MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
April 10, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, April 10, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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 E. Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Nevada Psychiatric Association
Chairman Amodei:
Committee members, you have your Work Session Document in front of you (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). There are copies available for members of the audience who would like them. The first bill we will address is Senate Bill (S.B.) 66.
SENATE BILL 66: Revises provisions governing certain agreements relating to sale of cigarettes. (BDR 32-186)
Chairman Amodei:
Mr. Anthony, would you give us a quick rundown, and Mr. Wilkinson would you give us a brief overview of the amendment under tab A?
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst:
Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, among others, brought S.B. 66 forward. Testimony indicated this measure was introduced on behalf of retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products, specifically smaller retailers. The measure addresses concerns in the contracts of such products regarding display and shelving requirements. Tab A of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) contains an amendment prepared by the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel:
The amendment under tab A makes a couple of changes to the bill as it currently exists. First of all, it deletes all existing provisions of the bill and moves those provisions to chapter 597 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which removes all involvement with the Department of Taxation. Furthermore, the amendment now provides what a contractor agreement between a supplier and retail cigarette dealer cannot provide, in other words, what is prohibited in a contract rather than what could be included. Section 1, subsection 2, requires a supplier to reimburse retail cigarette dealers for any consumer price discount or consumer promotion provided to consumers within 90 days after the retail cigarette dealer provides any such discount or promotion to consumers.
Senator Care:
I have given S.B. 66 a lot of thought and have discussed what is now an amended bill, really a substitute bill. It would seem parts of it are clearly practices that would be restraint of trade or antitrust. I am referring to the amended section 1, subsection 1, paragraphs (a) and (b). Yesterday, I received a letter from a gentleman who owns a smoke shop, who originally was in support of the bill. In the letter he said he had changed his mind. It seems a remedy already exists in statute relating to unfair trade practices. While I am somewhat sympathetic to convenience store owners, my inclination is to vote against the bill with the proposed amendment. I am looking at the amendment purely as a legal matter.
Senator Titus:
I believe there is a real problem with this language. Is there nothing we can do? In my opinion, there is cause for concern for small operators.
Chairman Amodei:
The only thing I can tell you is if there is an appetite to continue looking at the issue, we can certainly see if there are vehicles in play the last half of session. If there is something appropriate, we could continue to discuss this issue and perhaps make additional refinements.
Senator Nolan:
This is the first time I have seen the amendment. I looked it over and would like to echo Senator Care’s comments. I had committed to the proponents of S.B. 66 we would take a look at this. I believe what the amendment does is take the bill right back to what they were accusing Phillip Morris of doing in the first place, by way of restraining trade. I would be inclined not to take any action on this, or if we do, I would vote against it.
Senator Care:
I would go along, as you stated, if there is another vehicle at some point later in session, as these arguments are fleshed out, I would not be opposed to attaching to whatever vehicle that might be, some curative language. I simply meant to say there is a remedy under existing law, to seek relief from the Unfair Trade Practices Act. If it turns out there is more to this than I am aware of at the moment, for example, if the gentleman who changed his mind, the precise fellow for whom S.B. 66 is supposed to provide relief, then I would look at it. As far as the bill itself, I would oppose it, if there were a motion to that effect.
Chairman Amodei:
Mr. Anthony, would you and Mr. Wilkinson, as the result of the comments of the committee, take a look at what is in play after tomorrow that may be germane from the Assembly side, and report back to the committee? Also, would you get together with Senator Titus and Senator Care, to see if we can refine those concerns into a potential amendment if a relevant vehicle comes over from the Assembly?
Senator Washington:
I know I arrived late, and I take from the tone of the committee, there is no sentiment to move the bill right now, but there are portions of the amendment I would like to see go forward. Instead of watching the bill dissolve, is there any way we can hold it or some things out of it?
Chairman Amodei:
I believe the consensus is to look for a mechanism coming over from the Assembly where this might be germane. If you have a proposed amendment now, while we are discussing S.B. 66, you are free to offer it.
Senator Washington:
I do not have a proposed amendment, but there are portions of this amendment that I like.
Chairman Amodei:
Would you like to make a motion?
Senator Wiener:
In section 1, subsection 1, where we have mandatory language and many prohibitions in contract or agreement, I would request staff, as they go forward in looking for a vehicle, keep in mind a balanced approach. This is an issue in which I have had a great deal of comprehensive input from both parties. Therefore, my concern would be a balanced approach to the relationship we are dealing with in S.B. 66 and any unintended consequences. A quick look at the amendment reveals we seem to swing the other way when including such significant prohibitions in contract law. I would certainly be willing to work on a resolution, if there is a vehicle coming from the Assembly, to maintain contract law without making it impossible for small retailers to do their job. I do not believe it is our position to create so many prohibitions the contract law is subverted.
Senator McGinness:
I would like to quote a former Senator, who said, “This whole building is built on turf.” We are working on somebody else’s turf, and I do not believe somebody can come to us and ask us to solve these problems, because if we solve them for one side, we have complicated it for the other side. I have not liked the bill from the beginning.
Senator Washington:
Mr. Chairman, regarding the prompt-pay provision, I would like to retain that provision of the amendment, because there are small retailers in my district that have been affected by the delay in payment for the contracts they have signed.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 66 to include only the portion of the amendment in tab a of the work session document dealing with prompt pay.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Amodei:
Is there discussion on the motion to amend S.B. 66 to include only the portion of the amendment that includes prompt pay?
Senator Wiener:
Would that be in section 1, subsection 2?
Mr. Wilkinson:
Yes, it is subsection 2 of section 1.
Senator Wiener:
Would we still be looking for a vehicle for anything else, or is this all we are considering?
Chairman Amodei:
I would be happy to continue looking for a vehicle in addition to Senator Washington’s motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS CARE, MCGINNESS AND NOLAN VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
We will move on to S.B. 97.
