MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 30, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 30, 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. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr. John C. Bonaventura

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      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

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Bryn Armstong, Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole

        Commissioners

      Ms. Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary of the Nevada Board

        of Parole Commissioners

      Mr. Donald Mello, Director of the Administrative Office of

        the Supreme Court

 

OTHERS PRESENT (Con'd):

 

      Mr. James Begbie, Administrative Services Washoe County

        District Health Department

      Ms. Terry Rankin, Commissioner of the Department of

        Insurance

      Ms. Susan Campbell, Department of Insurance

      Mr. Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association

      Mr. David Rowles, Director of Administrative Services of

        Clark County Health District

      Mr. George McNally, President of Nevada Trial Lawyers

        Association

      Mr. William Prezant, Representative of the Doctor's Company

      Mr. Fred Hillerby, Representative of NML Insurance Company

 

Following the roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on AB 328.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 328 -

 

      Provides that number of years of judicial service required for justice of supreme court or district judge to qualify for pension benefit be the same as for member of public employees' retirement system.

 

Mr. Donald Mello, Administrator of the Office of the Supreme Court, the requesting agency, testified on AB 328.  Mr. Mello explained this measure sought to change the vesting period for judges and justices enrolled in the judicial retirement plan from ten years to five years.  He explained the bill had two purposes: first, to make the vesting period for the judicial retirement plan five years the same period of time the public employee retirement system (PERS) currently vested, and second, to pattern this legislation after federal legislation which presently mandated all private retirement plans vest at five years.  He stated since AB 328 required the vesting period to change from ten to five years for the judicial retirement plan,  the vesting period also needed to be changed for disability provisions under NRS 484.3798 sections 2 and 4.  He explained under the present disability provisions a justice or judge with five years of service who became disabled and upon qualification of disability could retire regardless of age with ten years of credit.  This bill would eliminate the ten years vesting and a justice or judge would be required to have five years of service to retire with a disability pension, but the pension would be based upon the actual number of years of service beginning at five years onward.  Mr. Mello explained the change in statute proposed by AB 328 would save the state money by eliminating the current disability liability of $224,000 for justices and judges.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Mello what propelled the introduction of this bill and why should there be a change now after these rules had been in effect for so long.  Mr. Mello replied this issue had come up several times before and the intent of the bill was to make the judicial retirement system equal in terms of the number of years to the public employee retirement system.

 

Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Mello if judges were members of PERS.  Mr. Mello answered there were some judges in PERS while other judges were in the judicial retirement system.  Mr. Mello clarified if a judge came to the bench and had an active membership account with PERS and he was eligible for PERS, he could stay in PERS; but if another judge came to the bench and did not have an active account in PERS, he had to go through the judicial retirement system.

 

Mr. Scherer inquired if there was a separate judicial retirement fund.  Mr. Mello explained it was unfunded and as retirements occurred they had to be brought before the legislature in order to receive the funding to pay for those pensions.  Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Mello how the percentage of vesting or the amount of one's salary paid in this bill compared with PERS's current rules for state employees.  Mr. Mello said right now for both plans either PERS or the judicial retirement plan the rate of credit accrued at 2.5 percent.  He explained the only difference was the 2.5 percent per year lasted for the first ten years under the judicial retirement plan and beginning with the eleventh year of this plan the accrual rate was 4.166 percent. 

Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Mello if this legislation would cause a fiscal impact on the state.  Mr. Mello said no because it reduced the state's fiscal impact by eliminating the state's current $224,000 contingent disability liability.  Mr. Scherer disagreed with Mr. Mello and said if there were judges who could retire with fewer than ten years of experience there was a much greater likelihood of a liability than if judges had a disability.  Mr. Mello stated, "They are both contingent liabilities, they are both possible.  If all eight persons were to retire when this becomes effective the cost of the state would be less than $3,000 because there's a reduction.  There is a reduced cost because of the elimination of longevity for the replacements and the fact that six of the eight would have to take reduced pensions because they are less than age sixty."

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Mello to clarify who currently benefitted from the five year vesting and how it related to state employees in general.  Mr. Mello said he understood all members of PERS could vest at five years and retire at age sixty.  Mr. Petrak reported he was a member of PERS but as a legislator he had to vest at ten years.  Mr. Mello said Mr. Petrak was under a completely different plan, the legislative retirement plan.  Mr. Mello clarified there were three plans: one, public employee retirement system; two the legislators' retirement system and three, the judicial retirement system.

 

Mr. Anderson  commented, since district court judges, justices of the peace and supreme court judges now served six-year terms, from now on these individuals would become vested.  Mr. Mello said this was presently true of judges who were also members of PERS.

 

Mr. Anderson illustrated if he taught at Washoe County School District for twenty years and was then elected as a Sparks justice of the peace, would he be able to use his twenty years of state retirement together with his one elected term to come up with twenty six years of service.  Mr. Mello explained yes, but as a point of clarification the legislation did not presently cover justices of the peace or municipal court judges.  Mr. Mello further clarified Mr. Anderson's scenario by stating if he was currently a member of PERS and the position he was elected to as justice of the peace was also a member of PERS, the service carried over.  Mr. Mello asked Mr. Anderson to assume he had no previous credit with PERS and he was elected as a justice of the peace, then as a member of PERS he would be eligible for a pension after five years of service on his six-year term.

 

Mr. Anderson inquired if he were elected as a district court judge under his scenario would he be eligible to utilize all his retirements together if this bill passed.  Mr. Anderson further inquired if he could add up all his years of service and then at the end of retirement be able to create a large burden on the state for a relatively short period of one elected term in office.  Mr. Mello said he would be able to add five more years of service to his PERS.  Mr. Mello explained in Mr. Anderson's example he would be adding to existing credit.  Mr. Anderson interjected, "If I were in the judicial branch I would not have to, as I do in the PERS system, give up part of my salary because supreme court judges do not give up part of their salary.  We take it out of the general fund for their retirement unlike every other state employee."  Mr. Mello agreed Mr. Anderson's statement was correct. Mr. Mello explained members of PERS who were district judges and justices did not experience a reduction in salary, the state paid 100 percent of their membership.

 

Ms. Smith stated her observation was, if equity was the issue discussed, then in order to be equitable judges should also contribute to their retirement like everyone else did in the PERS system.  If this was not the case, then this legislation was a very inequitable request.

 

Mr. Collins said he thought all employers in order to have a qualified retirement plan either vested after five years or a three to seven year phasing plan.  Mr. Mello said he understood the requirement applied only to the private sector but application to the public sector would come in the future.

 

Mr. Carpenter was concerned about the monetary impact this bill would have on the state.  He said if this bill was enacted and a judge vested in five years then the state would have to come up with money sooner.  But as it stood right now a judge who served for one term or five years was not eligible for any retirement.  In reply to Mr. Carpenter's concerns Mr. Mello explained yes, the state had to come up with money sooner but it was at 4 percent instead of 25 percent.  Mr. Mello revealed there were district judges who since they were members of PERS vested at five years now.  

 

Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Mello for clarification on the percentage of vesting credit a judge would receive after ten years of service and how did AB 328 affect this credit.  Mr. Mello said a judge still vested 25 percent after ten years of service because the vesting credit was rolled back only at 5 years to 4.1666 percent.  Mr. Carpenter said if a judge served just for five years, then he would receive 4.166 percent five times by the end of the fifth year.  Mr. Mello said no, it would be a straight 4.1666 percent for the five years.  Mr. Mello also stated it would take five more years to get up to 25 percent. 

 

There being no further testimony, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on AB 328.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO DO PASS AB 328.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Scherer opposed the motion. He strongly believed despite the indication there was no fiscal note this bill would have a negative fiscal impact on the state at a time when the state could least afford it. 

 

Ms. Smith opposed the motion because she agreed with Mr. Scherer and because everyone else in the system contributed to their retirement.  She said if judges wanted equity then let them contribute toward their retirement and then this would be equitable.

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Sader how much judges had to contribute for their retirement or did the state pay it all.  Mr. Sader replied judges did not contribute to their retirement, it was appropriated every two years by the legislature.  Mr. Sader said this was viewed as part of the judge's compensation package. 

 

Mr. Petrak asked Mr. Sader to clarify after a judge had vested  what would a judge's income be if he was sixty-five and retired after five years of service but before he served ten years. 

 

Mr. Mello replied the last year's salary times 4.1666 percent was the amount the judge would receive and the amount varied from judge to judge.  After hearing Mr. Mello's comment, Mr. Petrak stated he would oppose the motion because this bill would be an increased expense to the state.

 

Mr. Sader asked for a roll call vote.

 

      THE MOTION FAILED TO DO PASS AB 328.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, CARPENTER, COLLINS, GREGORY, HALLER, PETRAK, SCHERER, SCHNEIDER, SMITH AND TOOMIN VOTED NO.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, GIBBONS, PORTER, REGAN AND SADER VOTED YES.

      **********

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 328.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HALLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.

 

      ASSEMBLYMEN BONAVENTURA, GIBBONS, PORTER, REGAN, AND SADER VOTED NO.

