MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
January 20, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:05 a.m., Wednesday, January 20, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster, Exhibit C is the Issue Brief, Exhibit D is Assembly Bill 491, Exhibit E is the Standing Rules.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Wouldiam D. Gregory
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Ken L. Haller
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
Following the roll call, the hearing of the Judiciary Committee was opened on general committee business.
Chairman Sader brought to the attention of the committee the Standing Rules of the Assembly Judiciary Committee for the Sixty-seventh Session, 1993, Exhibit C. It was requested at this time that committee members review the standing rules as discussion would take place during the latter part of the hearing. According to Mr. Sader, the Standing Rules remain written as in previous sessions.
At this time, the two Judiciary Committee Secretaries were introduced, Chandra Penderland and Jessie Caple. In attendance as mentor was Iris Bellinger, a former Judiciary Committee secretary from the previous three sessions. Barbara Tonge was introduced as the personal secretary for the committee whose duties entail the handling of inquiries, committee agendas, and issues relative to testimonies from individuals who wish to testify on a bill; additional duties include contacting witnesses. Interests or inquiries pertaining to bills should be directed to Mrs. Tonge, Mr. Sader stated.
Mr. Sader indicated copies of previous committee minutes would be archived in the committee room for review. Occasionally, on a biweekly basis, Chairman Sader would notify the committee for approval of previous minutes. The responsibility of the Committee Secretaries, Penderland and Caple, would be to address inquiries pertaining to respective committee minutes.
Denice Miller was introduced by Chairman Sader as the Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, of the Legislative Counsel Bureau as well as the committee staff support person. According to Mr. Sader, Ms. Miller's responsibilities to the Committee would be to assist in any pertinent research, address inquiries and attend to issues relative to bills brought before the committee. Chairman Sader noted it was Ms. Miller's responsibility to handle floor statements brought before the committee, in reference to bills pertaining to General File in the General Session. Mr. Sader stated Ms. Miller would provide research assistance and investigations for the hearings as well.
Chairman Sader stated the Judiciary Committee meetings would meet promptly in the Judiciary Committee room, Room 332, Tuesdays through Fridays at 8:00 a.m. On Mondays, committee meetings would commence at 9:15 a.m.; this time adjustment was made in consideration of those members who commute by air from Las Vegas, Nevada to Carson City, Nevada. Chairman Sader suggested committee members review agendas prior to the weekend to confirm committee meeting times.
According to Chairman Sader, forty-eight bills were currently in committee. A hearing was scheduled for Friday, January 22, 1993. At present, three bills have been posted on the agenda. Chairman Sader added, three bills were scheduled to be heard on each day of the upcoming week.
Chairman Sader stated the Judiciary Committee was slated to meet in Las Vegas, Nevada for a two week period, as was done the 1991 legislative session. During that period, Sader noted, if enough bills were in committee, hearings would be held both during the morning and the afternoon agendas. Bills would be heard by the Judiciary Committee on Friday mornings, although, Sader added, if the workload was light, or scheduling conflicts arose, bills would not be heard on Friday. Mr. Sader clarified, no bills would be scheduled to be heard on Friday afternoon. Only hearings would be conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada and bills would be voted on at that time. Chairman Sader said, votes would be ratified in Carson City, Nevada after committee persons returned from Las Vegas. Bills heard in Las Vegas would be processed there as much as feasible.
Chairman Sader addressed the subject of Joint Hearings. The committee chairman introduced Senator Mark A. James. Senator James is Assemblyman Sader's counterpart in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dennis Neilander was acknowledged before the committee as the staff support person for the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Mr. Sader, upcoming joint hearings were feasible. Sader noted that joint hearings were not scheduled unless issues of overall importance arose and required processing through both houses, necessitating joint briefing. According to Mr. Sader, the same would be true for high profile issues such as the issue of stalking. Chairman Sader noted, several stalking bills had already been introduced. Mr. Sader brought to the attention of the committee that a joint hearing might be scheduled on this issue. It was further noted by Mr. Sader, scheduling problems for joint hearings might be encountered between the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees as the Senate Judiciary Committee meets in the afternoons and the Assembly Judiciary Committee meets in the mornings; this conflict of time might necessitate evening meetings.
As a matter of formality and protocol, Chairman Sader asked each committee person to utilize respective electronic buttons in order to be recognized. Mr. Sader confirmed meeting times would commence promptly at eight o'clock a.m., provided there was a quorum of eight committee persons present.
