MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-Seventh Session
February 26, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:05 a.m., on Friday, February 26, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
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 Absent/Excused
Mr. John C. Carpenter Absent/Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chief Justice Robert Rose, Nevada Supreme Court
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Following roll call, Mr. Sader presented a gaming bill draft request for committee introduction from Mr. Garner. BDR41-1404 established absolute privilege for certain information related to gaming.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR41-1404.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Sader had a request for a committee introduction of a bill from Doctor's Company which was a medical malpractice insurer involved in the discussions of the medical/legal screening panel. Doctor's Company wanted to change the medical/ legal screening panel language relating to the use of expert testimony and affidavits from claimants on responses.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Gibbons addressed the committee and requested a committee introduction of a defense attorney's BDR which dealt with the requirement to turn over exculpatory information and other evidence favorable to the accused.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Sader opened the hearing on AJR 22 of the 66th Session.
AJR 22 OF THE 66TH SESSION -
Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to allow increase in salary of justice of supreme court and district judge during term.
Mr. Sader explained AJR 22 was passed in the previous session of the legislature and if it passed again this session, it would go to a vote of the public.
Mr. Sader called Chief Justice Robert Rose forward to testify on behalf of AJR 22 of the 66th Session.
Chief Justice Rose said AJR 22 of the 66th Session was the bill which permitted the Justices on the Nevada Supreme Court and District Court Judges to receive increases in salary during their term.
Chief Justice said AJR 22 of the 66th Session had two purposes, "First, it was a matter of fairness all people doing the same job should receive a raise when given it, and second, it was to match the constitutional language with the real practice."
Early on, the constitutional language which dealt with Nevada Supreme and District Court Justices' salaries was viewed as problematic and unfair. At present, Chief Justice Rose said if the language of the constitution was followed to the absolute letter of the law, an increase he received a year or so ago would never have occurred.
Chief Justice Rose explained a procedure or a mechanism was used whereby all judges received the same base salary, but to make things fair to everyone some judges received compensation for service, in the case of a Supreme Court justice, on the pardon's board, or, in the case of a District Court judge, on the County Law Library Board.
Chief Justice Rose further revealed, at present 26,000 Nevada Supreme Court salaries were funneled as compensation or stipended for service on the pardon's board, and the balance of those salaries which did not affect the constitution were paid directly as salaries.
Mr. Sader asked the committee if there were any questions.
Mr. Collins asked Chief Justice Rose since judges had been paid the same even without AJR 22 of the 66th Session, was it simply to clarify the constitution.
Chief Justice Rose replied the Nevada Supreme and District Court Justices would no longer use current compensation mechanisms but instead judges would be paid their entire salaries directly.
Mr. Scherer asked if it was intended in the future to discontinue payment for the pardon's board and the County Law Library Board.
Chief Justice Rose said yes if AJR 22 of the 66th Session were approved in 1994 by the voters, then this practice would no longer be necessary.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AJR of the 66th Session.
Mr. Sader asked for a motion on AJR of the 66th Session.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS AJR OF THE 66TH SESSION.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Mr. Sader opened the hearing on AB 141.
ASSEMBLY BILL 141 -
Prohibits resale or advertisement for sale of ticket to athletic event or entertainment at price in excess of original price of ticket.
Assemblyman Jim Gibbons, District 25 came forward to testify as the prime sponsor of AB 141.
Mr. Gibbons explained AB 141 was inspired by a Garth Brooks concert where he observed a woman and her 3 children who came to the ticket window and found the concert was sold out. Mr. Gibbons watched a scalper with numerous tickets trying to take advantage of this woman by selling her tickets for outrageous prices.
Mr. Gibbons said this bill prevented the solicitation or advertisement of a ticket to an entertainment event for more than the advertised price. The bill did not impact individuals or ticket services like Ticketron which had contracts for buying tickets at a discounted price and later selling them since such agencies had the written consent of the entertainer or promoter.
Mr. Gibbons explained AB 141 limited anyone from selling a ticket for more than face value within 100 feet of the entrance of an entertainment or sporting event. The bill also provided for a simple penalty of a misdemeanor if a person was found in violation of this provision.
Mr. Sader asked the committee if there were any questions on AB 141.
Mr. Anderson wondered if the bill created a problem for Nevada's tourist industry.
