it a more workable piece of legislation.

 

Senator Nolan:

It seems to me there is an obligation on a landlord to deliver safe habitation for renters. For example, if a lock was not operating correctly on a sliding glass door and the house was vandalized and people injured, there would be liability on the landlord.

 

Perhaps it could be made optional in a lease arrangement wherein the landlord might ask the tenants whether or not they would prefer to have $75 deducted from their deposit in order to have the door rekeyed. Would that be more palatable?

 

Ms. Porter:

I think that is contract law between landlord and tenant. I would have no problem with it. Most of the companies I talked with are already doing it.

 

I would like to point out page 2, section 4, subsection 2(a) and 2(b) of S.B. 39, in regard to low-rent housing programs, say anyone who owns less than four or fewer rentals is exempt from the bill. Therefore, a person renting out a single‑family home would not be subject to this legislation. People in low-income neighborhoods or low-rent projects would not be subject to this legislation.

 

Mr. Wilkinson:

I want to point out S.B. 39 actually has the opposite effect. It is, in fact, applicable to units with four or fewer dwelling units which is the reason we specifically added the reference to section 2 into paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of S.B. 39.

 

Ms. Porter:

I was reading it backwards and I apologize.

 

Senator Washington:

I was the one who brought up the low-income issue. It was not just low-income housing, it was actually weekly units, which can be multiple units. Some tenants remain a month at a time and if they move the landlord is responsible for changing the locks. These tenants move perpetually and could be in and out of weekly units over and over again. Therefore, it becomes a burden and great cost to the landlord. I am wondering, if S.B. 39 should pass, whether or not landlords would be held liable.

 

Ms. Porter:

I agree there would be liability unless the legislation were amended. Even if it was amended, there still might be liability.

 

Senator Care:

Weeklies and monthlies are considered innkeepers and have a higher duty to the tenant. In the early 1980s many resorts began using key cards. Before that time there were many lawsuits regarding entry into a room by a former guest. Senate Bill 39 refers to residential housing for a term of 6 months or more. I know a landlord still has a duty, with or without this legislation, if he or she reasonably knows the neighborhood has had burglaries of this type, to disclose it to the prospective tenant. You are sunk if you do not make that disclosure before renting a unit.

 

Senator Washington:

The weeklies to which I refer still use keys. They do not use what is termed a “credit card” or a magnetic lock exchange. The keys are sometimes retained by the tenant, which creates a problem. Although there are managers on-site, the landlord is still liable. Some of the finer resorts use magnetic cards.

 

Ms. Porter:

Page 2, section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (g) of S.B. 39 states, “Occupancy in a hotel or motel for less than 30 consecutive days …,“ therefore, the bill does not apply to that issue.

 

Chairman Amodei:

Mr. Howard, I am sensitive to Senator Care’s comments and the questions of the committee. We are awaiting an onslaught of bills that may or may not materialize, liability issues on S.B. 39 need to be worked out, and the committee will be receiving other landlord-tenant measures; therefore, I wonder whether there is an appetite for the committee to indefinitely postpone S.B. 39 and offer you the opportunity to come in on another landlord-tenant bill to seek a way to address the issue and offer an amendment. You can then talk to your client and ascertain whether they want to address the liability issue. If they do, the amendment mechanism is available, if not, the bill will not float around awaiting a deadline.

 

Mr. Howard:

I would like to remind the Chairman and the committee that S.B. 39 was presented by SNMA as a proactive element. I know of approximately three more measures in this area to which we could attach this bill should my client decide to do so.

 

Chairman Amodei:

I appreciate the fact that SNMA is thinking in terms of proactive risk management and the insurance market, which is why we will make the amendment ability available to your client should it decide to proceed in that manner. With that said, is there a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 39 based upon the understandings put on record?

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 39.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Nolan:

I agree with the concept and appreciate the fact SNMA is attempting to protect tenants. I would like to reiterate the suggestion that should changing the lock be made an option to the tenant, the liability and cost would then be on the new tenant. I support the motion.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei:

There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is adjourned at 10:03 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Barbara Moss,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Mark Amodei, Chairman

 

 

DATE: