MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
April 28, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:08 a.m., Wednesday, April 28, 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:
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District No. 6 Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General
Mr. Jim Avance, Cardivan Company
Mr. Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Mr. Blackie Evans, Nevada AFL-CIO
Ms. Helen Foley, Defense Trial Lawyers
OTHERS PRESENT (Con'd):
Ms. Wanda Mathews, Former Employee of the Frontier Hotel &
Casino
Mr. Jack Grimley, Former Employee of the Frontier Hotel &
Casino
Ms. Gloria Henrandez, Employee of the Frontier Hotel &
Casino
Mr. Ray Turner, Former Employee of the Frontier Hotel &
Casino
Mr. Dee Taylor, Staff Director of Culinary Union Local 226 in Las Vegas
Mr. John Wilhelm, Western Regional Director of Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO
Mr. Richard McCracken, Legal Counsel for the Culinary Union
Local 226 and Bartenders' Union Local 165
Following roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on SB 293.
SENATE BILL 293 - First Reprint-
Prohibits denial of attorney's fees and costs in civil action solely because prevailing party is state, local government or public officer or employee.
Mr. Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy of the Attorney General's Office, the requesting agency, testified on SB 293. Mr. Hutchins said the intent of the Attorney General's Office in requesting SB 293 was to preclude a court from denying fees or costs to a government agency or employee who would otherwise be awarded the fees or costs. He said those litigating against the government should not be entitled to any kind of free ride in litigation or any kind of incentive to file a lawsuit or maintain actions against the government. He reviewed Section 1, lines 3 through 5 of the first reprint of SB 293. He explained a court could not refuse to award attorney's fees or costs to the government or reduce the amount of attorney's fees or costs to the government simply because the prevailing party was a state, local government, public officer or employee. He also pointed out the language in this bill not only covered "prevailing party" but any situation where the government would otherwise be entitled to costs or fees as a litigating party. He focused upon page 1, subsection 2, lines 15 and 16 where it said "If rates are not set forth in the rule or statute, the rates which were awarded should be consistent with "reasonable attorney's fees and costs." He revealed subsection 2 was the same as the federal standard for awarding of attorney's fees in Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1988.
He noted the Nevada Supreme Court recently issued an amendment to rule 1955 of its Supreme Court rules which listed the many factors courts should look at in determining whether a lawyer's fee was reasonable. He said this bill was supported by the District Attorney's Association and the Nevada Association of Counties. He provided letters from the Washoe County District Attorney's Office, the City of Henderson and the City Attorney's Office to show their support of SB 293 (Exhibit C), (Exhibit D) and (Exhibit E). He also mentioned Bolder City, Caliente, Las Vegas, Sparks, Winnemucca and Yerington and the counties of Washoe, Douglas, Elko and White Pine supported the bill.
Mr. Hutchins had spoken to Judge Michael Fondi of the First Judicial District and Judge Fondi had no difficulty with the bill and would support it.
Mr. Sader expressed his concern about the definitions in SB 293. Mr. Sader said the bill did not mention "political subdivisions of the state of Nevada" which was a term usually used and defined in the statutes for all the types, not only counties but also various districts and organizational units. Mr. Sader asked Mr. Hutchins was there a reason the term "political subdivision" was left out or was it bill drafter's discretion. Mr. Hutchins replied it was bill drafter's discretion and he hoped lines 18 and 19 covered all governmental entities. He said the language was intended to cover any kind of governmental unit. Mr. Sader said he was not sure the language on lines 18 and 19 covered all government units since he believed the definition was atypical.
Mr. Sader referred to page 1, Section 1, subsection 2, lines 9 and 10 where it said "the state or local government or public officer or employee" and pointed out the word "employee" did not have a modifying term. He asked Mr. Hutchins if the word "employee" meant an employee of the state or of a local government. Mr. Hutchins replied the term "employee" meant an employee of any governmental entity either state or local government. Mr. Sader said the language needed to be changed to clearly specify the word "employee" in the bill.
