MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
June 1, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:08 a.m., June 1, 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. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
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:
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. William D. Gregory
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. William Bible, Chairman, Nevada State Gaming Control Board
Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief, Nevada Attorney General's Office, Criminal Justice Division
Mr. John H. Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services
Mr. Rob Calderone, Washoe County Juvenile Probation Department
Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
After roll call, Chairman Sader informed the committee S.B. 294 would not be heard as the amendment had not been returned from the bill drafter.
SENATE BILL NO. 393 Authorizes Nevada gaming commission to modify decisions of state gaming control board concerning work permits.
Mr. William Bible, Chairman, Nevada State Gaming Control Board, testified in support of S.B. 393. He stated the Sixty-sixth Legislative Session had enacted a statute which allowed the State Gaming Control Board to issue limited work permits to individuals who had been convicted of felony or gross misdemeanor charges.
Mr. Bible advised the committee that limited work permits contained time limitations. The proposed legislation would allow for time frames which were less than the current three year durations. The provisions would also allow for the modification of the conditions of the permits, principally in the area of drug testing. The statute would mandate those individuals applying for work permits who had misdemeanor offenses to submit to random drug testing at their own expense.
According to Mr. Bible, the suggested provisions would eliminate the ability of the Nevada Gaming Commission to modify the decisions of the State Gaming Control Board. The result would be the Nevada Gaming Commission would not have the authority to provide similar limitations. Previous statues allowed the Nevada Gaming Commission to modify the decisions of the board, as well as sustain or reverse the State Gaming Control Board's decisions. Mr. Bible stated the provisions had been amended to address these concerns and a portion of the statute had been sunseted by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the full Senate.
Mr. Bible stated the Nevada Gaming Commission was interested in applying a classification of misdemeanors to those individuals who qualified for limited work permits. He voiced concern with the proposed legislation as he believed it would affect the State Gaming Control Board's workload as employees would be required to test individuals for drug use and monitor their conduct. He noted the State Gaming Control Board issued approximately 75,000 work permits annually. If the proposed legislation dramatically impacted the State Gaming Control Board's work load, there would be a fiscal impact. This was the reason for this portion of S.B. 393 being sunseted.
Mr. Bible pointed out there were two primary sections in S.B. 393. The provisions in Section 1 would become effective October 1993. He focused attention on S.B. 393, Section 1, subsection 8 (g), page 3, lines 15, 16 and 17 which read, "If the board issues or does not object to the issuance of a work permit to an applicant who has been convicted of a crime which was a felony or gross misdemeanor,..." He presumed the term "misdemeanor" might limit the time periods for which the permits would be valid. The provision, as written, might limit the job classifications for which the holders of the permits might be employed. The provisions might establish conditions for the issuance of renewals and affect the effectiveness of the permits. The provisions would include mandating unscheduled tests for the detection of alcohol or controlled substances.
Mr. Bible addressed S.B. 393, Section 1, subsection 9, page 3, lines 26 and 27 which would be amended to read, "the commission may sustain, modify or reverse the board's decision". He maintained Section 2 of the bill would sunset out the misdemeanor provision as of October 1995 although this was dependent upon the success of the program and the impact on the work load.
In reply to Mr. Anderson's concern, Mr. Bible informed the term gaming employees was defined in the statute. The focus of the bill pertained to those individuals who interfaced directly with gaming activities. He noted all 17 counties in Nevada issued work permits and some counties issued sheriff's cards. The State Gaming Control Board was the only issuing agency in Humboldt County. All gaming work permits were processed through the State Gaming Control Board which reviewed all work permits issued by local authorities. The State Gaming Control Board made the final decisions to object to or approve the issuance of work permits. Employee classifications were left to the discretion of the counties.
In response to Ms. Smith's inquiry, Mr. Bible stated in cases where individuals had misdemeanor charges, the decision for issuing work permits was dependent upon the recency and nature of the misdemeanor charges. Individuals with numerous, recent and substantive misdemeanor charges would entail problems. He added, the proposed legislation would allow individuals with misdemeanor charges to obtain work permits if the State Gaming Control Board deemed the issuances appropriate. The present law only allowed for approval or denial of work permits; the proposed legislation would permit the issuance of work permits with contingencies which would restrict time periods or narrow the areas of employment.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on S.B. 393 and asked for committee consideration.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED DO PASS ON SENATE BILL 393.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Schneider stated he was opposed to the proposed legislation as he understood it denied work permits to individuals with misdemeanor charges. He felt this power could become abusive, particularly with the advent of a new commissioner. He noted there were many individuals with misdemeanor charges levied against them and the term "misdemeanor" had not been defined in S.B. 393.
Mr. Scherer corrected Mr. Schneider and pointed out the provisions contained in S.B. 393 did not relate to which individuals would be denied work permits which was addressed by existing law. He clarified the provisions contained in S.B. 393 addressed which individuals could be issued limited work permits in specific circumstances. He alleged the passage of S.B. 393 would result in more individuals being issued work permits and therefore more individuals back to work. Mr. Scherer supported the passage of S.B. 393.
Mr. Toomin echoed Mr. Scherer's opinions. He opposed legislation which would not allow individuals to obtain work permits. He supported S.B. 393.
Ms. Smith believed the proposed legislation would provide options and would not create the abuse of power. She surmised the proposed legislation would create more jobs and therefore, supported passage of S.B. 393.
Mr. Scherer responded to Mr. Schneider's concern and referenced S.B. 393, Section 1, subsection 6, page 2, line 21 which read, "and may be granted or denied for any cause deemed reasonable by the board." He noted the language addressed the current authority and included misdemeanors, and in rare circumstances, those individuals who had not been convicted of anything. Under the present statute, the State Gaming Control Board had the authority to deny work permits based on misdemeanor convictions. He alleged the proposed legislation would not enlarge the board's power to deny permits but would allow the State Gaming Control Board other options for those cases which could go either way.
THE MOTION TO DO PASS S.B. 393 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Scherer was assigned to handle S.B. 393 on the Assembly floor.
SENATE BILL NO. 392 Changes name of probation department and probation committee in certain counties and expands authority of committee responsible for certain juvenile services in those counties.
Mr. Rob Calderone, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Probation Department, testified in support of S.B. 392. He informed the committee proposed legislation affected only Washoe County and had been designed to impact those counties with populations of 100,000 and 400,000 people. The suggested provisions changed the current title of the Juvenile Probation Department to the Department of Juvenile Services. The provisions delineated additional advisory capacities for the Probation Committee which would be renamed the Committee for Juvenile Services.
Mr. Calderone reviewed the enhancements for the Committee for Juvenile Services' responsibilities. He stated, under the current statute, the Probation Committee advised as to the control and management of the detention facility. Under the proposed legislation, the succeeding Committee for Juvenile Services would advise on the control and management of the Department of Juvenile Services, including the detention facility.
Mr. Calderone added, at present the Probation Committee advised on policies, procedures and performance standards of probation officers and detention workers. The proposed legislation would have the Committee for Juvenile Services advise the policies and procedures of the performance standards of probation officers and all employees of the Department of Juvenile Services, including detention workers.
Mr. Calderone stated the last area of responsibility for the succeeding Committee for Juvenile Services would be under the current statute where the Probation Committee advised the appointment of detention personnel. Under the proposed language, the Committee for Juvenile Services would advise and recommend the appointment of employees for the Department of Juvenile Services, including detention personnel.
Mr. Sader addressed S.B. 392, Section 4, page 3, where the committee was given the task of reviewing dismissals of employees. He asked if this was current practice. Mr. Calderone responded the review of employee dismissals was current practice and there would not be changes in this provision.
Mr. Sader pointed out police officer powers were granted on a limited basis and referenced Section 5. He surmised S.B. 392 would pass before similar legislation in A.B. 525 which would result in a conflict amendment. If A.B. 525 passed the Senate, the police officer powers would be removed from S.B. 392 and be reinserted in a separate chapter on police officer powers.
In reply to Ms. Smith's concern as to the reason for the initiation of S.B. 392, Mr. Calderone stated the statutes allowed for preventive programs which attempted to keep juveniles out of the juvenile courts. It had been determined the Juvenile Probation Department had not voluntarily accessed families and juveniles. The proposed Department of Juvenile Services would access those families falling through the cracks and attempt to reach juveniles before they entered the juvenile justice system.
As Mr. Sader understood, S.B. 392, Section 7 applied to Clark County and Section 1 through 6 applied to Washoe County.
