MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
February 5, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Vice Chairman Larry Spitler, at 8:37 a.m., on Friday, February 5, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda. EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Mrs. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
PAROLE AND PROBATION -- PAGE 1480
Mr. John Slansky, Chief of the Department of Parole and Probation (P&P), introduced himself. He indicated he presented to staff earlier a copy of the Department's Biennial Report (EXHIBIT C), his written testimony (EXHIBIT D) and a computer printout of a report on the Early Release Program funded by AB305 of the Sixty-sixth Session (EXHIBIT E). Mr. Slansky read his testimony (see EXHIBIT D).
Mr. Spitler directed Mr. Slansky to the expenditure items on page 1480. Mr. Spitler asked for clarification of the community programs in Las Vegas and the alternatives program in Reno. He asked if the $50,000 noted was for the southern Nevada program. Mr. Slansky stated yes. Mr. Spitler inquired if Reno had a similar program. Mr. Slansky said it was not as extensive as the Las Vegas program set up by Ms. Beatty. The Reno program ran primarily through Job Opportunities of Reno and was much smaller. Mr. Slansky did not have the specific statistics available. He noted JOIN (Job Opportunities in Nevada) of Reno did not approach his office for funding in the coming biennium, but Ms. Beatty did. Mr. Spitler wondered what would be done within the $50,000 budget or would not be able to be done because of lack of funds. Mr. Slansky said would obtain specific data from Ms. Beatty and provide it to the committee. Mr. Spitler noted with the population it serves, this could be an alternative program, and he wondered, from the agency's or community's perspective, if there would be any detrimental impact in regard to who could be served. Mr. Slansky stated Ms. Beatty has a wide variety of statistics, is very enthusiastic, has the endorsements of a number of agencies they served and would be able to provide the committee with detailed information.
Mr. Marvel inquired what would happen to Mr. Slansky's work load should the Facilities Capacity Act be passed. Mr. Slansky stated, without having seen the Facilities Capacity Act, he did not believe there would be an impact on his work load. He explained, if his understanding of the Act is correct, the Act would impact inmates with a small time frame until their release, good-time credits to be released and no supervision of P&P. Mr. Marvel asked if the parole program would continue as is even with the passing of the Act. Mr. Slansky indicated yes. Ms. Matteucci interjected she also believed it would continue.
Mr. Humke noticed on page 1485 under performance indicators, most indicators were constant or decreased and some positions are lost, yet Mr. Humke stated he has heard Adult P&P officers have experienced higher caseloads. Mr. Slansky remarked it was not true. He explained the average supervision caseload was 75. He pointed out some caseload data from the Biennial Report (see EXHIBIT C). He indicated Court Services statistics were substantially lower than the average, much to the interest of the Budget Office. He reiterated caseloads are not extremely or even extraordinarily high.
Mr. Humke asked if pre-sentence investigation (PSI) statistics were not included in the information provided, would Mr. Slansky be willing to provide them. Mr. Slansky stated they were included under the performance indicators and, if desired, he would provide the statistics breakdowns by officer. Mr. Humke said the fiscal staff would analyze the numbers and, if more analysis was necessary, Mr. Slansky would be notified in writing.
Mr. Spitler clarified for Mr. Slansky, the committee was interested in the trending downward, at the four percent level, in terms of PSIs. Mr. Spitler asked if judges were looking more toward probation and residential confinement than sentencing, and how would tracking numbers reflect the judge's initial determination. Mr. Slansky explained anytime there is a conviction of gross misdemeanor or felony, a PSI report is prepared. If people are not prosecuted or convicted, no reporting is necessary. Therefore, tracking is identical and the caseload is guided solely by the conviction rates. In regard to the 1991 legislative actions allowing for residential confinement, Mr. Spitler asked if the downward trend was occurring nationally. Mr. Slansky stated he did not know, but he would provide the fiscal staff with two copies of two statistics pamphlets entitled: The Corrections Yearbook: Probation and Parole and The Corrections Yearbook: Adult Corrections for committee research purposes. (Available through the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library.) He believed these resources contained the requested information, and he would contact the Department of Justice for any further statistics requested.
Mrs. Williams inquired how often a P&P officer would visit or contact a case if the caseload were ninety. Mr. Slansky stated it would depend on the level of supervision and the activities of the particular parolee, but contact guidelines are established. Mr. Slansky explained each parolee has one office visit per month in addition to a monthly report, and officers attempt one home visit and employment verification. Also, P&P officers review on a daily basis booking sheets to determine if anyone on their caseload have been arrested. Mrs. Williams asked if the contact guidelines are federal. Mr. Slansky replied the guidelines were established by Nevada a number of years ago and caseloads in other states are much higher, i.e. 300 or 400, especially Texas and Florida which have extremely high caseloads where paperwork supervision is usual. Mr. Slansky asserted Nevada's caseload standards are very good.
Mr. Perkins noted the activity statistics he has encountered in Clark County do not equate with the performance indicators seen in the budget. He credited the difference to the 1991 legislature's action on alternative sentences. He asked if any consideration has been taken in regard to the new Clark County family court judge areas as an impact to P&P. Mr. Slansky replied he did not see an immediate impact other than the inclusion of child support issues, but no impact would be noticed in caseloads. Mr. Perkins voiced his concern over the addition of six new district courts and increasing the P&P caseloads through more cases being processed. Mr. Slansky stressed he did not see a future impact.
Mrs. Evans asked Mr. Slansky, in regard to legislation on residential confinement and intensive supervision enacted by the 1991 session, how would he characterize the success of those efforts. Mr. Slansky gave the efforts an "A" and discussed the 305 Program computer printout listing 195 people released from prison for supervision by electronic devices (see EXHIBIT E). He stated 17 people failed the program reflecting less than a 10 percent failure rate, and the program would be considered very successful. He explained supervision was by both ankle bracelet and Mitsubishi visual/alcohol-level monitor and noted most parolees pay some, if not all, of the expenses incurred by residential confinement. He remarked, because of AB473 of the Sixty-sixth Session, probationers could be placed in residential confinement rather than in the local jail pending a revocation hearing and, while there is some duplication with the 305 program list, there were 96 people involved in the 473 program . AB474 of the Sixty-sixth Session provided the same program for parolees; 46 people were placed in residential confinement rather than incarcerated.
Mr. Slansky noted some people in these two programs were revoked, but some were continued on parole. AB779 of the Sixty-sixth Session provided the authority to the Parole Board or District Courts to sentence people directly to residential confinement with electronic monitoring or to parole them with this condition. 381 people participated in this program with some duplication noted. Mr. Slansky pointed out residential confinement would gain wider acceptance as court experience and parole board experiences increase.
Mr. Slansky elaborated the courts and the Board would place people in residential confinement in lieu of revocation of parole or probation. There were 321 involved in this instance. He stated 849 total individuals were involved in these programs and there were some failures, as expected, with this marginal population. Mrs. Evans asked where the contract monies for the electronic monitor vendor are listed on the budget and what were the parolee's cost. Mr. Slansky replied it would be found on page 1480 and the actual recovery costs were $3.29 per day for electronic monitoring and $7.00 per day for visual monitoring (Mitsubishi Alcohol). Some participants pay total costs, some pay part and some pay occasionally depending on the individual's circumstances, but Mr. Slansky stated the total collected was $127,173 for the last year.
Mrs. Evans asked what the anticipated caseload was. Mr. Slansky noted an increase of 25 percent was expected and this is reflected on page 1481 for the FY93-94 and FY94-95 base recommended by the Governor. The increase will save funds because residential confinement is cheaper.
Mr. Humke asked if under "other" revenues client charges are currently permitted by statute. Mr. Slansky stated in statutes a $12 or $16 approximate fee per client is mandated, but $20 is being collected with a total received through January 1993 of $783,481. This amount is lower than had been anticipated, but efforts to collect more are being doubled for the remainder of the year. Mr. Humke wondered again if collection was permitted by regulations. Mr. Slansky stated NRS provides the authority. Mr. Humke inquired if $20 was sufficient and if other states had higher fees. Mr. Slansky replied yes, it was sufficient and other states have higher amounts, but he was not sure they were being collecting. Nevada's rate is realistic in the current economy.
Mr. Humke mentioned the Texas rate of $40 and inquired how its fee payment worked. Mr. Slansky noted he has associates in the Texas probation department and stated he would obtain any available information on their system. He indicated approximately half of the current caseload pays the fee while the other half cannot pay. He pointed out their status is not revoked. Mr. Humke asked, under fine, penalties and forfeitures, were these requested amounts. Mr. Slansky replied this reflects monies the department receives as a result of seizures and progrades; the department receives a portion of forfeitures on seizures where they participate. Revenues from this source would be infrequent and sporadic in timing and amount.
Mr. Spitler followed up asking if the department expected the forfeitures to come in, why no outlay was listed. Mr. Slansky responded the monies received are regulated by statute. They cannot be used to supplement an existing budget, but could be used for law enforcement equipment or purposes specifically targeted toward a drug or gang activity. Mr. Slansky gave the example of the $77,000 seized in the Parker case of three years ago in Las Vegas. The funds were utilized as match money to a federal grant to hire three officers in a year-long experimental drug program. Mr. Spitler asked if the line-item would be deleted or would the committee not be made aware of how the funds would be spent in the future. Mr. Slansky stated the Budget Office watches the departmental spending very closely. Mr. Spitler pressed the question wondering why the line item was listed when no revenues or expenditures were listed; if $20,000 was projected for seizures, according to Mr. Slansky's testimony, why were there no expenditures listed. Mr. Slansky was unable to answer and Ms. Matteucci stated the Budget Office would get back to the committee on this question.
Mr. Perkins noted the forfeiture monies built into the "Other" category are added into the total revenues which equal the total expenditures. He wondered if the committee can assume the forfeitures would be spent in the line items somewhere. Mr. Slansky stated no. The forfeiture monies are not used to supplement the budget and are not listed as part of FY93-94 or FY 94-95, but the monies would be spent on something. Ms. Matteucci interjected there is some forfeiture money listed and indicated to Mr. Perkins the Budget Office would have to get back to the committee on what specific expenditures they anticipate.
Mr. Perkins asked if the P&P officers are mandated by state POST standards requiring 24 hours of training in a year's period to maintain POST certification. Mr. Slansky replied the P&P department has higher standards and requires more than 24 hours. Most officers are required to go through category two POST training, some go through category one. Mr. Perkins noted under caseloads where training monies were requested, but were not recommended by the Governor. He asked if it would impact the department's ability to maintain the POST categories. Mr. Slansky stated it would not.
Mrs. Williams noted she read there had been changes in the forfeiture laws at the national level and asked what impact there would be for the P&P department. Mr. Slansky was not aware of any changes, but he would research it.
Mr. Spitler inquired if the physicals were competitively bid and did they compare in other areas. Mr. Slansky replied the physicals were competitively bid both in Las Vegas and Reno. Mr. Spitler asked what the out-of-state probation activity was and if out-of-state probationers were tracked differently than in-state cases. Mr. Slansky pointed out Nevada is a donor state where more probationers or parolees are out-of-state than are accepted into the state. He cited the Biennial Report for statistics (EXHIBIT C). Approximately 2,500 clients were sent out of state and are supervised by the state in which they reside just as incoming clients are subject to Nevada's P&P regulations. He noted currently, approximately 700 probationers and 300 parolees from out-of-state are under Nevada's supervision.
Mr. Spitler thanked Mr. Slansky and stated the committee would follow up with a letter requesting the additional information needed. Mr. Slansky left the statistical pamphlets with the secretary.
PAROLE BOARD -- PAGE 1487
Mr. Bryn Armstrong, Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, introduced himself. He read his testimony (see EXHIBIT F).