Mr. Haller was concerned about page 1, Section 1, subsection 2, line 16 where it said "the attorney's fees and costs that are prevailing in the community." He said some counties could receive more money in fees than other counties. Mr. Hutchins noted Mr. Haller was looking at the original form of SB 293; he said the first reprint of SB 293 deleted the language "prevailing in the community"; instead in the first reprint of the bill it stated "shall award reasonable attorney's fees."
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Hutchins who received the fees, the individual public attorney or were the fees placed in a general fund. Mr. Hutchins answered the fees went to a general fund.
Mr. Collins asked if this measure would permit all government entities the ability to obtain attorneys' fees.
Mr. Hutchins clarified this bill would not allow any entity to obtain attorney's fees which it was not already entitled to have under statute or rule. He said the bill addressed the situation where courts for some reason denied awarding attorney's fees to a party even though it was entitled to them under the rules presently existing simply because the party was a government entity.
Mr. Petrak requested Mr. Hutchins to provide the committee with the suggested chart of fees he discussed in his testimony. Mr. Hutchins replied he did not reference a chart of suggested fees. All he had was a recent amendment of the Supreme Court Rules, Rule 155, which listed the different considerations a court should use in determining a reasonable fee. For instance it should include a discussion or a consideration of the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty in the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Hutchins in court cases where he received a successful judgment did he actively pursue awarded attorneys' fees. Mr. Hutchins said in the rare instance where his office was awarded attorneys' fees, yes, it actively pursued them.
Mr. Gibbons asked for an estimate of how much money would be collected annually if his office was reimbursed under this bill. Mr. Hutchins could not answer the question and he said it would be misleading if he tried to guess.
Mr. Porter suggested an amendment to allow a criminal defendant to recover his costs in the event he was acquitted of criminal charges filed by the state. Mr. Hutchins said although he was sympathetic, he wanted to keep criminal issues out of NRS Title 18 which was all this bill would amend and it dealt solely with civil matters.
Ms. Helen Foley, Defense Trial Lawyers, testified in favor of SB 293. Ms. Foley said the Defense Trial Lawyers frequently represented cities, counties, and governmental entities on cases where a political entity was sued. She said the political entities always paid the attorneys which she represented, but her agency felt strongly if the government entities were on the prevailing side and there was a good reason for a judge to give them attorney's fee, they should be eligible for reimbursement.
Mr. Robert Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in support of SB 293. Mr. Hadfield had nothing to add to Mr. Hutchins' explanation of the bill other than to state the League of Cities and the Nevada Association of Counties unanimously supported the measure and urged its prompt passage.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on SB 293.
ASSEMBLY BILL 312 -
Revises qualifications for issuance of gaming license or finding of suitability.
Assemblyman Wendell Williams, District No. 6, Clark County, testified as prime sponsor of AB 312. He stressed the importance of the bill was to protect Nevada's properties, economy and the state itself. He noted many people thought the bill was drafted only for the Frontier Hotel. He said this was not the intent of the bill although the strike at the Frontier Hotel had greatly influenced it. Mr. Williams presented a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit F).
Mr. Dee Taylor, Staff Director of Culinary Union Local 226, Las Vegas, testified in favor of AB 312. Mr. Taylor introduced Mr. Blackie Evans, the Executive Secretary Treasurer of the State AFL-CIO, Mr. John Wilhelm, Western Regional Director of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union and the Chief negotiator for Culinary Union Local 226 and Bartender's Union Local 165, and Mr. Richard McCracken, Legal Counsel for the Culinary and Bartenders Unions.
Mr. Evans said membership was approximately 97,200 in the AFL-CIO in Nevada and 62 percent worked in the gaming industry. He believed legislation was necessary to protect the integrity of the gaming industry and his union was concerned about the 50,000 people who worked in the gaming industry which his union represented. He supported the legislation and the amendment to the legislation.
Mr. Wilhelm explained the written testimony he provided the committee (Exhibit G). Mr. Wilhelm explained the bill had two parts: First, the bill required gaming regulators to consider additional factors in granting a license or finding suitability. Second, the bill would mandate binding arbitration of contracts in the gaming industry when disputes had reached a threshold of severity, measured either by the length of a strike or by an allegation by the National Labor Relations Board that a strike was an unfair labor practice strike and not an economic strike.
He also provided documentation which supported his statements regarding the health, safety, advertising and labor law violations by the owners of the Frontier Hotel (Exhibit H).
Mr. McCracken explained the proposed amendments in Exhibit F.
First the bill added labor law to the list which the Commission should take into account in licensing decisions. He said the proposed amendment added to Section 1, subsection 2(b)(3), at the end of line 20 the words "and to the extent permitted by federal law, labor relations and standards." He stressed this bill gave the Commission the power to take into account in its discretion a company's record in respect to all of the listed areas in Section 2 of AB 312 which was of critical importance in today's new gaming environment. He said the key to the effectiveness of this proposal was the change in federal labor law. He said presently, federal labor law did not permit states to take into account violations of federal labor law in making regulatory decisions. He said there was a very strong chance the gaming industry would be given a specific exemption from the general rule of preemption because there was a precedent in Section 14A of the National Labor Relations Act where it dealt with the issue of the authorization of right-to-work laws passed by individual states. He explained this proposal went further because it actually contained the trigger that the state would not activate this allowance of the Commission to take into account labor relations unless and until federal law had changed to permit it, thereby eliminating any concern about the passage of a preempted statute.
Mr. McCracken explained the proposed amendment to AB 312 on page 4 and 5 of Exhibit F regarding adding new language to Section 2 of NRS 614.090 which addressed "Arbitration of gaming Industry Disputes." He said this was the first time he knew of a Union proposing state intervention in a labor dispute. He said there was not any provision in the National Labor Relations Act for either federal or state intervention in a strike. Under the National Labor Relations Act a union could strike endlessly. He said the bill would create an analog of the National Emergency Provisions of the Railway Labor Act allowing Nevada to stop a labor dispute in the gaming industry when it became threatening to the basic fabric of the economy. He explained there were two triggering events which would allow this type of intervention: first, when a strike went on for three months or more; second, where a strike was an unfair labor practice strike in the view of the National Labor Relations Board. He explained an unfair labor practice strike was when a strike was caused, substantially by serious unfair labor practices on the part of the employer. He emphasized when one of those two triggering mechanisms were present, then based on the proposed amendment the state had the authority to intervene and stop a strike.
Mr. Sader said there was major preemption doctrine when it came to federal law. He emphasized federal courts were fairly jealous about maintaining preemption doctrines and statutes where federal laws applied particularly in labor law. Mr. Sader asked Mr. McCracken if the proposed section of the amendment which dealt with arbitration could withstand a preemption argument. Mr. McCracken said presently it could not and this was why at the end of the proposed amendment it said "The provisions of this section shall have no force or effect until permitted by applicable federal law." because his agency recognized with the currency of the law preemption would make it ineffective.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. McCracken how federal law could change to allow a state to require binding arbitration in a federal labor action. Mr. McCracken said he did not perceive it would occur in general, but there was a very strong chance it would happen with respect to the gaming industry because of its unique characteristics. Mr. McCracken said the federal statute had to exist before the proposed amendment became operable.
Mr. Porter was extremely concerned by the ultimate sanction being the licensee losing his license because of flagrant and repeated violations where all of the employees were, as a result, out of a job because the licensee closed the premises. Mr. McCracken said that was the exception because most reasonably successful gaming properties would be taken over under receivership or reopened under new management.
Mr. Porter asked if there was a requirement under state law for the Gaming Control Board to appoint a receiver when it suspended or revoked a gaming license. Mr. McCracken said there was no requirement for it to be done but there was the power to do it. Mr. Porter suggested the following language be added to the bill "If your license is revoked because of violations of one of these items then the board must appoint a receiver to keep the operation going" to ensure employees went back to work.
Mr. McCracken said although the Union wanted employees to go back to work, the most important objective was an operator not be permitted to continue violating the law without anything happening to his licensing status.