SENATE BILL 97: Makes various changes relating to certain actions against providers of health care. (BDR 1-248)
Mr. Anthony:
As the committee is aware, S.B. 97 deals with medical malpractice, and the bill was heard five times in this committee as well as in relation to Initiative Petition (I.P.) 1, which was substantially the same as S.B. 97. Proponents suggested either I.P. 1 or S.B. 97 was needed to pass meaningful tort reform. There were a number of opponents to the bill as well. Tab B is a compilation amendment prepared by the Legal Division. As you read through the amendment, each section in black contains a short summary of what the amendment proposes. I believe Mr. Wilkinson put this together for the committee and can further discuss it.
INITIATIVE PETITION 1: Makes various changes to certain actions against providers of health care.
Mr. Wilkinson:
I will summarize the proposed amendment to S.B. 97 under tab B of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) by section. Sections 1 and 2 do not make any substantive changes. Section 3 adds a new definition of provider of medical care for the purposes of chapter 41A of NRS. I have pointed out a couple notes of interest to clarify the term physician is already defined to include an osteopath, physicians are licensed under chapter 630 or 633 of NRS. The definition contained in section 3 is expanded slightly from the current definition in S.B. 97 to include a physician assistant, an osteopathic physician assistant, a facility for intermediate care and its employees, and a facility for skilled nursing and its employees.
Section 5 is a new section that would require in any action for medical malpractice or dental malpractice, a judge, other than the judge assigned to the action, will conduct a hearing, take evidence at that hearing, and make written findings as to whether there is a reasonable probability that malpractice occurred. Unless the judge was unable to determine there was a reasonable probability malpractice occurred, the written findings of the judge would be admissible at trial. The written findings of the judge may also be discussed and considered at a mandatory settlement conference held pursuant to NRS 41A.081.
Section 6 contains merely technical language changes as does section 7. Section 8 pertains to a limitation on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice or dental malpractice cases. The proposal in the amendment eliminates the exception on the limitation on noneconomic damages in cases involving gross malpractice. The other changes in that section are not substantive in nature and do not affect the meaning of the statute.
Chairman Amodei:
With respect to that, Mr. Wilkinson, note 2, under section 8, references the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s legal opinion requested by this committee, dated today. Could you go over that, at this point, regarding the exceptional circumstances provision?
Mr. Wilkinson:
The question posed was whether in cases and circumstances described in subsection 2 of the statute, which are cases involving gross malpractice or exceptional circumstances, does the policy limit cap, contained in subsection 3 of the statute, apply? In looking at the plain language of the statute, it is clear that cap does apply under those circumstances. Subsection 3 states clearly, in an action for damages for medical malpractice or dental malpractice, in the circumstances and types of cases described in subsections 1 and 2, subsection 2 being gross malpractice and exceptional circumstances, the noneconomic damages awarded to each plaintiff from each defendant must not exceed the amount of money remaining under the professional liability insurance policy limit covering the defendant after subtracting the economic damages awarded to that plaintiff.
We also reviewed the extensive legislative history from the 18th Special Legislative Session and found a number of statements from Legislators and parties involved in that session, which clearly indicates the understanding of the Legislature was that policy limits would apply in cases of gross malpractice and exceptional circumstances.
Chairman Amodei:
This is important, committee, because when we started to do a workup for S.B. 97, one of the things I had asked the Legal Division to do, working with some of the members of the committee, was create an amendment that provided a cap in a context of extraordinary circumstances. As a matter of fact, an amendment had actually been drafted that attempted to put some numbers into that context. That was based on testimony before the committee that asked about predictability. Predictability affects pricing, and testifiers cited this area as one that was open-ended and needed some definition. Looking at that amendment when it was drafted and consulting with legal counsel, the substance of the six-page legal opinion before you (Exhibit D) is the existing cap created in A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session.
The cap does, in fact, apply in those circumstances, thereby imposing the cap provided in the 18th Special Legislative Session, even in the context of extraordinary circumstances. Based upon that legal opinion, there is nothing in the proposed amendment to change that area beyond A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session. Just so the record is clear, we thought we had heard during much of the testimony, this was a potential unlimited area of damage and the Legal Division believes this is, in fact, an area in which the hard cap we created in A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session does apply.
Senator Washington:
Does that mean the Legal Division is going to provide us with an opinion that will make clear that what has been done in A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session has provided a cap for noneconomic damages based on the insurance policy, whether it is $1 million or $3 million, and it is a hard cap that will provide stability and predictability for insurance premiums?
Chairman Amodei:
Your assumption is correct, and that has been done in the letter in front of you dated April 10, 2003, signed by Mr. Wilkinson on behalf of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (Exhibit D).
Senator Washington:
That will be part of the record?
Chairman Amodei:
Yes it will, and it is available for the public, I believe, on the table with the other work session documents.
Senator Washington:
Knowing this will be contested in court, when it gets to the Nevada Supreme Court, will they consider what this body has done in forming its opinion on predictability and stability based on the fact A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session does provide a cap for noneconomic damages, based on this letter?
Chairman Amodei:
I am sure members of the Judicial Branch will give all due consideration and deference to the legislative history for all matters we have taken up in this area.
Senator Nolan:
If the intent of the Legislature, during the 18th Special Legislative Session, and the intent of this committee, as well as the legal opinion rendered, was to put an economic cap on special circumstances, but the language is so ambiguous we fear it will be contested judicially, I would like to see us strengthen the current language so it would leave no doubt the caps are to apply to this section of statute. If that is our intention and that was the intention of the 18th Special Legislative Session, let us remove any doubt right now and strengthen the language.
Chairman Amodei:
Point well taken. As a matter of fact, we asked the Legal Division if there was more specific language that could be added to the applicable provisions of A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session. The response from the Legal Division was, in their opinion, the language is fairly clear, and they had no recommendations for making it stronger. That will bring you back to the quandary this committee faces, which is S.B. 97 is essentially a version of what has been done in California. I believe with this opinion, what you have before you for your policy question is, do you want to keep A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session, in which case you would not amend S.B. 97? If the votes were there to pass out S.B. 97 in its unamended form, you would have, in effect, something close to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) in California. Or do you want to stay with A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session?
I believe this opinion makes it clear we currently have hard caps on every conceivable category of malpractice in this State. I believe we made that clear in the 18th Special Legislative Session, and we have made it abundantly clear in this letter, which is now a part of our record. The Nevada Supreme Court will clearly have access to that as part of the legislative record. I would not begin to predict if, how, and on what grounds, this would be challenged on a constitutional basis, but I believe our legislative history is clear in that regard.
Senator Washington:
One other concern, as we have deliberated with S.B. 97 and A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session, we want to make sure we have assured the doctors and providers in the State there is a mechanism in place, there is a cap, which cannot be pierced so they will remain in the State. I believe that was our primary concern. The provisions in A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session, with the noneconomic damages, are stable and they can rely on the fact this body has done its best to ensure their premiums would be stabilized or, sometime in the future, reduced.
Senator Care:
The attempt to render predictability stemmed in part from my discussions with staff and the proposal I discussed with Mr. Craigie. It came from me, I did not consult anybody else, for example, treble damages in the case where the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, special circumstances exist. If that takes us to where A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session left us, more or less, then I do not believe there would be any point in including the proposal. I would be interested in knowing, because section 5 of the amended bill, provides a judge, not the presiding judge, but a district court judge other than to whom the case is assigned, in essence, replaces the screening panel. That was an idea I came up with in talking to other people. The reason I did was because during the 18th Special Legislative Session we did not give a lot of thought to abolishing the screening panel. I did object to abolishing it, because I thought it was fairly clear what would happen, but nonetheless we abolished it.
I have said before that lawyers are like nuclear warheads; you have to have them because the other guy has them, but you really do not want anybody to launch. To me, that is the purpose of a screening panel. A screening panel is to diffuse or, perhaps, streamline a resolution shy of attorneys’ fees and the time the plaintiff might have to wait for justice. Section 5 does impose a burden on judges, and we have not consulted with them. I do not know if it would make life any easier for the parties, or if it would simply complicate the process. I do not know if the committee is interested in hearing any discussion on that matter, but it was an attempt to go back to what I believe should never have been done, to abolish the screening panel. Instinct tells me whether we do something or not, stay with A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session or amend and pass S.B. 97, somebody will take this to the Nevada Supreme Court. I know, since the 18th Special Legislative Session, the consensus has been all agree, which is like saying all Legislators agree on taxes. It is just not so. There may be doctors who will insist on S.B. 97 or I.P. 1, and nothing else.
I am inclined to say, no matter what we do, ultimately the Nevada Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the constitutionality of either or maybe both, A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session and S.B. 97. They will look at legislative intent. What the memo does not point out is the legislative intent of the Legislature clearly was that we adjourned at 4:30 a.m. on the fourth day, but the memo does not reflect that. So I am not sure how clearly anybody understood anything. If section 5 creates a mechanism whereby a judge substitutes for the screening panel; again, I do not know if the committee is interested in entertaining any testimony on reinstating the screening panel. I do not know if anybody would view that favorably.
Chairman Amodei:
I believe, based on a whole week of testimony on the matter, and the fact this is the House of origin, and not the final House, if anything moves out as a result of this, there will be ample opportunity for additional discussion of all the issues on the Assembly side. That is appropriate in terms of allowing Chairman Anderson’s group to have a look at this and see what they think.
Mr. Wilkinson:
I will continue to explain the amendment, tab B to S.B. 97 (Exhibit C). Sections 9, 10, and 11 merely make technical changes to conform to the changed definitions in the earlier parts of the amendment. Section 12 is a new section providing for imposition of a benefit penalty against a malpractice insurer, who against the wishes of the insured, unreasonably failed to settle a claim within policy limits following a settlement offer by a plaintiff.
Section 13 of the proposed amendment to S.B. 97 clarifies that the bill applies prospectively only, based upon the accrual of a cause of action. Finally, section 14 provides if the voters approve I.P. 1 in 2004, the provisions of this bill will expire by limitation when I.P. 1 becomes effective and takes effect pursuant to the Nevada Constitution.
Senator Titus:
If we pass S.B. 97, would this go on the ballot as an option or alternative to I.P. 1?
Chairman Amodei:
Senate Bill 97 is before you as a legislative matter only, and not something for the ballot. Any action taken on S.B. 97 would be a tune‑up to whatever we did in A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session. This would merely be maintenance on existing statute, if this matter moves forward.
Senator Titus:
Are the doctors satisfied with this? If we did this, would they then say, “We do not really need that ballot question,” and not push it like has happened in the past when the Legislature has taken action on an issue that was to be a ballot question? If they are not satisfied, and we pass this, are we not saying the old law applied to cases up to A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session; A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session applied to cases filed up to the passage of S.B. 97, and this will apply to cases filed up until the time I.P. 1 goes into effect; and cases after that will be applied under the rules of I.P. 1? We will have four sets of rules for medical malpractice cases in the State. Is that accurate?
Chairman Amodei:
I am not sure that is the correct number, but there is the potential to the extent the amendment before you to S.B. 97 makes changes to existing law, any cases that occur between the effective date of this amendment and the effective date of A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session could be affected in terms of new procedural rules. As a result of the Legislative Counsel Bureau opinion regarding caps, or whatever, if you vote for the amendment, I do not believe there are any substantive changes in the caps. Obviously, I.P. 1 is headed for the ballot in the November 2004 election. Whether it stops at the Nevada Supreme Court on the way to the ballot, or not, and how that turns out, is unknown to us. If it gets through the Nevada Supreme Court and does not stop there, how it will fair in the 2004 election is unknown to us. I would submit to you, to the extent we have an existing law on the books and we have heard additional testimony that may or may not represent the consensus of this committee for maintenance on the existing ballot, you review the amendment in that context knowing, however, there are uncertainties with respect to the initiative process that could impact what we ultimately do.