Mr. Gibbons answered no, this bill was not intended as a detriment to tourists who visited Nevada, but in fact this bill would allow greater accessibility to entertainment events by those who visited this state. Mr. Gibbons said this bill was directed at the entrepreneurial individual (scalper) who knew a popular event was to occur and bought large quantities of tickets well in advance of the event for the purpose of later selling the tickets at the location of the event for an exorbitant price.
Mr. Gibbons explained due to scalpers buying large amounts of tickets oftentimes popular events sold out. Scalpers then preyed on innocent people who were unable to stand in line for 3 days or who simply showed up at an event to buy tickets only to find it sold out.
Mr. Anderson asked if an individual through his entrepreneurial skills used his capital to obtain a group of tickets, should he
not be allowed to make a profit on his investment.
Mr. Gibbons replied the issue was when the profit motive for these entrepreneurs exceeded a reasonable profit. Mr. Gibbons stated AB 141 did not prevent exactly what Mr. Anderson was concerned about, a person still had the opportunity to make a profit. If a scalper wanted to make a profit, he still had the freedom to do so, but only beyond a specified distance from the facility, therefore not allowing him to prey on people who were emotionally traumatized when they found an event was sold out.
Mr. Gibbons disagreed with Mr. Anderson on the capital issue because an innocent person who was looking at 300 percent to a 1,000 percent increase on a ticket would not be able to afford a normal $50 evening's entertainment.
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Gibbons to clarify section 1, subsections (a),(b) and (c). Mr. Gibbons said subsection (a) addressed individuals who had permission from the event holder to sell tickets at a price greater than purchased, for instance Ticketron.
Mr. Scherer interjected if he as a private party bought a block of tickets, later put an advertisement in the newspaper and sold those tickets at a price higher than face value, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor if AB 141 became law.
Mr. Gibbons answered yes, under the operative portion of section 1, subsection (b) the ticket should not be for more than the advertised price.
Mr. Scherer addressed section 1, subsection (c) and gave the scenario if at the last moment he was unable to attend an event and he tried to sell a ticket at face value or below, under subsection (c) he was not allowed to sell a ticket at any price without permission within 100 feet of the facility.
Ms. Smith suggested section 1, subsection (c) should read offer for sale a ticket for more than the face value within 100 feet.
Mr. Gibbons found the suggested amendment acceptable.
Mr. Toomin informed Mr. Gibbons AB 141 was not necessary since it fell under NRS 207.230 which provided individuals who acted without authority or a required license was guilty of a misdemeanor. Mr. Toomin stated further, AB 141 was unenforceable and there were already too many laws on the books.
Mr. Gibbons explained the civil aspect of selling a ticket did not require a person to obtain a license such as other operations which required a permit under legal authority or the title of law.
A brief discussion followed.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 141.
Mr. Sader requested a motion on AB 141.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 141.
Mr. Sader stated the amendment of section 1, line 11 to insert after the word "ticket," "at a price which is more than the price stated on the ticket."
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader asked the committee for comments. Mr. Scherer agreed with Mr. Toomin there were already too many laws on the books and believed there already were laws which covered scalping. This bill, since it dealt with entertainment, was unessential and not a necessity of life.
A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Gibbons stressed the importance of protecting people who were not in a position to pay $400 for a ticket to an event. He expounded in Nevada entertainment was designed to be accessible to everyone on some level and tickets were made affordable for this purpose. The Garth Brooks concert demonstrated the need for some type of regulation. Although AB 141 might not be the most perfect vehicle for this, at least it addressed concern for the public with regard to open and free access to entertainment and sporting events for persons who wanted to attend but could least afford the high price of a scalper. The intent and purpose of AB 141 was not covered under the current statutes either criminally or otherwise, and this bill discouraged the attempt of entrepreneurial scalpers who have taken the degree of capitalism to a new level. With that in mind Mr. Gibbons stressed, AB 141 should be enacted.
Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, BONAVENTURA, COLLINS, GIBBONS, GREGORY, PETRAK, REGAN, SCHNEIDER, SMITH AND TOOMIN VOTED YES.
ASSEMBLYMEN SADER AND SCHERER VOTED NO.
ASSEMBLYMEN CARPENTER AND PORTER WERE ABSENT.
Mr. Sader briefly considered AB 81.
ASSEMBLY BILL 81 -
Makes various changes relating to filing of criminal informations.
Mr. Sader recommended an amendment to AB 81 Exhibit C provided by Mr. Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Office.
Mr. Sader asked for an motion on AB 81.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 81.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
February 26, 1993
Page: 1