Mr. Armstrong pointed out the inclusion in the information packets of the standards the Board applies for hearings (see EXHIBITS G, H & K) and the Board Action Certification form (see EXHIBIT I).
Mr. Marvel asked if the Board would be involved at any level with the Facilities Capacity Act. Mr. Armstrong stated, the way he understood the act, this would be applied when prisons reach a certain capacity and no impact is expected except for short-term inmates. He explained the Board will have seen all inmates with prison terms of more than three years at least twice before this act would apply to them. He commented the process would be the Board would see the inmate once for regular parole and if he was denied then he would be seen for mandatory parole. If the inmate was denied again, then the new act would impact that inmate. Mr. Marvel asked Ms. Matteucci if the bill had been introduced in the legislature. Ms. Matteucci replied it was currently at the bill drafters.
Mr. Humke asked for clarification of the 1991 legislation which makes certain types of parole mandatory. Mr. Armstrong clarified the mandatory parole release act passed by the 1987 session at the outset requires the Board to give mandatory parole consideration to all prisoners with sentences of more than three years when they would have had nine months to serve on parole. The 1991 act moved the eligibility date for consideration forward three months and the Board now sees the inmates when they have a year left on parole. Mr. Humke therefore concluded it is mandatory the Board sees the inmates at a certain time, but it is not mandatory the Board paroles them.
Mr. Armstrong stated Mr. Humke's assessment was correct, but the Board does parole them unless a formal finding of a probability the prisoner would become a danger to the public while on parole. It must be a formal finding. Mr. Humke pointed out with the enactment of the Facilities Capacity Act, the pool of the most model prisoners would be released immediately and therefore the Board's grant percentage would decrease. Mr. Armstrong reiterated, except for short-timers and other "good parole risks," the affected inmates would have already been seen by the Board previous to parole. Mr. Humke wondered if there was anything in the recent legislation which would have the effect of pushing the short timers out faster. Mr. Armstrong replied the elimination of the one year requirement brings the short-timers before the Board at an accelerated rate. The Board sees some people who are eligible for parole when they leave the county jail depending on the disposition processing time. Mr. Humke pointed out it is difficult to argue the merits of a bill which has neither been seen nor drafted when the budget is predicated on it and the committee has to consider it in its deliberations.
Mr. Spitler asked why under the performance indicators on page 1489 the number of hearings exceeds the number of applications. Ms. Matteucci asked if he was indicating FY94 and FY95. Mr. Spitler pointed out if she looked at FY93, FY94 and FY95, the number of parole hearings held consistently exceeds the applications and he asked for clarification. Ms. Matteucci stated from Mr. Armstrong's presentation, the numbers he is reporting for FY92 actual parole hearings does not correspond to the numbers the Budget Office had been provided and, with the Committee's indulgence, she will provide the Committee with more information at a later date.
PUBLIC DEFENDER -- PAGE 632
Mr. James J. Jackson, Public Defender, introduced himself. He provided some background information noting the public defender's office currently provides indigent defense services at all stages of criminal proceedings up through and including parole and probation revocation in nine counties including Carson City, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, Storey, and White Pine.
As a result of the reorganization plan, it is Mr. Jackson's understanding without having seen any bill drafts of statutory changes, the public defender's office would be responsible for the provision of indigent defense for prison cases arising out of any state prison facilities and would result in the reduction of staff from nineteen to seven. The current staff includes twelve attorneys, five secretaries and two investigators. After the cuts, staff would be three attorneys, three secretaries and one investigator. Mr. Jackson explained the budget cuts would also close offices in Winnemucca and Tonopah and leave offices open in Ely and Carson City with the staff of seven split between the two.
He noted, through his meeting with the Governor, if some counties desired to continue participation in the public defender's office, the budget would be refigured to include them. Mr. Jackson contacted the counties and the following counties indicated a strong desire to remain in the state public defender's system: Humboldt, Pershing, Lincoln, Eureka, and White Pine. The counties' considerations were based mainly on the feedback from their judges. Mr. Jackson emphasized the counties do not believe they have an adequate attorney pool to draw from to properly handle indigent defense, especially the far-eastern counties of Eureka, White Pine and Lincoln. He stated NACO has suggested and is looking into the possibility of a consortium of counties where the counties would create their own defender system.