Senator Titus:
Do we know if this satisfies the doctors’ movement?
Chairman Amodei:
I would venture to say since this does not embody the enactment of MICRA in California and Nevada, this would not be satisfactory to the groups who are proposing we adopt something significantly similar to MICRA in California.
Senator Nolan:
I believe we sometimes get into this building and find ourselves in a vacuum. I know most of the committee knows we have a significant medical crisis. Not only with this, but the shortage of nurses we are dealing with in southern Nevada, the exodus of some doctors, and the closing of some emergency rooms. Therefore, I believe we have, this session, one bite at the apple to try to rectify this problem. I know we are taking this seriously. I am disappointed in my own performance with respect to the outcome of S.B. 97. I had volunteered to chair a subcommittee to look into trying to replace the screening panel. I did not follow through with that, and was not asked to do that. The points that I thought were significant in the weeklong deliberation that were echoed by physicians in the community were not included in this amendment. Therefore, I am going to vote for the amendment to give us a vehicle to work on in the Assembly. I will take an active part on the Assembly side in doing what we can to re-include some of those points.
Chairman Amodei:
I appreciate those comments, and just so we take a look at 360 degrees around the compass, while the focus may be in this room today, as far as S.B. 97, there are significant measures in the Assembly that deal with this area. Senator Townsend has, I believe, S.B. 250 that deals with issues that are only within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor in this area. Senator Titus has measures, and there is a ballot question that is proceeding, in this area. While certainly this needs to be taken seriously, and is, and has, and will continue to be, the matrix on the issue is still very active in many committee areas of jurisdiction, branches of government jurisdiction, and election potential jurisdiction. I appreciate the spirit in which you have indicated your willingness to work on the issue. What is the pleasure of the committee?
SENATE BILL 250: Revises various provisions relating to regulated businesses and professions. (BDR 57-835)
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 97 WITH THE AMENDMENT FOUND AT TAB B OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator McGinness:
Seven months ago we conducted the 18th Special Legislative Session on A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session, and we started this discussion. I believe this committee actually delved deeper into it than did the 18th Special Legislative Session. I believe the opinion of the Legislative Counsel Bureau today gives the predictability the insurers were looking for. It is not MICRA, but it is what we did. Thank goodness this Legislature does not meet every year, because if it did, would we be visiting issues every 7 months? I believe the chairman has pointed out accurately there are a number of vehicles out there. Initiative Petition 1 will be on the ballot, and we have A.B. No. 1 of the 18th Special Session. I will be voting against the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS, MCGINNESS AND CARE VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
We will now address S.B. 104.
SENATE BILL 104: Revises definition of “resort hotel” for purposes of certain statutes pertaining to gaming. (BDR 41-859)
Mr. Anthony:
Senate Bill 104 revises the definition of a resort hotel for purposes of time-share projects. Tab C of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) contains an amendment to the bill, which replaces the bill in its entirety and allows counties with a population of 400,000 or more to issue a restricted time-share license for the operation of not more than 100 slot machines if the time-share project is within a gaming enterprise district. The amendment also provides the authority to convene the Gaming Policy Committee rests with the chairman or a majority of the members as opposed to with the Governor. I believe Mr. Wilkinson may have additional comments since he prepared this amendment.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Mr. Anthony pretty much summed up what the amendment does.
Senator Titus:
Can we have a little rationale for where this came from?
Chairman Amodei:
Senator Titus, it came from Senator Schneider when he testified before us the other day.
Senator Titus:
Senator Schneider supports the amendment?
Chairman Amodei:
Yes, he does. Senator Care, you had some thoughts on the Gaming Policy Committee provisions in the amendment. Do you want to share those thoughts?
Senator Care:
I will support the amendment. My preference, frankly, would be to delete subsection 5 of NRS 463.201 altogether. The testimony was the Gaming Policy Committee had not met to discuss gaming issues since Governor Bryan was in office, and he left office following his election to the U.S. Senate in 1988. We had at least two bills that could have been studied by the Gaming Policy Committee: Senator Schneider’s bill, S.B. 104, and the bill discussed Wednesday or Monday regarding live broadcasting. Again, if you review the testimony from last session on Senator Schneider’s bill, there was a representation by the Nevada Resort Association that it would intensely study the issue, and Senator James said that would happen. However, nothing ever happened. So, I will go with the amendment, but I do not see any purpose in having a Gaming Policy Committee that never studies anything.
Senator Titus:
Why do we not just get rid of the Gaming Policy Committee?
Senator Care:
We have to keep the committee in some form because it has to entertain the appeals following the neighborhood casino applications outside the gaming corridors. I believe there are two or three different parameters, so it has to remain for that purpose.
Senator Titus:
I am looking at section 7 of the proposed amendment to S.B. 104 where we are creating a new kind of license. Before, we were just allowing time-shares to come in under the definition of resort hotels. This new time-share license will only be allowed in Clark County and for up to 100 slot machines. If you look at the other license, up to 15 are allowed, and the payment is $305 plus $106. I believe if we are creating a new time-share-specific license, it should have a new kind of fee. If we were looking for money, I would raise those prices. If these time-shares want gaming as much as Senator Schneider says, we should make them pay for it. We need revenue, so why not increase the rates?
Chairman Amodei:
Do you have specific numbers in mind, Senator Titus?
Senator Titus:
These numbers seem arbitrary. How about $500? What is the figure on the table in the tax committee for increasing slots?
Senator Care:
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, all three, the task force bill, the Governor’s bill, and your bill, have a 33 percent increase; it is basically a Consumer Price Index adjustment on restricted slots. Assuming the bill passes and whatever comes out of the “sausage factory” at the end of session, I believe everyone will see a 33 percent increase in the current structure on restricted slots.