A discussion followed.
Mr. Gibbons questioned Mr. McCracken regarding the amending language on page 4 of Exhibit F which required binding arbitration as being in the best interests of a gaming licensee in the state of Nevada. Mr. McCracken answered it was in the best interest of the licensee and more important the industry and the state as a whole. Mr. Gibbons then asked why it was limited to 250 employees or more. Mr. McCracken said there were very few establishments of any size with that few employees. He explained 250 was aimed at the larger disputes which would have a greater effect on the industry as a whole, but his agency was not obligated to keep the number at 250. That number was simply a device to draw some line between those disputes which would be large and those which would not have such a large effect. He said it would certainly be acceptable to drop the number or even to eliminate any quantity distinction.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. McCracken if the railroad was the only industry which was subject to binding arbitration on a national level. Mr. McCracken explained the industry was covered by the Railway Labor Act which included the airlines as well, and they were not actually subject to binding arbitration. Instead they were subject to injunctions and cooling off periods to stop strikes. He said there was another more elaborate mechanism for resolving disputes called the National Mediation Board which ultimately did not arbitrate but attempted to mediate the dispute while there was a cooling period as a result of the injunction.
Mr. Collins stressed this proposal would help the state because the long drawn-out strike at the Frontier had affected state revenues. Mr. McCracken agreed and said there was a spill-over effect on the entire industry, and if that effect was removed, the business would flow into all the other hotels even if the Frontier was closed.
Ms. Wanda Mathews, a former employee of the Frontier Hotel and Casino, testified in support of AB 312. Ms. Mathews worked 27 years at the Frontier and when she was terminated from the Frontier she had never had a warning slip or been suspended while she was in their employ. She emphasized she and her fellow strikers would rather be out of a job and see the Frontier closed than to be treated as badly as they had been treated before they went on strike.
Mr. Jack Grimberg, a former bartender of the Frontier Hotel and Casino, spoke in favor of AB 312. Mr. Grimberg was a bartender at the Frontier for 14 years but was fired because he was a union committee member. He explained he was 60 years old and he was fighting for his pension which was why he was on the picket line.
Mr. Gloria Hernandez, an employee of the Frontier Hotel and Casino, spoke in support of AB 312. Ms. Hernandez said she was employed at the Frontier for three years and it was her first job in the United States. She said the committee had the key to solving the Frontier strike.
Mr. Ray Turner, former employee of the Frontier and member of Union 226, testified in support of AB 312. Mr. Turner worked as a cook for 21 years. He said the Elardis' thumbed their noses at the law by not doing anything about the unsafe working conditions at the Frontier. He emphasized it was up to the legislature to look after the best interests of the employees at the Frontier. He said he was fighting for his pension so when he reached retirement age he would have an income he could survive on without resorting to welfare.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Wilhelm how the bill would help settle the Frontier strike. Mr. Wilhelm replied if the Frontier knew failure to follow the law on significant issues would result in discipline and possibly the revocation of its license, they would have settled a long time ago. Mr. Wilhelm stated, "The fact .... our regulators either don't have the authority or believe they don't have the authority or simply don't want to be involved in a labor dispute, the Elardis can continue to do this adinfinitum no matter what the cost to the community."
A discussion followed.
Mr. Porter asked during Mr. Wilhelm's negotiations did he try to file a complaint with the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Wilhelm answered on numerous occasions he had brought to the attention the Elardi's violations of the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission.
Mr. Porter asked what had been the disposition of those complaints. Mr. Wilhelm said on a number of occasions it took the form of both written and oral complaints where the Gaming Control Board or the Gaming Commission said they did not have the authority. With respect to the labor relation issues there was some merit to their statements, but with respect to all the other issues, for example the health and safety laws, his office had brought those issues to the attention of the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission which displayed a complete lack of interest. Mr. Wilhelm said his agency's conclusion, which was embodied in this bill as amended, was the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission should be required to take those issues into consideration.
Mr. Porter interrupted and asked Mr. Wilhelm if the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission gave him a hearing.