Another option for the counties would be to create their own public defender's office under NRS Chapter 260, such as Lander, Washoe, Clark, Douglas, Lyon, Mineral and Churchill counties have done. Most of those counties have accomplished this through contracts with private attorneys even though NRS 260 mandates the formation of a public defenders office for the county. Mr. Jackson indicated he has provided any necessary caseload statistics and other pertinent information to the counties so they can be prepared for indigent defense if the reorganization plan is approved.
Mr. Marvel asked what NACO's plan would be. Mr. Jackson replied NACo at this time has sent out a request to the counties to indicate if they are interested. He stated under that plan an office of Association of Counties Public Defender would be established with an oversight Board of Directors created to assure review and accountability procedures were in place. The actual makeup of the board would be established by the composition and debate between participating counties. Mr. Marvel noted Eureka county would not have enough business on its own so this plan would be applicable. Mr. Jackson agreed. Mr. Marvel asked if the counties would draw from an already established attorney pool. Mr. Jackson replied White Pine, Eureka and Lincoln counties are served by two trial attorneys out of Ely. When there is a case set in Eureka, they travel there similar to the district judge and stay there for the duration of the case.
Mr. Marvel noted Eureka in the past has shared district attorney services with Ely also. Mr. Jackson stated yes, but Eureka currently has its own district attorney. He further noted Judge Hoyt has voiced concern over the lack of attorneys to draw from and, if the counties are forced to deal with it on their own, they will need to draw attorneys from as near as Elko and as far away as Fallon, Reno or Carson City. Mr. Jackson reiterated Judge Hoyt has spoken very strongly to him about the county's desire to have the state public defender's system or something very similar available for their use.
Mr. Jackson stressed these cuts have especially impacted Eureka County with the Ely State Prison's 1,000 inmates which are considered current or potential clients for the public defender's office. Due to this fact, if any Ely inmates commit a crime in prison, it is a felony which creates a lot of business for the public defender. Mr. Jackson further explained inmates rarely want to settle their cases and because they go to trial, they take more man hours.
Mr. Jackson discussed the caseload. He had projected the office would have handled 896 cases statewide to date, but as of the end of January 1993, 1,106 cases have been either opened or closed which indicates about a 25 percent increase. Based on the increased awareness of DUIs, especially in the Carson City community, the public defender's office has been quite busy.
In regard to the reorganization budget and after discussions with Mr. Hataway, it is Mr. Jackson's understanding the projected staffing levels were based on projected prison cases of 290 and appeals of 88-90. Mr. Jackson voiced concern over the numbers, especially for appeals. One case alone can take almost a year of an attorney's time, such as Pershing county's "State of Nevada v. Roger Libby" where one attorney spent over 900 hours in briefing, preparing, hearings, etc.
Mr. Jackson reiterated his previous statement about how much prison inmates like to go to trial. He estimated, out of 200 cases, about 145 would want to go to trial. He noted 50 percent of the 200 settling would be an ambitious number. He contrasted these numbers with individuals out on bond or not under penalty of sentence. Only about five percent of those cases go to trial. Mr. Jackson reiterated, under an informal agreement, Clark County's public defenders office has covered caseloads at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center (SNCC) at Indian Springs and Pahrump in Nye county. He noted, as of October of 1992, Clark County stopped their representation of Pahrump cases and, in speaking with Morgan Harris, it appears Clark County will also have to stop handling the SNCC. Mr. Jackson did not believe the impact of these cases had been considered in the current budget nor the proposed budget for the next biennium. He explained Clark County is ending services as a result of their being stretched to its limits with the criminal calendar in the county and the number of justice and municipal courts which must be covered.