Chairman Amodei:
I might also add, as a result of the Nevada Resort Association and its executive director, there was concern with the bill in terms of allowing essentially unlimited gaming in a time-share, and the testimony by the proponent was to allow a larger scope, not table games or those sorts of things. What you see before you is an attempt to allow a restricted context of operation beyond 15 slot machines. If there is an appetite on the committee to move the bill, and you want to change the number of machines from 100 to some other number, or if you want to impose a surcharge on the fees, as a result of this special license, that is certainly germane.
Senator Titus:
How about not more than 25 slot machines?
Chairman Amodei:
What is the pleasure of the committee on S.B. 104?
Senator Wiener:
I have a policy concern. We always talk about what door we are opening. We are creating a new category on restricted time-share licenses. Following up on Senator Titus’s remarks, 100 slot machines is fairly substantial. Then, two Legislatures down the way, we will come with an expansion of that, and at some point, we will come with an unrestricted time-share license that may allow a certain number of table games. I am concerned about what door we are opening. I did not anticipate 100 slot machines getting out of the shoot. That seems like quite a leap from 15.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 104, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF MACHINES ALLOWABLE IN THIS CATEGORY FROM 100 TO 50.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Nolan:
I believe we are opening another Pandora’s box by increasing the numbers of the restricted license. I would vote against the amendment.
Senator McGinness:
I understand the concerns of opening up and making a new category of license. Things have changed in the way Las Vegas works as far as time-shares. We would not have envisioned any of this a few years ago. I believe we need to think outside the box a little, and this will put that discussion on the Senate Floor.
THE MOTION FAILED. (SENATORS WIENER, WASHINGTON, NOLAN, AND TITUS VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The next bill up for discussion is S.B. 124.
SENATE BILL 124: Requires certain corporations to provide certain information at time of filing list of officers and directors and to pay fee under certain circumstances. (BDR 7-100)
Senator Titus:
This is the corporate liability bill. It has been through several renditions. I do not especially care for the language in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C). It says I am “gutting” my own bill. Perhaps we could have been a little more tactful and said “amending”; however, indeed, that is what is happening. I have talked to Mr. Fowler of the business section of the State Bar of Nevada and Ms. Parker from the Office of the Secretary of State, and I believe we have a handle on this. We plan to ask companies to report whether or not they are publicly traded. If they are publicly traded, this is in tab D of the Work Session Document; we would ask they also report what is their central index key. The secretary of state will, in turn, put that information on a Web site explaining to the public how they can use the key to get information from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that I was trying to get at the State level. This will not require a fiscal note or be redundant in the information already provided to the FCC. It would also give us more disclosure at the State level. I support the amendment under tab D of the Work Session Document and ask you to support it, as well.
Chairman Amodei:
In addition to the amendment at tab D, there are proposed amendments to S.B 124 at tab E and tab F (Exhibit C). One of the amendments, I believe it is tab E, is aimed specifically at a dairy context. The one at tab F is actually more appropriate in terms of not appearing to be picking on any one industry. The amendment at tab F talks about any entity that has over 25 percent market share that files with the secretary of state an annual list of any kind, and has been under investigation for any anticompetitive practices in any jurisdiction in this country. That then triggers filing of a more extensive report describing those actions, the outcome, their marketing practices and plans for Nevada, to avoid that in our State, and imposes an additional fee of $100,000 to be deposited in the attorney general’s administration budget account for the purpose of investigating alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy of constraint of trade in Nevada. It is less focused on the dairy marketing industry and more global in its potential sweep for those who may fit the criteria, generally, in Nevada.
Is there any discussion on Senator Titus’s proposed amendment or the amendment proposed at tab F?
Senator Titus:
If we add the fee at tab F, will it take two-thirds of the members to pass S.B. 124?
Chairman Amodei:
That is correct.
Senator Titus:
Have we heard any opposition to the fee of $100,000?
Chairman Amodei:
I would indicate for the record there is. I believe they are comfortable with their ability to manage the process here in this building.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 124 INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS AT TAB D AND TAB F OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
SENATE BILL 218: Revises certain provisions relating to program that provides public with access to certain information in statewide registry concerning certain sex offenders and offenders convicted of crime against child. (BDR 14-159)
Mr. Anthony:
Senate Bill 218 relates to sex offenders and information that would be made available in a sex-offender registry on a Web site. During the hearing, testimony indicated a number of other states have already gone in this direction, and there are court cases to support such Web sites. As far as proposed amendments, the Legal Division suggested a minor amendment might be needed to make the bill retroactive, since it was drafted prior to recent court decisions.
In addition, Senator Care has recommended an amendment to staff that would address the required information necessary to access the registry. Specifically, the information is included in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) but not attached as a tab. Proposed changes include: The information at page 2, line 10 and lines 36 and 37 be deleted. Additionally, deletion of lines 3 through 7 on page 3. On page 4, line 7, Senator Care suggested amending “may” to “shall,” and in line 14, also changing the word “may” to “shall.” On page 4, lines 17 through 19, Senator Care recommended requiring the central repository to provide the name, or any alias, of the offender, zip code of the residence, workplace, and school of the offender, but not any additional information of the offender. That would be two amendments.
Senator Washington:
Without looking at the bill, I believe the proposed changes are substantial and would aid the community at large to access information about sex offenders and hopefully answer questions of the community regarding those offenders.
Senator Care:
My rationale, for the committee, is I do not believe anyone requesting information on a convicted sex offender should have to give his or her name. If you call the government for any other reason to ask for information or help, you do not have to give your name. I do not know why that is relevant. It seems to me the information ought to be available to the public. Also, the language on page 2, line 36 of S.B. 218, that says you, “May be asked to provide other information … ,” I do not believe the requester should be required to provide that information, for the same reason. At the top of page 3, line 3; I do not believe the State has any business telling a requester what he or she may or may not do with the information. He or she has it; it is public. If it is abused, I suppose the offender could sue for defamation if it was used in such a manner the user knew it was false at the time of its use. Additionally, on page 4, the State should not have the discretion to give the requester additional information, the alias, residence, workplace, and so forth. It ought to be given to everyone, and the State should not advise the requester of what he or she may and may not do with it.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 218 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THE LEGAL DIVISION AND THE AMENDMENTS JUST DISCUSSED AND DETAILED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
Senator Care, please make yourself available to Mr. Wilkinson for clarification on the substance of your amendments to S.B. 218.