Mr. Wilhelm said they had not held a hearing specifically on the question of these issues, but when his office sought to bring these issues to them, they had always listened.
Mr. Porter asked if the Control Board, outside of the jurisdictional issues focusing on the health and safety issues, had ever told him why they had not given him a hearing. Mr. Wilhelm replied no, not to his knowledge.
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Wilhelm under Section 1 of AB 312 would the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission have greater authority and, in fact, a mandate to consider these types of violations in the determination of the suitability of a licensee, not just for purposes of licensing but also for possible disciplinary action. Mr. Wilhelm replied yes.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Wilhelm what happened with Vegas World and its allegations of false advertising. Mr. Wilhelm replied he did not know.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Wilhelm if he knew of any gaming entity where there were allegations or proof of violations and were there ever any consequences. Mr. Wilhelm did not know the answer to Ms. Smith's question.
Mr. Carpenter said everything was covered in the current law to protect health and safety and what it came down to was whether the controllers of the Gaming industry would do anything about these issues. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Wilhelm how it would help if section 1 of this bill passed. Mr. Wilhelm replied since the regulators had not specifically replied to his agency, he assumed they lacked the authority or they believed they lacked the authority or they lacked the will.
Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the Gaming Control Board, testified on AB 312. Mr. Bible discussed the proposed amendments to AB 312 (Exhibit F). He said the proposed amendments to Section 1 of the bill to a large extent codified existing practice. He focused on the proposed language of Section 1, subsection 2(a) which said "A person of good character, honesty and integrity;". He Pointed out Section 1, subsection 3(a) should be amended to specifically state it was a continuing requirement to abide by the provisions of that section in order for licensees to hold a gaming license.
Mr. Sader asked if violations of these existing provisions were found, would those be grounds for revocation or discipline of a licensee's license by the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Bible said this was correct.
Mr. Bible felt under Section 1 subsection 2(b)(3) of the proposed amendment where it said "Record of compliance with federal and state laws, regulations and policies...." was a very broad statement. There were limitations to the language which said "... alcoholic beverages, health and safety, environmental protection, consumer protection, false advertising and to the extent permitted by federal law, labor relations and standards;". Mr. Bible said the proposed amendments in Section 1 addressed licensing and provided a laundry list of items as well as created some restrictions of the items which could be examined in terms of licensing applications.
Mr. Bible assumed the proposed amendments to NRS 614 in Section 2 involved the Labor Commission and not the Nevada Gaming Commission. Mr. McCracken clarified the term "Commission" referred to in Section 2 of the proposed amendment was the Gaming Commission.
Mr. Bible said, to dispute the previous testimony, the Gaming Control Board did not have hearings; there was a hearing in December 1991 where there was 80 pages of testimony on the very issues discussed in today's hearing.
He said Mr. Elardi was the sole owner of the Casino Royale where early in the discussion the Gaming Control Board had questions of compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and labor law requirements. He said they provided extensive testimony from Mr. Tyler who represented them in terms of the contract negotiations. Mr. McCracken was present at that meeting to advise the Gaming Control Board of a number of the issues at the Frontier.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Bible if December 1991 was the only time violations at the Frontier were brought to his attention. Mr. Bible explained there was also correspondence and extensive dialogue in December 1991 regarding the issues at the Frontier.
Mr. Porter asked if Mr. Bible had the power to discipline for these violations why had he not done so. Mr. Bible said to a large extent federal law had some restraint in terms of the labor and OSHA violations. These had been continuing issues which had not been fully resolved in terms of administrative appeals, and he was waiting for those issues to be resolved before his agency took any action.
Mr. Porter asked Mr. Bible why it was not necessary to put into statute this language to make it primary to force the Gaming Control Board to take jurisdiction. Mr. Bible said this bill did not codify the Gaming Control Board had primary jurisdiction for enforcement of the OSHA and labor relation requirements.
Mr. Porter suggested Mr. Wilhelm file a complaint concerning the unfair labor practice allegations with the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Wilhelm said he had brought all these issues to the attention of the Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission on numerous occasions either in meetings of the Board or in correspondence, but perhaps Mr. Bible believed the complaints needed to be brought in some other format, and he would do it this week.