Mr. Marvel asked how many attorneys they would have. Mr. Jackson replied three. Mr. Marvel wondered if turnover was anticipated. Mr. Jackson stated the only place he had turnover in the past 16 months was in Ely and he did not anticipate any. Mr. Marvel inquired if courts could still order attorneys to take up a defense. Mr. Jackson replied absolutely, but they do not do so typically because they do not want to appoint attorneys who do not want to handle criminal cases. He noted attorneys who do defend indigents are paid $60 per hour whether in or out of court with a desire to increase the rate to $85. Mr. Marvel asked Ms. Matteucci if the budget reflected the proposed $85 per hour. Ms. Matteucci indicated the budget anticipates the same level of payment as the previous year, but noted Senator Callister had a proposal last session to increase the attorney's rate. Mr. Jackson commented, as a warning for the budget office, there was a strong movement by the Southern Nevada Bar to increase the rate to $85 per hour for in-court services.
Mr. Heller noted the staffing loss is about 50-60 percent and wondered if the loss was in proportion to the loss of caseload through reorganization. Mr. Jackson responded the office was losing about 50 percent of their work load in respect to trials, but the problem is the comparison is of apples and oranges. He explained the remaining caseload would be state cases only, but they make up a high percentage of the trial work. He stressed the county work load consists of DUIs, spousal batteries and some felonies, but only five percent of county cases go to trial. He asserted it was a balancing, but of different things. Mr. Heller asked if 50 percent of the state inmate cases go to trial versus five percent of county cases and then the office picks up SNCC, will the staffing level be adequate to care for the constituents. Mr. Jackson stated he was very concerned that his office would not have the staffing. He clarified, if there were 140 trials (noting this is a less than 50 percent to trial level) and only, realistically, 46 trial weeks occurred in a year, this would compute to about three trials per week with only three attorneys filing briefs. He concluded the office would be pretty stretched. Mr. Heller asked what a more realistic staffing level would be. Mr. Jackson indicated he had not figured out any alternative numbers because he had been informed of Clark County's intent to no longer handle SNCC cases the day before testifying before the Ways and Means Committee. He stated he has asked Mr. Harris to put together statistics for him on the number of cases from SNCC. Mr. Jackson indicated, comparing the potential caseload from SNCC with cases from NNCC, it could comprise another 50 cases per year at a minimum.
Mr. Heller asked Ms. Matteucci why the public defenders office was placed under Education, Health and Human Services. Ms. Matteucci noted the office was originally placed under Public Safety but there was some concern over a conflict of interest. Ms. Matteucci explained there were a number of agencies which, in the reorganization, could not be placed where it would make the most logical sense and so Education, Health and Human Services was settled on for the Public Defender. Mr. Jackson voiced his concern when a public defenders case involved an inmate whose child has been taken from him, there could be potential conflict of interest. He wondered if it was enough to be concerned about. Ms. Matteucci remarked the Public Defenders office has so many potential conflicts that it could probably be solved by eliminating the entire function. Ms. Matteucci addressed Mr. Heller's question by indicating on page 635 the number one and two performance indicators should be wiped out under the proposed scenario.
Mr. Heller requested Mr. Jackson put together some numbers on the impact SNCC would have on this budget. Mr. Jackson replied he would provide the statistics upon receiving them from Mr. Harris and with the assistance of the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Humke voiced his concern over the seating of the new judge, Judge Pepez out of Ely, for Eureka, Lincoln and White Pine counties, and wondered if one deputy attorney general in Ely would be sufficient to service the work load. Mr. Jackson stated he was concerned because, according to Judge Hoyt, at least two criminal trials were set in that judicial district for every Monday or Tuesday until September 1993 and a majority are prison inmate clients.
Mr. Jackson stressed no civil trials were being carried until they had caught up on the criminal case backlog. Ms. Matteucci, for point of clarification, pointed out to Mr. Humke the state is currently only supporting a quarter-time position and the proposed budget anticipated increased state support for a full-time position. Ms. Matteucci reiterated the difficulty in estimating the actual level of activity, but there is an increase in staff reflected in this budget.