We will address S.B. 267, the adoption bill.
SENATE BILL 267: Allows adoptee who is 18 years of age or older to access files and records of proceedings concerning his adoption or birth and eliminates State Register for Adoptions. (BDR 11-1066)
Chairman Amodei:
I would like to refer the committee to the letter from the committee contained at tab G of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C). I have asked for this letter to be drafted for the committee’s review during work session. After hearing the testimony and looking at the materials provided on this issue and the excellent presentation by individuals on both sides, I believe we need to do something in this area. Unfortunately, the scheduling and realities of the 120-day session prohibit undertaking what is probably available as a solution addressing the vast concerns of everybody involved, during this session. That is one of the downsides to a 120-day session.
I requested this letter be drafted as a potential way to get the issue tuned up in an interim context and ready to come back and be acted upon in 23 months. If that is not the pleasure of the committee, and somebody has a better idea, that would be fine also. This is just one alternative. Clearly, the wording of the letter would have to be agreeable to all committee members, because if we do this, I would want everybody to sign off on it, showing support to those who want to make changes. I noticed there was no language in the letter stating, if it were the pleasure of the committee, we would look forward to supporting something to make positive changes in the existing adoption procedures in the State, which was a sentiment expressed in the hearing.
Senator Washington:
Knowing this was a difficult issue, and after hearing those who proposed changes in the adoption procedures, I support their request and the legislation they presented before this committee. I believe the issues and their concerns are significant. I also realize there are concerns on the side of those who have been adopted. We live in changing times, and what we valued 20 or 30 years ago may have changed. I am going to support the chairman in this letter to Assemblywoman Buckley to have the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families take a serious look at adoption procedures, records, and filing of those records. I sit on that committee, and would look forward to seeing the chair of that committee open up this issue so that when we meet during our next Legislative Session we might deal with the issue appropriately. I will support your request in this letter, and I hope those who presented this measure would avail themselves during the interim to the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families, to enable the committee to discuss this matter and flesh it out fully.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED THE COMMITTEE TAKE NO FORMAL ACTION ON S.B. 267, BUT RATHER FINALIZE AND TRANSMIT A LETTER IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM AT TAB G OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT TO ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY ASKING THE STATUTORY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES TO LOOK AT IT AND PREPARE PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE HEARINGS INDICATE.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
We will move on to S.B. 282 for a report from Senator Nolan.
SENATE BILL 282: Prohibits and enhances penalties for certain acts concerning alcohol and controlled substances in state parks. (BDR 35-1156)
Senator Nolan:
We received a letter from the Division of State Parks. You will recall there were concerned citizens, one family who enjoyed using the facilities at Lahontan State Recreation Area near Fallon. The father had used the facilities for a lifetime and continued trying to use and enjoy the park with his family. He indicated the park was out of control with unruly rowdies and people who had assaulted him and his family. He wanted to do something about it. This bill would restrict alcohol use in all State parks. We asked the Division of State Parks to work out a plan, which would include working with other jurisdictional law enforcement agencies to try to abate what they acknowledged is a problem. Their initial response was they had not already done this due to limited manpower and resources. The division sent a letter back to Chairman Amodei. I apologize because we do not have a copy for all committee members. Essentially, the letter said, “Thank you very much for suggesting we increase funding to the State Division of Parks for the purpose of hiring additional law enforcement persons and contracting with more services,” and of course, that was not the intent of the committee.
I had spoken with the sheriffs of Lyon and Churchill counties, and the Colonel of the Nevada Highway Patrol, about cooperatively working with the Division of State Parks in order to clean up the park on an occasional basis. All of the agencies expressed a great deal of willingness to help out voluntarily. They indicated if there was a mutual aid agreement, in which one policing body agrees to help another, perhaps it should be created internally within the Department of Public Safety. Many of these entities work with and through that division, including the Investigation Division.
We could do nothing with S.B. 282, and the problem would persist. Alternatively, I have two recommendations. One would be to issue a letter to the Division of State Parks indicating a subcommittee had contacted other agencies, which are willing to work collaboratively to abate the problem. They would just need to be contacted and coordinated.
My second recommendation would be to mandate in statute a mutual aid agreement requiring the Division of State Parks, when they identify a problem of this nature, to create a plan of abatement. One is light-handed; the other is heavy-handed. It would be up to the committee. We would either send a letter of intent on behalf of the committee, or we could mandate some type of mutual aid agreement in statute.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO TAKE NO FORMAL ACTION ON S.B. 282, RATHER SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO THE DIVISION OF STATE PARKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Washington:
I like the latter option. I believe we should mandate the Division of State Parks create a mutual aid agreement to work with the sheriff’s office in those areas for the reason they have not done anything in the past. Apparently the problem continues to persist. The citizen that brought forth this legislation was offended and made to feel uncomfortable during his recreational time with his family. I believe sometimes we have to be a little stronger and more forceful to get things done. I support the latter.
Senator McGinness:
I would like to make sure the letter addresses all State parks. I know this was brought forward because of Lahontan State Recreation Area, but any State park can get out of control when people drink a little too much alcohol and become rude and unruly. It does not matter whether you are at Lake Tahoe or someplace else.
Senator Care:
I support the notion of a letter. There was no testimony that the miscreants who engaged in the offensive conduct would not have done so when sober. As I recall, Mr. Newberry said his service already had the discretion to do this, but had never attempted to invoke such prohibitions, probably due to a lack of manpower.