 

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 391 -

 

      Revises provisions governing delegation by state board of parole commissioners of its authority to hear applications for parole.

 

Mr. Bryn Armstrong, Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, testified on AB 391.  Mr. Armstrong explained AB 391 was not his bill but he wanted to comment on it.  He stated at the present time he had seen most of his clients two months in advance of their eligibility dates.  He explained this was true in all cases of minimum parole eligibility.  When Mr. Armstrong's office denied a parole for a year, for example, the individual was seen ten months later at which point there was a possibility of his being released.  Mr. Armstrong stated he did not know what the purpose of the bill was unless it was a problem his office occasionally had in receiving votes after a panel made a recommendation to the full board where there might be a delay of two or three days.  But this in no case with the initial parole eligibility would delay or impede the decision to release an inmate from prison if he was granted a parole at his first appearance.  He understood the Department of Prisons was interested in this bill but he had no personal knowledge of it.  He also suggested an amendment to the bill on page 1, section 5 to add the language, "a majority of the members appointed to the board would be required in all cases of sexual assault and sex crimes involving children."  Ms. Susan McCurdy, Executive Secretary of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, accompanied Mr. Armstrong during his presentation and she had no further comments to add to Mr. Armstrong's testimony.

 

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Armstrong what the current number on a parole board was and did two make a quorum.  Mr. Armstrong explained six made up a parole board and all parole decisions were made by a board majority, four members.  Mr. Anderson again asked did two make up a quorum.  Mr. Armstrong answered two made up a quorum at a hearing.  Mr. Armstrong continued most hearings were held in panels which heard more than 450 parole hearings per month.  He stated the members who did not attend the initial hearing had the opportunity to review the files, hear the report from the panel and the Chairman was available for any questions or discussion.

 

Mr. Anderson stated, "Mr. Chairman if I read this bill correctly it would take in page 2, lines 8 and 9 only a view from a majority of the panel members from four to the original panel who heard it to two.  Is that what this will do?"   Mr. Armstrong replied this bill would have two members appointed to the board casting votes for the other four.

 

Mr. Sader noted the Department of Administration, the Budget Division was the requesting agency for AB 391, and since no one was present to testify from this agency he postponed the hearing until another time.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 391.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 390 -

 

      Includes public health agencies within scope of certain provisions governing actions against providers of health care.

 

Mr. David Rowles, Director of Administrative Services of Clark County Health District, testified as the requesting agency for AB 390.  Mr. Rowles introduced Mr. James Begbie, Administrative Services, Washoe County District Health Department, to assist in the presentation.  Mr. Rowles stated this bill came as a result of a resolution by the Clark County District Board of Health, and his agency along with the Washoe County Health Department supported it.  He elaborated the Nevada State Legislature recently formed the medical/legal screening panel through the adoption of NRS 41A.  The medical/legal screening panel addressed the problem of increased health care and health insurance costs which was caused by frivolous malpractice suit filings.  He established NRS 41A also provided medical malpractice claims against physicians, hospitals and their employees had to be submitted to a medical/legal screening panel for review prior to a court filing.  In the past the Clark County District Board of Health and its Chief Health Officer had been declared ineligible by the medical/legal screening panel because public health agencies were not explicitly identified in NRS 41A.  The district and the public it served had therefore been denied the potential benefit and protection of the screening panel's review on malpractice actions filed against it and its employees.  Mr. Rowles desired the Clark Count District Health Department be afforded the opportunity of being included under the same legislative provisions as the University Medical Center which he noted was a public hospital.  He said his agency was recently involved in a lawsuit along with the University Medical Center where the University Medical Center and its physicians were excused by the medical/legal screening panel but because public health agencies were not explicitly identified in the language of the statute, his office was not.  Mr. Rowles explained as a result, Clark County Health District incurred additional legal expenses and costs which it had to shoulder completely.  He illuminated over the last ten years his agency had approximately six to seven lawsuits filed against it, the highest of which had been $26 million and the least of which had been approximately $50,000.

 

Mr. Begbie testified in support of AB 390.  He stated he had been fortunate Washoe Health District had not had suits of the magnitude of Clark County Health District but his office was definitely in strong support of this proposed legislation.  He pointed out the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources was also included in the proposed language of the bill.