Mr. Humke asked if the new criminal cases would be new offenses which occur within the prison walls. Mr. Jackson stated this was correct. Mr. Humke wondered if these cases are given priority by most judges. Mr. Jackson replied Judge Hoyt gives them priority once they are filed and Judge Hoyt indicated the attorney general has a deputy located in Ely specifically for the purpose of reducing the backlog of unfiled cases. Mr. Jackson pointed out, according to Judge Hoyt, the deputy attorney general is a year and a half behind in filing criminal cases which have occurred in the prison.
Mr. Spitler indicated in the post conviction relief expenditure section on page 632, actual costs have moved down steadily. He asked what has changed in that area which would bring the costs down so significantly. Ms. Matteucci stated the budget office traditionally puts a representative amount of money to pay for post conviction relief costs in the public defender budget, and when it runs out the public defender has access to the statutory contingency fund. She indicated they always run out. She explained it is similar to the extradition coordinator where the actual numbers are much higher than will be seen on the budget. Ms. Matteucci stated when they run out of funds, they have immediate access to the statutory contingency fund to pay for all costs, so essentially the general fund picks it up in either area.
Mr. Jackson added NRS Chapter 177 indicates this exactly. Ms. Matteucci remarked this was done historically because it was difficult to estimate the needs and charges for post conviction relief, and with this budget becoming 100 percent general fund, state funded, it is not known what will need to be expended. Ms. Matteucci pointed out another expenditure which is not shown and falls under the public defense function is the allowance for the authority to have other attorneys represent the indigent defendants. Those costs would also be paid from statutory contingents.
Mr. Spitler asked Mr. Jackson to obtain a copy of the NACO proposal for the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Jackson indicated he had met with Mr. Hadfield and had discussed the proposal in a general concept. He stated Mr. Hadfield had faxed a quick overview to all counties to which they were to respond by February 8 if they were interested in participating. Mr. Jackson stated he was providing Mr. Hadfield with an idea of what the start-up costs would be and what each county had been paying this year. Mr. Hadfield would then be able to decide on the potential pay scale. Mr. Spitler reiterated the committee would like to have a copy of the proposal when it was completed.
Mr. Spitler stressed, in response to Mr. Marvel's concerns, the need to look at the budget from the rural counties' desire to utilize more state defender services. He stated the committee would like a resubmission of the budget based on that desire and asked Mr. Jackson if that could be provided. Mr. Jackson stated yes. Ms. Matteucci asked for clarification from Mr. Spitler. She stated the Budget Office's position is really a variation on a theme in that in previous sessions they have come to the committee with full funding for county participation and, in the interim, counties had pulled out disrupting the Budget Office.
Ms. Matteucci asserted the reorganization takes all funding for counties out. It will be a state function and those county agencies which desire the services can come to the committee with their request. Then the Budget Office will lock them into the budget. Ms. Matteucci maintained it is very disruptive for any public defender to operate when agencies opt in and out. Mr. Spitler noted he liked the new plan, but the demands on the public defender's office are significant. Mr. Jackson concurred and indicated the pullout of Douglas County in the last biennium cost the department about $235,000 per year, or four positions. Therefore Ms. Matteucci's statement on disruption was correct. Mr. Jackson commented under the current statutes, which would not change, the public defender would retain the ability to contract with counties for either full-defense services or conflict-defense services on an actual cost basis.
Mr. Spitler recognized Ms. Michelle Bero, Program Assistant for NACo and asked if she had any comments. She replied NACO was currently pursuing this project and apologized for not being able to provide the committee with additional information at this time. She noted Ms. Matteucci's and Mr. Jackson's concerns over counties opting in and out of the program was a concern for NACO also.
Ms. Matteucci apologized to the committee on behalf of any intemperate responses that may have been received by the committee from her office or anyone else. She stated they wanted to work closely with the committee and indicated perhaps fatigue had overcome the Budget Office at this point and certainly apologized.
Vice Chairman Spitler adjourned the committee at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Kerin E. Putnam
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
February 5, 1993
Page 1