Mr. Bible asked Mr. Wilhelm if the OSHA and the National Labor Relations Board issues had been resolved. Mr. Wilhelm said the OSHA issues had not been finally resolved, but the National Labor Relations Board items were determined by an administrative law judge and a decision was made regarding the illegal termination of the employee's pension panel.
Mr. Wilhelm said the Gaming Control Board must believe the owner of the Frontier was a suitable licensee in its judgment because it still allowed the Frontier to hold a license, even went beyond this by giving Mr. Elardi at a new license at a new establishment in spite of the existence of all the issues at the Frontier.
Mr. Porter interjected, stating Mr. Bible had said he did not have final adjudications when Mr. Wilhelm had brought the issues to his attention, and he would not hear the issues until somebody with primary jurisdiction had heard and decided there was a final adjudication of guilt. Mr. Porter pointed out Mr. Bible had never seen any final adjudications of guilt, and these had not been brought to the Gaming Control Board's attention.
A discussion followed.
Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Bible according to NRS 463.170 in a suitability hearing, an applicant was required to be a person of good character, honesty and integrity before he could receive a license. Mr. Toomin said if any one of those three items were violated, he thought it was a matter of revocation. Mr. Porter interjected part of the reason was the charges had not been filed.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Bible how he perceived the possible encroachment by the federal government in establishing rules and regulations. Mr. Bible explained a number of the federal requirements raised the possibility of federal intervention in this industry.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Bible if more statutory language was necessary to build up the state's position and interests. Mr. Bible said Section 2 of the bill would create some new state labor relations activities.
Mr. Anderson said he recognized the new language in Section 2 but he was still concerned with the original requirement. Part of the question was the new language in Section 1 subsection 2(b)(3) where it discussed regulating alcoholic beverages, health and safety, environmental protection, consumer protection, false advertising, etc. Mr. Anderson asked was this kind of parallel language needed. Mr. Bible said it was the legislature's task to determine whether the federal code should be codified into the state code in all those individual areas.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Bible who the watch dog was for the gaming industry. Mr. Bible answered the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission. Ms. Smith said part of Mr. Bible's testimony had been the charges had not been officially brought before the Gaming Control Board. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Bible felt he had no obligation to find out these outcomes if he was aware of a situation or did have had to wait for someone to come before him before he could proceed versus going ahead and taking action when he knew a situation existed. Mr. Bible replied it varied by the case and certainly he would take disciplinary action based upon these particular areas. The Gaming Control Board did consider those items in 1991 but they had not been resolved and his Board decided not to take any action.
Mr. Bonaventura asked Mr. Bible why he waited two years and did he check into these allegations. Mr. Bible explained he knew the status of these allegations within the administrative or judicial review agencies, and generally he was notified when there was some sort of action which took place or when a decision was made. Mr. Bonaventura said he did not understand why the Gaming Commission had not revoked Mr. Elardi's license.
Mr. Petrak strongly believed the Frontier strike was promoting a very negative image of Las Vegas and Nevada's gaming industry as a whole. He emphasized this negative image did not only remain on the west coast; it was perpetrated nationwide.
Mr. Bible said he shared the committee's sense of frustration over the labor relations dispute at the Frontier. He clearly did not think it was good for the state of Nevada. He recently had seen a California news story which compared the violence on the Frontier picket line to the Rodney King beatings.
Mr. Collins noted if the Gaming Control Board had taken action on these issues sooner the press might not have compared the Frontier strike to the Rodney King beatings.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Bible if the Gaming Control Board should get involved in the Frontier labor dispute in the general interest of the gaming industry of Nevada. Mr. Bible stated, "I suppose it becomes a policy question and you have the policy question before. I guess it's been now moved out of the suitability context in terms of a license qualification issue. Do you want to use the regulatory process ...... of Nevada the Gaming Regulatory Board and Nevada Gaming Commission to take action against a licensee who's involved in a labor dispute."
Mr. Carpenter said it was a labor dispute but it had all other ramifications which really did damage to the gaming industry of the state of Nevada.
Mr. Jim Avance, Cardivan Company, testified in support of AB 312. Mr. Avance said he represented the "little people." He said this was a far-reaching bill, and he did not want to speak to the issues which had been addressed earlier. He pointed out any action taken on this bill also would affect people with less than 20 slot machines or less than 15 slot machines. He was concerned with the statewide situation, not just Las Vegas and Reno, when it came to the suitability of an applicant to hold a gaming license. Mr. Avance proposed an amendment which would remove the small people from the language. He was particularly concerned about the language at the beginning of line 18 on page 1 of the original bill, not the proposed amendment, where it spoke about "record of compliance with federal and state laws, regulations and policies regarding alcoholic beverages,....." He said under current practice the Board did look at such things now. The biggest problem for a slot route operator was getting the small town "mom and pop" licensed in a convenience store or in a bar or a smaller operation where by their lifestyle they have had a couple of DUI arrests or whatever. He did not believe Mr. Bible would agree or want the legislature to allow a separate standard as it pertained to licensees. He noted his company dealt primarily with what was known as landlord suitability. The other person which owned the bar and was there under a flat lease contract was known as a licensee. He proposed for the committee to solve the problem on Page 2, Section 1, subsection 2 after (c) a (d) be added to the bill. He said (d) would state "applicants for a finding of suitability as a landlord are not required to meet the strict standards of section 2(b) and that would take the little people out of this large problem.
Mr. Porter said he had a bill which would accomplish just what Mr. Avance requested last session regarding the landlord suitability requirement and it got absolutely nowhere with the Chairman of this committee.
Mr. Avance explained as the laws changed and as future regulators came on board they could interpret Page 1, Section 1, subsection 2(b) as being a legislative intent that no one with an alcohol problem was allowed to be in gaming or no one who had shot a deer out of season should be allowed to have a gaming license. He was concerned what future regulators might perceive this language to mean and to be.
Mr. Regan said there was a major problem on the west side of Las Vegas and he fully concurred with Mr. Avance's suggestion.
Mr. Williams stated, "I sat and listened to all the testimony and we somewhat got a little bit off base with the intent of the legislation. As I said it would be pretentious and remiss not to think that the Frontier has nothing to do this, but that's not the whole picture. The bottom line comes down to a fundamental question that this committee has to deal with in reference to procedures and how we plan to address the concerns of the state. I would not think that we would wait until a number of complaints if trucks were dumping hazardous waste on streets by a number of people before we acted. Nor do I think, nor have we waited until a number of complaints were filed by seniors when they are tricked out of their money or abused. This legislature, in fact, has not waited for a number of automobile owners to complain about insurance rates before we acted. If that were the case, we would, as legislators, not need to draft any bills. We would sit around in the session and wait until people came up and filed complaints before we acted on issues that affect people. The fundamental question with this particular piece of legislation is do we continue to operate in a reactive mode or do we continue to work in a mode of allowing the system to see what happens before we deal with the lives of people who elected us deal to represent and protect or do we take a proactive stance and deal with the fundamental question of can gaming continue to operate as it has in the past. Obviously not. To say that the Control Board will sit and wait as it's done in the 1950's or 40's before it acts on situations to protect Nevada's crucial crossroad at this time with all of our issues; that's one that the committee has to address more so than any individual case of individuals or any particular property. That's the bottom line. I need to remind the committee of that."
There being no further testimony, Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 312.
Mr. Porter requested the committee introduction of BDR-R1982 which urges Congress to require return of unclaimed securities distributions held by intermediaries to states from which they were paid.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR-R1982.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Vice Chairman Porter requested approval for committee drafting of a bill draft request from the municipal court of Carson City which would increase penalty for assault or battery on judges, physicians and related health care staff (Exhibit I).
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED FOR THE DRAFTING OF THE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
ASSEMBLYMAN GREGORY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
April 28, 1993
Page: 1