Chairman Sader stated subcommittees would be appointed in reference to important bills, or bills that needed further work. Subcommittees would be assigned after the respective hearings. According to Chairman Sader, two to four committee members would be designated to each subcommittee. An assigned Chairman would handle the issues that require further attention. It is the subchairman's responsibility to report back to the Judiciary Committee. According to Mr. Sader, fifty percent or more of the bills would be amended. Mr. Sader verified bills passed by the committee would be handled by himself, with the possible exception of subcommittees, in which the chairman might elect to handle his own subcommittee amendments or bills that have been sponsored in the committee. Mr. Sader instructed, as each bill was voted on, those bills approved and submitted to the floor would be assigned to alternate committee members. Subcommittee chairpersons would have the responsibility to conduct a presentation of the bill on general file. Chairman Sader also noted floor statements from Denice Miller would be available which could be utilized or paraphrased, by the chairman of the subcommittee. According to Mr. Sader, a floor statement would provide the needed information so all committee persons would understand the purpose of the bill. Mr. Sader added he would assign subcommittee members as bills were completed and voted on. Mr. Sader noted, the subcommittee chairperson's statement was relevant and would be heavily relied upon when the bill was reviewed. Mr. Sader opened discussion for comments pertinent to subcommittees. No further discussion was presented.
Mr. Carpenter suggested discussion among the committee members regarding an outline of procedures when opposition to targeted bills was being discussed. Chairman Sader commented on this and elaborated on the minority opinion; for example, Mr. Sader stated, one or more committeemen could oppose a bill which had been passed. It was requested of the committee by Mr. Sader if a party intends to actively oppose a bill on the floor, the Chairman should be notified. Mr. Sader continued, those committee members desiring to change their vote before a bill goes to general file, sould inform the Chairman in advance to eliminate any misunderstanding among committee members and the Chairman. Chairman Sader stated it was his intent to maintain open and viable communication between committee members to minimize future ill feelings.
Mr. Regan queried Chairman Sader on the possible effect of a potential conflict with the economic fiscal impact statements of bills coming through the Judiciary Committee as opposed to the Ways and Means Committee. Chairman Sader expanded on the discussion, referring to the 1989 session, during which time the Judiciary Committee had numerous prison bills. This illustrated very difficult problems between jurisdictions of the Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Chairman Sader noted this situation occured frequently as bills which have potential financial impacts require concurrent referrals. According to Mr. Sader, if a bill had a minimal impact or the impact would not be readily ascertained (such as a bill that lengthened a prison term), the bill would have a fiscal note. If a bill had a fiscal note, a "yes" would appear on the first page of the bill beside "Effect on Local Government." According to Chairman Sader, this applied to all criminal justice bills that lengthened sentences, or created new crimes, as the impacted party might go to prison for a substantive period of time. According to Mr. Sader, a few bills would have such an impact, referencing those issues in the DUI categories. Mr. Sader stated he did not expect to have excessive amounts of bills such as those that occurred in the 1989 session. Mt Sader said the committee had spent a substantive amount of time on these bills which had to be referred to the Ways and Means Committee only to die.
Chairman Sader proceeded with the summary of issues. Denice L. Miller, Senior Research Analyst for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division, and staff member to the Judiciary Committee, approached the witness table. Researcher Miller presented the Issue Brief for the 1993 Nevada Legislature (Exhibit C), as well as (Exhibit D) Assembly Bill 491; including the Governor's remarks on this bill which was vetoed. Ms. Miller presented condensed readings from the Issue Brief. According to Ms. Miller, the Issue Brief was divided into four sections: a summary of major topics from the 1991 Session; an outline of issues likely to be considered during the 1993 Session, (derived from review of the Bill Draft Requests List some of which have not been introduced); the Summary of Priority Judiciary Issues in Other States; a list of key judiciary officials and other interest groups.
During Ms. Miller's condensed reading of Senate Bill 280 (which makes various changes related to child support), Chairman Sader interjected, noting to the committee that a series of bills on domestic relations would be brought before the committee relative to child support and child custody issues. Chairman Sader warned that several of these bills would be controversial. Mr. Sader used as an example the report from the State Bar which proposed changes in the child support formula. The Committee Chairman noted that another set of bills were currently being proposed which related to marital property. Most of these proposed changes were being made by lawyers' groups who have been charged with the purpose of reforming the statutes.
Ms. Miller continued with the condensed reading of the Judicial Procedures from the Issue Brief(Exhibit C).
Under the section Gaming, page 13 of the Issue Brief (Exhibit C), Ms. Miller noted an interim study was conducted on gaming and several recommendations were made by that study committee. These recommendations included recommendations pertaining to foreign gaming, Indian gaming and other gaming regulatory issues. Miller noted there was an interim study report on these recommendations which could be obtained from Ms. Miller if needed.
Ms. Miller continued reading from the Issue Brief (Exhibit C) under the third section of the brief, Judiciary Issues in Other States.
Chairman Sader opened the floor for inquiries and discussion on Ms. Miller's Issue Brief report. The interim study on gaming was slated for printing January 21, 1993 and would be available the week ending January 29, 1993, according to Dennis Neilander. Copies of the interim study on gaming would be disseminated to all committee members when completed.
Chairman Sader opened the floor for discussion for the proposed Standing Rules of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, Sixty-seventh session, 1993 (Exhibit E). No further discussion occurred.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE STANDING RULES OF THE ASSEMBLY (Exhibit E) FOR THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER AND
HALLER WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE)
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JESSIE A. CAPLE
COMMITTEE SECRETARY
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
January 20, 1993
Page: 1