Chairman Amodei:
I want to thank Senator Nolan for looking into this issue. After investigating the situation, it was discovered the facility in question has residential quarters provided to full-time employees. So there are people on-site 24 hours a day, and there are local and State law enforcement assets in the area that apparently have not been asked to assist, at least in any formal action. Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Anthony, if it is the consensus of the committee, when you craft the correspondence, I believe it should be fairly direct in terms of the fact this issue came forward, and while legislation was not processed, it became clear upon further review there was little or no attempt by visitors to the park to avail themselves of the local and State law enforcement assets available in the region. Also, convey the committee is aware of the fact residential support is provided for full-time employees and we were not able to ascertain the extent to which that resulted in personnel being available to at least request local law enforcement assistance, much less respond within the park boundaries.
Senator Nolan:
I believe that is all appropriate. To make it clear, the Division of State Parks does contact other law enforcement agencies, but only in the event of large events or when they want to set up a driving-under-the-influence checkpoint with the Nevada Highway Patrol. To that degree, the division had availed themselves to local law enforcement agencies to deal with these problems on an occasional basis. Law enforcement did say if they received a call in the middle of the night from a “lone ranger” at the park who was having a problem and was afraid to go to the park and risk possibly being assaulted himself, they would absolutely dispatch additional help to him.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Wiener:
Will we all have the opportunity to sign that letter as we have the other letter?
Chairman Amodei:
The letter will be in the same format as others coming from the committee, in which everybody gets a chance to review, approve, and sign.
We will next address S.B. 403.
SENATE BILL 403: Requires certification of persons who provide reports or evaluations to courts regarding competency of defendants. (BDR 14‑1245)
Mr. Anthony:
Senate Bill 403 requires certification of an individual before that person can prepare a report or evaluation on competency of a defendant. During testimony, some concerns were raised as to whether this was a fee bill, who else might satisfy these requirements, and what other states currently do regarding competency testing. There were no proposed amendments or opposition to this measure.
Chairman Amodei:
We have had a request to hear testimony on S.B. 403 from Ms. Belz concerning issues that she and several organizations have identified since the hearing on the bill.
Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Nevada Psychiatric Association:
I am here representing the Nevada Psychiatric Association. Two others wished to be here, but were unable to attend. They are Ms. Gang, representing the National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, and Dr. Whittemore, representing the Nevada State Psychological Association.
Senate Bill 403, specifically in section 1, subsection 3, discusses a fee that would be associated with developing this certification. The fee, as you can see in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (a), would defray the cost of issuing and renewing the certification. A very broad and encompassing cost contained in section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (b) is also included in S.B. 403. The fee is to cover any other expenses incurred by the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services in carrying out its duties pursuant to this section. We believe it is extremely broad and we have no parameters for what it might include. From your experience with the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, Mr. Chairman, you know usually when there are fees for certificates or licenses in statute, there are some kind of parameters for those fees; this would be very open and limitless.
The social workers have no position on the bill but would like to raise several concerns. They have the same concern as ours regarding maximum fees. They also have questions about the costs of administering the exam and how often it would be given. They want to know whether the division would be able to approve and track continuing education, and if this would be a duplication of what already exists for their board, as well as other boards. Additionally, the social workers are curious about the cost of issuing and renewing the certificates as well as publishing and disseminating the lists, and how often that would be done, none of which is specified in S.B. 403.
The Nevada Psychological Association had concerns similar to ours concerning the fees. Lastly, you received an e-mail last evening, I believe, from Dr. Mark Armerding, who heads the legislative effort in the Nevada Psychiatric Association. He said this type of training is already part of a psychiatrist’s regular training to become a doctor. Therefore, he did not understand what additional training would be necessary to certify psychiatrists to provide competency examinations.
Senator Care:
I do not have a question, but I do have a comment. I was somewhat surprised the State Bar of Nevada did not testify regarding S.B. 403. It would seem to me the requirement of becoming licensed by the State to qualify a person to evaluate competency could raise an argument the person might be inclined to side with the State in rendering that evaluation. I was uncomfortable with that idea. I could be off base; I did not hear that concern from anybody else. For that reason, I was uncomfortable with the bill from the beginning.
Chairman Amodei:
What is the pleasure of the committee on S.B. 403? Seeing none, we will move on to S.B. 432.
SENATE BILL 432: Makes various changes pertaining to regulation of gaming. (BDR 41-490)
Chairman Amodei:
Mr. Anthony or Mr. Wilkinson, would you update us on the amendment and the coordination with the Douglas County representatives of the State Gaming Control Board since the hearing?
Mr. Anthony:
Senate Bill 432 was presented by Mr. Neilander on behalf of the State Gaming Control Board, and is basically a clean-up bill, their annual bill on the regulation of gaming. The one issue that seemed to provide concern to the public as well as committee members was regarding gaming work permits. At the direction of Chairman Amodei, staff spoke with Ms. Reed of Douglas County to identify her concerns with the bill. She stated Douglas County is not currently generating revenue; however, there is, I believe, $79,000 that comes in, and they would have to lay off some positions. In response I believe the State Gaming Control Board sent a letter, attached to the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) as tab I, to Douglas County, which would essentially allow interlocal agreements for Douglas County to continue issuing work cards through local law enforcement agencies. Also, there were concerns on behalf of smaller operators, who may not have human resources departments and the wherewithal of some of the larger resorts. Attached for your consideration is tab H (Exhibit C), which contains technical amendments offered by Mr. Neilander. Also, tab I contains a letter from Mr. Westergard and the State Gaming Control Board addressing Douglas County’s concerns.
Chairman Amodei:
The record should reflect the concerns expressed by Ms. Conrad, Ms. Reed, and Sheriff Perini from Douglas County have been addressed to their satisfaction in a letter from Mr. Westergard found at tab I (Exhibit C).
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 432 WITH THE AMENDMENT AT TAB H OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Anthony:
The amendments should include those found at tabs H and I. In the body of the letter there is an actual proposed amendment to page 4, line 27, of S.B. 432.