Mr. Scherer concurred with S.B. 392, Section 7 which appeared to exempt Washoe County from the existing language whereas Section 8 appeared to apply to all counties. Mr. Calderone disagreed and clarified the smaller counties did not have Directors of Juvenile Services but Chief Probation Officers and would not be affected by the proposed changes. The only counties which had Directors of Juvenile Services were Washoe and Clark counties.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing and requested committee consideration of S.B. 392.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 392.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Regan was assigned to handle S.B. 392 on the Assembly floor.
SENATE BILL NO. 78 Makes various changes to provisions First Reprint governing placement of children for adoption.
Mr. John Sarb, Administrator, Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services, testified in support of S.B. 78 and informed the committee the bill originated from the interim study on the Division on Adoptions. S.B. 78 was designed to address out-of-state adoption practitioners practicing adoptions in violation of law in the state of Nevada.
According to Mr. Sarb, attorneys and out-of-state adoption agencies illegally placed Nevada children in other states and collected money from individuals in Nevada for placement services they could not deliver. The Division of Child and Family Services intended to take up the issue with the Nevada Bar Association or the licensing states. The provisions retained the misdemeanor penalty which had never been prosecuted, to his knowledge.
Mr. Sader referenced S.B. 78, Section 2, subsection 3, page 2, lines 15 through 17. He asked how the provisions found their way into the bill. According to Mr. Sarb, the Nevada Press Association was interested in applying the provisions due to the liability issues with publishing unlawful information.
Mr. Haller noted the provisions appeared to place restrictions on attorneys. He referenced S.B. 78, Section 2, subsection 2, page 2, line 13 which referenced S.B. 80. He noted it appeared the provision should reference the Nevada Revised Statute rather than the bill number. Mr. Sarb clarified the misunderstanding and noted the language had been the product of a Senate work session which had been conducted after S.B. 80 had passed and been signed by the governor April 7, 1993. He added S.B. 80 was slated to become law October 1, 1993.
Mr. Toomin asked how the Division of Child and Family Services intended to police the results of the provisions. Mr. Sarb replied the division would be informed of malpractices through cases where individuals took infants from birth mothers, etc. Although the law had the prospective of circumventing the law in out-of-state adoptions, he did not believe this could be conducted successfully on a large scale.
Mr. Toomin was not concerned with the numbers of adoptions but the amount of money involved. Mr. Sarb noted individuals could operate in the black market of buying and selling infants. S.B. 78 had been designed to address those out-of-state attorneys who operated in Nevada in violation of state statutes. Mr. Toomin asked why the penalties were not more stringent. In responding, Mr. Sarb stated the Senate argument was the actions taken against attorneys' licenses to practice law were greater than those of charging misdemeanor offenses. Mr. Sarb noted there had not been previous legislative interest for harsher penalties for this crime. He noted S.B. 80 increased the penalty from misdemeanor to gross misdemeanor charges for actually placing the children.
Mr. Toomin took exception to S.B. 78, Section 2, subsection 3, which referenced the exclusion of periodicals, newspapers, radio stations or public mediums. He noted the media often printed disclaimers and advertised illegally which he personnally felt aided and abetted criminals.
Mr. Sader emphasized the other side of the issue which was whether the newspapers would be required to screen their adds for legalities. The newspapers contended they were merely vehicles for publication rather than screeners of information.
Mr. Regan referenced S.B. 78, Section 1, subsection 2, page 1, line 6, scheduled for deletion, which read, "Such attorney may receive compensation for his legal services..." as well as S.B. 78, Section 1, subsection 2 (b), page 1, line 11, which registered, "May receive a reasonable compensation for legal services..." He asked if the provisions might circumvent the law. Mr. Sader responded and stated there was a grey area in the practice of adoptions as there were practitioners who walked the fine line between propriety and legality. The policy in Nevada was attorneys would not actively solicit the buying and selling of infants. He emphasized the provisions would protect those attorneys who legally practiced adoptive law.
Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, endorsed S.B. 78. She stated the genesis of the bill came out of concern for the number of out-of-state attorneys and adoption agencies who solicited infants in the state of Nevada. According to Ms. Hansen, of the twelve listed adoption agencies in Washoe County, nine operated from out of state. She stated there had been considerable concern in the interim committee regarding this. The original legislation prohibited groups or organizations from promoting or advertising adoptions. Senator Adler had suggested the state regulate attorneys rather than regulate the practice of promoting or encouraging adoptions which would prevent the buying and selling of babies across the state line.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing and asked for committee consideration of S.B. 78.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 78.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, PORTER AND HALLER VOTED IN OPPOSITION)
Mr. Toomin was assigned to handle S.B. 78 on the Assembly floor.
SENATE BILL NO. 12 Provides for payment by state of costs of prosecution in additional cases.
Mr. David Sarnowski, Chief, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, informed the committee the Office of the Attorney General had introduced S.B. 12. The purpose of the proposed legislation was to provide statutory authority to the state budget office. This authority was similar to the statutory authority currently in existence in prisoner prosecutions.
Mr. Sarnowski informed the committee the funds would be allocated from a specified budget which would compensate the costs of prosecuting persons acting in concert with prisoners who committed crimes. Traditionally, the types of crimes alluded to were those which involved the importation of controlled substances and the aiding of attempts to escape or actual escapes of the offenders. Occasionally, there were crimes where outsiders provided alcoholic beverages to prisoners who were charged with gross misdemeanor offenses; there could be other serious crimes as well.
According to Mr. Sarnowski, there had not been a budget authority for the Attorney General's Office in regard to such prosecutions. Therefore, the costs had to be absorbed through the special litigation fund which had remained a constant figure, however, the caseloads had increased.
Mr. Sarnowski maintained the state should bear these costs and not utilize the special litigation fund of the Office of the Attorney General. He submitted a two year fiscal note of approximately $5,000 per year. He noted there were approximately five prosecutions conducted during any given year. The Office of the Attorney General had the authority to decline prosecutions wherein the county prosecutors could then initiate such charges. S.B. 12 would allow the counties to recoup the expenditures from the same fund if it had been proven the offenders had acted in concert with the state prisoners.
Mr. Sarnowski addressed the fiscal note. The Office of the Attorney General had introduced S.B. 12 in the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee had delivered the bill to the Senate Finance Committee as there was the prospect of fines collected during the 1993 fiscal year; there was no authority to pay out these monies. According to Mr. Sarnowski, the Office of the Attorney General had some prosecutions, one of which was set for trial. The Office of the Attorney General was not aware if there had been a conviction in this particular case or whether there would be the imposition of fines and assessments. He maintained the fiscal note for FY 1993/1994 and FY 1994/1995 was $5,000 each fiscal year and approximately $1,000 would be recouped in fines and assessments. He noted the monies were not in the budget but were maintained by the Budget Office, as were the prison prosecution funds. He stated the funds were in the Governor's recommended budget and had been determined prior to the commencement of the legislative session. No additional appropriation was required to implement S.B. 12.
Mr. Gibbons asked if the state would prosecute individuals acting in concert with those individuals charged with auto thefts and asked if the state or the counties would prosecute these crimes. Mr. Sarnowski replied the law varied in different counties. He alleged, after prisoners escaped, the crimes dissipated. To clarify this remark, he provided the scenario where a prisoner might be released from Wells and return to Las Vegas and commit two or three car thefts. In these types of circumstances, the district attorneys might wish to retain these cases and prosecute, whereas other cases would be turned over to the Office of the Attorney General.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing and asked for committee consideration on S.B. 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 12.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Sader brought attention to an administrative matter which related to the subsequent hearing on the sodomy legislation. He informed the committee the hearing was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 10, 1993.
Chairman Sader addressed the pari-mutuel wagering bill, A.B. 611. He stated it appeared Nancy Price, who had testified earlier in opposition to the bill, wanted to codify the regulation which prohibited betting on Nevada college sporting events. She had gone to the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board and executives of the gaming industry to solicit their concerns as to whether they cared if the regulation was codified in which they supported the codification and had assisted in the drafting of the amendment. Mr. Sader had requested the amendment to be delivered and he would present it to Mr. Price. He emphasized the amendment would codify the existing regulation prohibiting betting on Nevada college sporting events, both inside and outside the state. The prohibition had been a regulation and had not been a state statute.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Sader adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
Jessie A. Caple
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
June 1, 1993
Page: 1