 

Mr. Sader stated Clark County Health District did not receive a judgment for $26 million.  Mr. Rowles answered his agency did not receive a judgment for $26 million, but it was included in the judgment as a party and the threat of even part of that judgment was a concern.  At the present time Clark County Health District was a part of a self-insured liability pool with Clark County which only covered up to $1 million.  Clark County Health District had no other carrier to indemnify itself other than that which his agency contributed on an annual basis toward the premiums for being a part of this self-insured liability pool.  Mr. Rowles emphasized his agency's coverage in a lawsuit was at times very tenuous.  Mr. Rowles said based upon the size of filings, his agency had been advised by counsel it would be appropriate to seek additional protection of public funds.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Rowles if his agency had ever paid a medical malpractice judgment in Clark County.  Mr. Rowles replied no, his office had been judged not liable on one suit, all the rest were settled out of court. 

 

Mr. Sader explained the background on the medical/legal screening panel.  He explained in 1985 this was a high profile issue on the crisis of affordability and availability of malpractice insurance.  Mr. Sader said there were high profile meetings on how to deal with the fact many doctors no longer   practiced in some areas of medicine because they could not afford the insurance or the liability.  He explained the Legislature addressed the issue by creating a medical/legal screening panel which required all claims to be adjudicated through this administrative panel first before going to court.  Mr. Sader stated, "It's a required filing, it's not a mini-trial but it is a hearing or a decision on the medical records."  He said the fees for filings largely paid for the cost of the system but it was not totally self funded, there were some general fund dollars involved.  The medical/legal screening panel was available to physicians, nurses and hospitals under the definition of health care providers.  Since 1985  several bills from various sources who wanted to be included in the panel were proposed.

 

He said the panel had been successful in reducing claims which otherwise might have been filed generating tremendous interest in the medical community.  Mr. Sader said the consideration of adding public health agencies to this legislation was for the purpose of medical malpractice issues only.

 

Mr. Rowles added Clark County Health District like many other agencies tried to carefully protect the amount of public funds it received.  He pointed out having several lawsuits could be detrimental since they depleted funds his agency could utilize in other areas such as heath care programs.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Rowles if the Clark County Health District was an agency of the state with limited liability.  Mr. Gibbons asked what the Clark County Health District's maximum exposure was right now for liability.  Mr. Rowles said liability for immunization, for instance, had a maximum cap of $50,000 per incident as long as it was within the confines of negligence.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Rowles who in his agency provided health care that he wanted this to cover.  Mr. Rowles replied the Chief Health Officer and his staff of twenty-six nurses who went into the community everyday to provide health care services.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Rowles why doctors, dentists or registered nurses were not currently covered.  Mr. Rowles said his office wondered the same thing when it applied to the medical/legal screening panel and was rejected and told its individual doctors were not covered.  Mr. Gibbons asked if the doctor or the agency was sued.  Mr. Rowles said the agency was sued.  Mr. Gibbons  said his question was how did Mr. Rowles expect the medical/legal screening panel to limit his agency's liability since the screening panel did not limit his agency's liability for medical malpractice.  Mr. Rowles said what he would appreciate from the medical/legal screening panel was the ability to have frivolous lawsuits declared ineligible.  He said right now his agency was being held hostage by frivolous malpractice claims filings.  Mr. Gibbons said the cost of going before the medical/legal screening panel for a determination of liability was almost the same, if not equivalent to a trial.  He stated oftentimes the cost of presenting a case could be very expensive.  Mr. Rowles said this might be the case in some situations.  His agency had its own independent legal counsel and the filing fee was $350 apiece for each person who went before the panel, the claimant, the plaintiff and the defendant. 

 

Mr. Gibbons interjected costs were still incurred for legal counsel representing the case, as well as expert testimony presented at this medical/legal screening hearing in order to make a determination as to whether the case was meritorious or not.  He was not certain how the Clark County Health District being included in the medical/legal screening panel process would save the agency any money overall. 

 

Mr. Regan asked Mr. Sader if this bill would change the composition of the medical/legal screening board.  Mr. Sader answered no, when the bill's definition of provider was expanded to include the public health agency, it did not provide representation on the board when issues relating to a public health agency were considered.  Mr. Rowles agreed this was the way he understood the bill also. 

 

Mr. George McNally, President of Nevada Trial Lawlers Association, testified in opposition to AB 390.  Mr. McNally opposed the bill for two reasons:  First, the crisis which developed in the mid 80's did not involve a governmental entity,  and any governmental agency or political subdivision had governmental immunity or cap of a maximum potential exposure of $50,000 for any negligent act.  He also said the Clark County Health District did not purchase medical malpractice insurance, it received generic coverage from the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO).  Second, any doctor who performed a service at a governmental entity or public health agency had the protection of the medical/legal screening panel while the agency did not.  Mr. McNally strongly requested the committee not to include any public agency in the medical/legal screening panel issue.

 

Ms. Smith asked if this legislation would save taxpayers money by reducing the amount of frivolous lawsuits.  Mr. McNally did not believe it would because, if the only available defendant in a medical negligence issue was a public health agency, he doubted he would take the case.

 

Mr. Smith asked if attorneys employed by the state received the same salary regardless of the number of cases they had.  Mr. McNally said this was correct. 

 

Ms. Smith asked if the medical/legal screening panel would cost the same as a court case. Mr. McNally said this was basically what he was saying because for the county the cost would be the same. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked even if a public health agency was not covered under the medical/legal screening panel, its doctors and nurses were covered.  Mr. McNally answered correct.

 

Ms. Terry Rankin, Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, testified against AB 390.  Ms. Susan Campbell, The Department of Insurance, accompanied Ms. Rankin and assisted in the presentation.  Ms. Rankin said her agency had some concerns about this bill because on page 3, section 6 lines 22 and 23 in the definition of action for damages and the provider of health care adding the language "health division of the department of human resources" seemed to expand her agency's liability which she did not believe to be the intent of the legislation.  She said it also expanded the cause of action before the medical/legal screening panel and limited the definition of "employee" on page 3, line 9 while the current language allowed any employee of the hospital to be named as the person who committed the malpractice as long as they were an employee of the hospital.

 

Ms. Rankin noted the cost of covering public health agencies for medical malpractice was through NACO, the organization which bought liability coverage for the member county or member public entities.  Ms. Rankin believed in the case of immunization there was a federal program which dealt with compensation for injuries due to immunization to encourage the use of immunization.  She said some of the public health agencies' concerns might be addressed through that compensatory program.  Ms. Rankin added the Department of Insurance responded to the White House on health care reform issues and specifically described the medical/legal screening panel as a prime example of a reform in Nevada which really worked.  She said since 1986 until last year there had been rate reductions filed for medical malpractice insurance for physicians in this state.  She wanted the committee to be aware of the success of the program and realize the legislature had a primary role in its development.  Ms. Campbell concurred with Ms. Rankins comments and had nothing to add to the testimony.

 

Mr. Sader expressed his concerns with AB 390.  He viewed the program as fragile in various respects.  He said there was a major question of whether the program would be adequately financed for the next two years and when parties were added, there were unknowns of how much additional activity would be generated.  He noted public health agencies did many things other than what would normally be considered medical services,  including septic tanks to dust control.  The effect of this inclusion could be a problem with agencies which did not strictly do medical services and with defining what part of their services was malpractice in the pure medical sense and what part was not.  Mr. Sader said this bill needed to be recrafted to exclude the unintended result of having septic tank decisions considered as medical malpractice.

 

Mr. Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association, explained based upon the testimony presented thus far, he was unclear whether this bill fell under the medical malpractice issue or some broader issue.  He thought the delicately balanced activity of the panel should not necessarily be tampered with.  Mr. Matheis said he would discuss the matter with Mr. Rowles and find out precisely what kind of cases Clark County Health District had dealt with and then submit information to the committee later.  Mr. Matheis explained he would also provide a background report on the medical/legal screening panel which explained its history.

 

Mr. Sader asked if Mr. Matheis had a good list of physicians who were willing to serve on the panel.  Mr. Matheis answered he had a pool of eighty physicians.

 

Mr. Sader noted he always considered the weak point of this program to be the volunteer status of the panels because any program which was predicated on volunteers was destined at some point to fall apart.  He felt the reason there was good attendance and support for the panels from both the doctor's side and the lawyer's side was the feeling of a crisis in health care, and when this feeling was gone people would not volunteer.  Mr. Matheis agreed with Mr. Sader's comments and said this was the risk the panel ran.

 

Mr. Fred Hillerby, Representative of NML Insurance Company, testified in opposition to AB 390.   Mr. Hillerby explained NML Insurance Company primarily wrote professional liability insurance for physicians in Nevada.  He explained there was a very delicate balance in the medical/legal screening panel which had worked in terms of maintaining premiums at a current level.  He stressed there should be compelling evidence to begin to tinker with this program.

 

Mr. William Prezant, Representative of the Doctor's Company, testified against AB 390.  Mr. Prezant was in full agreement with Mr. Matheis and Mr. Hillerby and believed the delicate balance of the medical/legal screening panel should not be upset without compelling reasons to do so.

 

There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 390.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB 390.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Sader requested drafting of a bill draft request from the Attorney General's Office, relating to who bears the cost, the county or the state, for the transportation and housing of prisoners who are in the state prison system and for whom a judge has issued an order in a civil matter to have the prisoner transported to the county for hearings.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED FOR DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CHANDRA PENDERLAND

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

March 30, 1993

Page: 1