Chairman Amodei:
The amendment contains the enabling language, which allows the State Gaming Control Board to work out a memorandum of understanding with Douglas County.
Senator Titus:
If the State Gaming Control Board is willing to make an exception for Douglas County, that is all right. However, I believe if we have a statewide program, it should be a statewide program. I believe Douglas County should accommodate that. Douglas County does not want to issue business licenses; yet they want to keep the ability to issue work cards because that is a source of revenue. We do not have a consistent policy.
Chairman Amodei:
Senator Titus, do you approve of both amendments?
Senator Titus:
Yes, with regret.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 432 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AT TABS H AND I OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
We will now address S.B. 434.
SENATE BILL 434: Exempts from execution by creditors certain money held in trust forming part of qualified tuition program. (BDR 2-303)
Chairman Amodei:
This is the State treasurer’s bill. Some concerns arose in terms of bankruptcy and evading defrauding creditors. There is a letter at tab J of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) from the State treasurer responding to those concerns.
Senator Care:
When you get a judgment, you are allowed to execute upon the judgment, in other words, try to collect the money. When the judgment is recorded, a lien is created on any real property owned by the judgment debtor in the appropriate county. You then attempt to execute from there. My suggestion, after reviewing the secretary of the treasury’s letter, is that assets put into the program following judgment would be exposed to execution for however long the judgment was recorded. Currently, the time frame is 6 years, after which it is renewable. I would also suggest the treasurer’s office keep a copy of the recorded judgment to prevent the judgment debtor from obtaining a refund if the beneficiary never goes to school. In that case, the only time the money would be executed upon would be when the judgment debtor attempts to escape execution after judgment is entered or if the judgment debtor ever tried to obtain a refund on the theory his or her child had declined to go to school. I offer this as a conceptual amendment.
Chairman Amodei:
During the hearing we requested the treasurer to address those concerns when they promulgated the regulations. Do you have any objection to asking whether the treasurer complied with our request, before it is reported out to the floor, if we do pass S.B. 434? Do you believe your suggested amendment must be in statute as opposed to regulation?
Senator Care:
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would actually have to be in statute. I do not believe counsel actually relies on regulation when a person executes on a judgment. I would not even look at regulations; I would begin with the statutes.
Chairman Amodei:
What is your proposed amendment?
Senator Care:
The proposed amendment would be: No funds put into the program following the entry of judgment would be protected; no funds would be protected that would normally be refunded to the judgment debtor in the event the beneficiary never used, or decided not to use, the funds; and no funds would be protected if the judgment debtor did not name a contingent or secondary beneficiary to use the funds.
Chairman Amodei:
Do you have any thoughts on a time limit for that second part? You had mentioned a time limit in terms of the operative time for recording and renewing a judgment.
Senator Care:
I believe it is 6 years, and after that time the judgment can be rerecorded. As long as it is out there, you can still execute upon it, unless the judgment debtor has gone into bankruptcy or has obtained some other type of protection. It never ends, and here is the problem. Let us say the judgment is entered. It is $500,000 and the person’s child is 3 years old. He puts $500,000 into the fund and the child, at the age of 21, decides he or she does not want to go to college. That is an 18-year lapse, but I believe you should still be able to execute.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 434 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
We will address S.B. 436, business law section of the State Bar of Nevada.
SENATE BILL 436: Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to business. (BDR 7-982)
Chairman Amodei:
We have no proposed amendments. Senator Care provided some sections he had concerns with to Mr. Fowler.
Senator Care:
It was voluminous work. Therefore, I had requested Mr. Fowler e-mail to me explanations of various sections, which are contained in the minutes, I am sure, of the meeting in which we heard S.B. 436. Having reviewed his correspondence, of which I believe staff has a copy (Exhibit E), I am satisfied with S.B. 436. I realize, of course, Mr. Fowler himself or counsel may have their own reasons for the amendments. As to the substance of the bill, I do not have any problems with it.
Chairman Amodei:
Mr. Wilkinson, do you want to discuss the handout you have just provided to the committee (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) in terms of the gist of a potential amendment?
Mr. Wilkinson:
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the proposed changes are wholly technical in nature, and they came as the result of changes requested by the Office of the Secretary of State. The changes are on pages 5, 6, 15, 49, 50, 59, 62, 78, 79, and 103 of S.B. 436. There are also a number of other small glitches where the language has been reworded slightly, but there are not any substantive changes.
Senator Titus:
On page 59, where the $25 is in the margin, is that a different figure from the original one? Were we increasing the fee?
Mr. Wilkinson:
It looks like the fee was $150. Those fees are uniform in all the chapters, and for some reason that one was listed as $150. Therefore, they changed it to $25 to be consistent with all the other changes for corrections of documents.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 436 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT E.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Titus:
Mr. Chairman, may I ask your indulgence to consider an amendment to S.B. 251, which is the “Sunshine” bill? This amendment narrows that considerably, and it might be worth consideration (Exhibit F).
SENATE BILL 251: Enacts provisions governing confidentiality of certain information. (BDR 3-572)
Senator Titus:
We heard the language in S.B. 251 was too broad. I have tried to narrow it in three ways: The first is in section 4 (Exhibit F) where we added “serious” to “public hazard,” making it a “serious public hazard.” This seems to address the problems people had with “slip and fall” types of accidents. The second is in section 6, under definition of “physical injury.” This is a much tighter definition. It has to be more serious “bodily” injury and “prolonged physical pain.” The third way the language is tightened up is in section 8, regarding the hazard, instead of “causing and is likely to cause,” we are eliminating “is likely to cause,” and going with a situation that “has caused.” That narrows it in three major ways, I would say. Perhaps Mr. Wilkinson could add to that if I have misspoken.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any other thoughts from committee members on the proposed amendment under review? I believe since we have no meeting scheduled for tomorrow, we will recess until the call of the chair to allow committee members to review the proposed amendment and S.B. 251. We will adjourn at 10:05 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Jo Greenslate,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: