MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
February 24, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, February 24, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dina Titus
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Diana M. Glomb
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Maddie Fisher, Primary Secretary
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jerry Hins, Member, Nevada Psychiatric Association
John H. Saarb, Administrator, State of Nevada, Division of
Child and Family Services
R. Morgan, Member, National Association of Trial Lawyers
Lucille Lusk, Member, Nevada Coalition of Concerned
Citizens
Bobbie Gang, Member, National Association of Social Workers
of Nevada
Senator James called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 73.
SENATE BILL 73: Authorizes acceptance of gifts and grants for production of booklet on adoption.
Senator James advised that all three bills being heard were bills dealing with adoption. The bills came from the interim committee.
Senator Diana M. Glomb, Washoe District 1, testified in support of S.B. 73. She advised S.B. 611 of the Sixty-sixth session authorized the committee to oversee the reorganization of the Division of Child and Family Services of the Department of Human Resources, as well as to look at adoption issues in Nevada. A number of witnesses urged the committee and the legislature to provide information about adoptions to public high school students. Advocates of this approach cited the nationwide trend in which more single mothers, including teen-agers, are choosing to keep their babies. Because this decision can leave such a lasting impact on a young person's life, the committee felt information concerning the adoption issue should be readily available to public school students. Senator Glomb advised the adoption booklet which had been given to the chairman (Exhibit C), required under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 127.009, was an excellent source of information concerning the process of adoption. The division estimated the printing costs of the booklet at approximately $10,000, which would provide booklets to each of the 60 junior and senior high schools throughout the state. In response to cost concerns, the committee decided private parties should be afforded the opportunity to contribute funds to offset the cost, and thus S.B. 73 was proposed to authorize the welfare division of the department to accept the gifts and grants for that purpose.
Senator James thanked Senator Glomb for her testimony. He stated he had looked through the book, which appeared to be excellent and readable, and offered it to any other committee member wishing to review it.
Senator McGinness asked Senator Glomb regarding mention in the booklet the number of children in different categories who were waiting for adoption. He wondered if the booklet was updated periodically.
Senator Glomb answered the division had not had a booklet previously, but now had a compilation of the information. The intent was to keep it updated periodically.
Senator McGinness wondered with the cost of $10,000 if the booklet would be updated, what the workings would be, and if each time it was updated, would it be redistributed to the schools.
John Saarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources offered oral testimony. He stated the division anticipated updating the booklet annually. There were a number of requirements in the law which change rapidly, such as children waiting for adoption. The kind of information in the booklet would be an average for a year, but they would have to keep it current. The division produced 2,000 copies in the first run at approximately $1.25 per copy, using the state printing office. Already the division saw the booklet would have to be significantly reworked to warrant a rerun cost per copy, close to that figure.
Senator Adler believed that was the requirement of the statute.
Senator James replied the statute stated " . . .the division shall revise the booklet annually."
Senator Adler believed it mandatory.
Senator James reaffirmed that was in the statute.
Senator Jacobsen asked what the major hold up currently was in adoptions. He stated every time someone approached him and he tried to help them, it seemed he was more successful to go out of state and obtain help. By the time the people go through the process in Nevada, which is so cumbersome, people become discouraged.
Senator Glomb stated it is known there are less babies available for adoption. Also, there are many children available for adoption, however they do not fit the ideal image of what someone might want. There are many special needs children who are crying for good homes. This problem was addressed by her committee, and an attempt was made to make that process easier for families.
Senator Jacobsen advised he had asked the question because many years ago when Mike O'Callahan was in charge of Health and Welfare before becoming governor, the two of them got involved in an adoption which was nearly a disaster, and Senator Jacobsen became very disappointed in the process. They went through Catholic Welfare and had a doctor who associated with them, and found there were many illegitimate adoptions, but they could never get anything accomplished. With all three groups they contacted, the main factor was the man wanting to adopt was 1 year too old. The man worked for the state in a stable job, but the adoption process was held up on the point he was 51 years of age, which was 1 year over the limit. Senator Jacobsen's point was something was better than nothing for the child. The prospective adoptive parents had an annuity and owned their own home, so if they had both died the child would have been really well off. He became so frustrated with the process. He explained the last adoption he was involved with was a boy in the local fire department, and they finally found a young girl in Sacramento. He did not remember what the reason for that was, but the senator was extremely frustrated with the whole program.
Mr. Saarb believed in many respects it was currently a lot faster than in the times about which Senator Jacobsen spoke. He gave, as an example, age 50 would not be a cutoff at that time. His department would say if the person was over that age they could not adopt. They had a fast track adoption program which, in selected cases, made the process faster. The legislature had enacted time lines which are currently in the law. For example, the department must do a home study within 60 days. Mr. Saarb understood Senator Jacobsen's frustration and advised the department received the same type of complaints. The biggest reason, as Senator Glomb mentioned, was most families want a white healthy infant. His department might do 40 of this type of adoptions in a year, and they had over 200 people waiting for a healthy white infant. They might wait a couple of years before they move to the top of the list. If people wanted to adopt an older child, or a handicapped child, or a sibling group he believed a match could be made in a couple of weeks.
Senator Adler advised he had experience with Mr. Saarb's office on adoptions, and what Mr. Saarb said was true. Senator Adler had friends who had adopted mixed-race children and those adoptions went fairly quickly. He did a special needs adoption and the department could not get the children to his clients fast enough. In the cases of children with lung and respiratory problems, necessitating high medical bills, the agency was very glad to help he and his clients. He believed it was accurate to say if people were willing to adopt some of these other children it would be more expedient. In the instance of the special needs children with the lung problems, the children are 5 years old now, the Senator knew who they are in the community, and these children were perfectly allright. The parents were willing to early on take on those children and try to help them.
Senator James stated it had occurred to him in the course of this testimony that when there was publicity about children who needed to be adopted, older children or underprivileged, whatever the case might be, it seemed as though people came out of the woodwork to adopt them. He had seen the stories about people who went to Yugoslavia and adopted the children from the orphanages. He had not read the entire book offered by the Department of Child and Family Services, but felt one of the things the committee and sould be address was what kind of publicity could be done to educate people about the children needing homes. He was aware S.B. 73 did this, but wondered if it went beyond that or if the department was constrained by financial considerations and so forth.
Senator Glomb replied the department had made many efforts to find homes for special needs children. There existed a booklet giving a brief synopsis of each child and the issues and problems the child faced. Much had been done in the area of recruitment of good homes for those children, as well as working very closely with families to attempt to offset financial problems which might be incurred by taking one of those children.
Senator James hoped the legislature could support whatever types of programs the department had. He believed the one proposed in S.B. 73 was a good one, as it was paid for by donations and grants. He stated when media attention was given to the children with special needs, showing there were children out there who needed homes, possibly people not even planning to adopt would then be willing to bring a child into a loving home, simply because they became aware of the need. It appeared Senator Glomb was talking of people already looking for a child, whereas he was thinking of people who might be willing to adopt those children.
Mr. Saarb advised his staff did talk to the people waiting for healthy infants, asking them if they would consider a child with special needs. They had to be very careful not to talk them into anything, because this is a lifetime commitment. They do talk to prospective adoptive parents about those children and find some people who consider a special needs child.
Senator James was concerned about the message getting out to the community at large, that there were children who needed homes.
Senator Jacobsen noticed, in review of the booklet supplied by the department, the Indian Child Welfare Act, which was new to him and seemed somewhat irregular, although he did not wish to use that word. But it seemed the act prohibited an adoption of an Indian child unless the prospective parents were Indian. He asked if that was true.
Mr. Saarb stated the act gave first preference and makes every effort to have an Indian child adopted, not only by an Indian family, but an Indian family of the same tribe. The Indian Child Act has been in existence since approximately the late 1970s or the early 1980s. It was his recollection the act has been revised since then. It would not exclude a non-Indian family but would make sure first preference was given to an Indian family.
Senator Jacobsen commended the people who put the "Adoption In Nevada" booklet together. He did not believe there could be anything more helpful. Many people contacted a legislator to inquire how to adopt, and it was very difficult to know where to send them or how to proceed. He appreciated the booklet having only reviewed it briefly, and thought it had a good many answers.
Senator James confirmed there were no further questions from the committee. He advised hearing would be held on the remaining two bills, allowing Senator Glomb to testify and return to her other committee responsibilities.
Senator James opened the hearing for the purpose of Senator Glomb's testimony on S.B. 75.
SENATE BILL 75: Requires division of child and family services of department of human resources to take certain actions if powers and duties relating to investigation of prospective adoptive home are assigned to division. (BDR 11-410)
Senator Glomb testified in support of S.B. 75, and advised the committee overseeing the reorganization of the Child and Family Division had heard testimony from the public and the agency. They stated a clear definition was needed of the criteria used to judge a prospective adoptive home, and the suitability or unsuitability of that criteria. Rather than continuing to use internal policy guidelines, the members of the committee decided the division should adopt some formal regulations with regard to the suitability criteria and grounds for rejecting an application. The committee discussed a number of approaches to the matter of false information within a report. Alternatives included granting applicants the right to formally contest an adverse report. Such an approach would require administrative hearings, which would be subject to Nevada's Administrative Procedures Act, and thereby open to the public. Matters of confidentiality and concerns of additional costs to the office of the Nevada Attorney General caused the committee to agree to a less formal approach. An adverse report, with identifying information removed, may be reviewed by adoptive parents prior to its submission to the court. S.B. 75 directed the department to develop the guidelines necessary. An amendment had been suggested, and she believed Mr. Saarb also wanted to make a change on line 16. They wished to delete ". . .before it is submitted to the district court" and add the sentence "During the course of the review the identity of those persons who were interviewed or submitted information for the report must remain confidential." The prospective adoptive parents have a right to see that report and see what was said, both positively and negatively about their situation, but the confidentiality of the parties from whom information was obtained would remain confidential.
Senator James asked if the amendment was being requested by Mr. Saarb.
Mr. Saarb affirmed that was his request. He advised not all of the reports get submitted to the district court, for example the waiting list discussed earlier. Those people would have a home study done and it could be some time before a child is found for them. The department wanted to make it very clear the people are allowed to look at that home study when completed, and not when it becomes ready for the court. The department would be shortchanging people on the time to correct an adverse report. When the report is ready to go to court, things happen fast. There is also the possibility of confusion between the reports mentioned in the statute and the confidential report which is in NRS 127 and 130. That report goes only to the judge and contains not only home study information but a great deal of other confidential information. The intent of S.B. 75 was not that noone besides the judge would see the confidential report. It was the policy of the department at that time to share any adverse information with perspective adoptive parents, however they absolutely support this being put into law, as it had existed as policy, and policy could change.
Senator James asked for and received affirmation of the proposed amendment.
Senator Glomb advised they proposed to end the sentence at line 16 with the word division, and then begin the proposed new sentence. (This proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit D.)
Senator Adler asked regarding who could prepare the home study report, would the department consider a licensed sociologist, welfare worker, or social worker, and not only those in the agencies.
Mr. Saarb replied if a licensed social worker currently prepared a report it was done for the agency. Occasionally when they got backlogged they contracted with a licensed social worker to do a home study. The home study was done for the department who would then share that with the proper people.
Senator Adler asked why someone wanting to adopt could not get a licensed social worker to do a study if they wanted one done.
Mr. Saarb replied there was no provision in the law at that time for anyone except the child-placing agencies or the division to do a home study.
Senator Adler was aware of that and asked if there would be anything wrong with that.
Mr. Saarb stated he thought the division would object to that on the grounds that in shopping for one's own study, who would hire the person doing an independent home study. Would it be the prospective adoptive parents?
Senator Adler advised this was done in some states.
Mr. Saarb understood, but advised this would create a situation where the prospective adoptive parents hire someone to decide whether or not they were suitable. He did not believe a lot of unsuitable people would be found in that situation.
Senator Adler asked if the division hired an outside person to do the report.
Mr. Saarb stated occasionally they hired a licensed clinical social worker who prepared a report for the division.
Senator James asked Senator Glomb to confirm her statement the division had considered the alternative of a hearing, but did not want the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because that would make it public.
Senator Glomb affirmed they felt they needed to do all they could to maintain confidentiality as much as possible. The best approach seemed to be to allow prospective adoptive parents to see the rationale for or against the decision made by the department, and at the same time ensuring confidentiality of all parties concerned.
Senator James believed the other side of that question was whether there were adequate administrative procedures to protect the interests of the prospective adoptive parents, and to see they receive a full and fair review with the agency.
Senator Glomb affirmed that was correct and added the department felt S.B. 75 would expand that fairness, in that some of the testimony the committee heard from prospective adoptive parents was they were turned down but did not know or understand why.
Senator James affirmed this then would give them something they had never had before.
Senator Glomb stated this was correct.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the confidentiality had a time limit or remained in force for the life of the child or the adult, as would be the case. Was it locked up the court?
Mr. Saarb answered the confidential report was sealed and went from the judge to the clerk, and only the judge saw that. He stated the report contained a great deal more information than the home study, including perhaps the identity of birth parents, which in some adoptions they want protected. The judge needs to know the identity of the birth parents, and not simply take the word of the department.
Senator Jacobsen wanted assurance the child had some kind of security later in life. He hoped the record would be expunged when the child became of age, but supposed that could not be done.
Mr. Saarb agreed that could not be done completely. There were times, for example, when the child would want to know that information.
Senator James affirmed no further questions on S.B. 75 for Senator Glomb, and closed the hearing on the bill.
Senator James opened the hearing on S.B. 77 for the limited purpose of Senator Glomb's testimony.
SENATE BILL 77: Permits natural and adoptive parents to choose whether and how much information to exchange. (BDR 11-403)
Senator Glomb testified the committee to oversee the reorganization of the child and family division and adoption in Nevada heard testimony regarding the idea of open adoptions. One of the committee's recommendations was to amend Nevada law to allow for the option of open adoptions. Current Nevada statutes maintained a limited knowledge provision which restricted adoption agencies to three types of adoptive placements. These were semi-open, semi-traditional and traditional. Those adoption options mentioned limited the information exchanged between birth and adoptive parents. S.B. 77 would allow birth and adoptive parents to choose by mutual consent the type of adoption and degree of disclosure. She noted open adoptions were becoming increasingly popular across the nation. Some committee members might remember a 1990 report issued called the Cole Report regarding adoption in Nevada. Open adoption was one of the recommendations in that report. The department had increasingly found social workers working with infants and mothers considering giving their child for adoption, as well as adoptive parents experience more of a feeling of closure when. This happened when families were given the option of being able to share information and all being in the process together for the good of the child. She stated it had worked very effectively in a number of states.
Senator James asked regarding subsection c of S.B. 77, how did the respective parents arrive at their mutual consent under this scenario.
Senator Glomb stated it was her understanding if the birth mother of the child showed an interest in meeting the prospective adoptive parents, those parents were approached with that possibility. The social worker for the agency involved then assisted both parties to reach a comfortable decision regarding the best interests for all concerned.
Senator James asked if they then, through that intermediary, decided the scope of it. This oculd include meeting and exchanging information freely, but could be limited to information about each side.
Senator Glomb answered it could be as broad or as limited as the parties mutually agreed. She stated in the past a rather archaic approach was in place; often the infant was taken right from the mother, who never got to see the baby and did not know to whom the child was going. This resulted in a lot of residual guilt and uncertainty which did no one any good. The department found that children, over time, begin to want to know more about their biological history. This affords the spirit of openness for all concerned.
Senator James wondered whether the social worker, the mediator working between the two parties, would still have input and could counsel the people, advising them if it would not be prudent to share a certain thing. He felt they might need some assistance in that process, as both sides are going through a very emotional thing. He recalled Senator Smith talking before the hearing about the show, broadcast the night before, regarding the baby born to a mother who had been raped, and the mother had almost cried on camera when she said she felt someday she would have to tell the baby the circumstances and who her father was.
Senator Glomb thanked Senator James for asking the question, which led one to look at the importance of having trained professionals working with families, both biological mothers considering giving their child up for adoption, as well as individuals or couples interested in adopting. She stated in those emotionally charged situations there may be information which person thinks should be disclosed or held back, when in fact possibly they had not thought through the full ramifications. A trained professional can help them weigh those options. THe cited this as another reason it was important that licensed agencies who are familiar with and had trained personnel dealing with those volatile issues, are the ones who should be involved in helping all parties concerned.
Mr. Saarb offered some perspective regarding the adoptions being discussed were agency adoptions; ones the division or child placing agencies handle. He stated in any given year, over 70 percent of adoptions finalized in Nevada were specific adoptions, meaning the birth mother identified the perspective adoptive parents. In those cases clearly they share all manner of identifying information with each other. What the department was looking for with S.B. 77 was for the 30 percent handled by an agency, that the agency be allowed, if both parties consent, to do the same thing. He did not know if there would be many of those right away. The department had received information of people who had gone out of state because they wanted this feature as part of the adoption and which presently his department could not offer. He believed with development of genetic testing this would become more and more important to people. Information was recently released that bald men over 55 were at greater risk of heart attack. He assured the committee that while his department tried to get all information they could on the birth parents, his staff was not out there asking questions such as "was the father bald." He was amazed at how much knowing as much as they can makes a difference for prospective adoptive parents, regarding the medical background of the parents of the child they adopted. He believed there would be more and more of this in the future.
Senator James stated he could not imagine the complexity which could come upon the issue of adoption when medical science reaches the point where they felt things could be predicted based upon someone's genes.
Mr. Saarb recalled Assemblyman Touman saying in public hearing he was adopted, which ws never an issue for him, but his now 30-year old son had great issue with it because of his involvement and concern regarding genetics. The son wanted to know as much as possible about his father's natural parents who were not the grandparents he had always known. Mr. Saarb agreed it is a complex issue, and within the next 4 to 8 years genetic testing would become a routine part of adoptions.
Senator James hoped this would not cause the children needing homes to suffer any more difficulty.
Senator Glomb added Assembly Bill (A.B.) 45 had inadvertently come over to the Senate and to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. This bill does in essence the same thing as S.B. 77, with the exception S.B. 77 spells out the procedure in more detail. The department had requested the legislature go with S.B. 77.
Senator James thanked Senator Glomb for bringing this up and advised unless any committee member had objection, his intention was to have S.B. 77 be the bill considered and hold A.B. 45.
Senator James thanked Senator Glomb for her testimony. He re-opened the hearing on S.B. 73.
Lucille Lusk, representing the Nevada Coalition of Conservative Citizens, presented oral testimony. She asked the chairman if she should speak on all three bills under consideration. Senator James approved of that procedure. Ms. Lusk advised she was in support of S.B. 73, S.B. 75 and S.B. 77, and believed there were many good things in the bills which could be highly beneficial to children awaiting adoption, adoptive families and birth mothers. She wished to bring several things to the committee's attention. Regarding S.B. 73, her organization was very appreciative the booklets would be provided to the junior and senior high school. Had she known in the course of that hearing the topic would come up regarding obstacles in adoptions, she would have brought related material regarding obstacles still in place in the racial matching of children, and so forth. She asked if she could send that material to each member of the committee and stated she would appreciate them looking at this. She heard a statement saying those obstacles were not in place and yet constantly as her organization works with people they find those things are, in fact, in place whether formally or informally. When terms used such as "give first precedence" to matching a racial situation, often that means hold off and hold a child for 2 and 3 years, even when there are families who are willing to adopt a child of a different race. She would appreciate the committee looking into that further.
Ms. Lusk was also supportive of S.B. 75, in particular adoptive parents having the opportunity to review the report; whether positive or negative. She believed it would be beneficial for them to see the report. She had concern with the proposed amendment. If the amendment were included as submitted, if she understood it correctly, with the last several words being eliminated and he new words being a new sentence, it actually would read in such a way there would be no time line for when the adoptive parents would be able to see the report. She asked the committee if it would consider instead eliminating "before it is submitted to the district court" and including as part of that sentence, "during the course of the review." She felt that would resolve the problem and it would be clear the parental review would take place during the course of the review as was indicated as the intent. She suggested making a separate sentence saying the sources of the information would remain confidential. She had a question as to whether it would be appropriate for inclusion of an opportunity for the adoptive parents to respond to any adverse statements included in the report. This would give them an opportunity to correct anything which might be negative, in error, or incorrect but they are willing to respond to in order to make their home acceptable for the adoption.
With regard to S.B. 77, Ms. Lusk was supportive.
Senator James stated he would ask Mr. Saarb, after others had a chance to speak, about his feelings regarding the time frame Ms. Lusk proposed. He also stated he would ask Mr. Saarb about the notion of allowing parents to respond, and if the bill was the appropriate form for that.
Senator James affirmed there were no further questions from the committee, and asked the next person wishing to testify to come forward, advising she, too, could speak to all three bills.
Bobbi Gang, representing the National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter, presented oral testimony. She stated the association wished to go on record as supporting all three bills, and were very happy to see the changes in favor of adoption.
Senator James asked and Ms. Gang affirmed the proposed amendments were acceptable.
Senator Jacobsen asked if Ms. Gang had any group which helped people with adoptions.
Ms. Gang stated she was representing the social workers who were the ones critical to adoptions procedures. Other than that, she did not represent any group specifically promoting adoption.
Senator Jacobsen asked if any of the social workers offered any assistance in adoptions, for example if they know of someone who is interested, do they help as a guidance.
Ms. Gang replied she was sure they did, but they were also involved in the adoption process. She asked if Senator Jacobsen meant as an association.
Senator Jacobsen replied affirmatively, and wondered if there was an organized group that says something like, if you are interested in adopting a child contact us.
Ms. Gang said none of the groups she currently worked with did that sort of thing.
Senator James asked if Mr. Saarb could address the two points in question on S.B. 75.
Mr. Saarb confirmed the issue was opportunity to respond to adverse information and stated this was the intent and was the current practice. He and his department would agree with any language which would make that more explicit.
Senator James advised he would ask that be made part of the amendment to be considered.
Mr. Saarb added for Senator Jacobsen, there was a fledgling adoption support group of adoptive parents. They were starting to do some of the kinds of things about which Senator Jacobsen had asked Ms. Gang.
Senator James advised he had originally scheduled a working session to vote on all of the adoption measures and other measures pending before the committee on Friday, March 5, 1993. He stated the committee would hold S.B. 73, S.B. 75 and S.B. 77 and vote on them at that time. He requested Dennis Neilander to have the amendments discussed at that time, for the committee.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 73, S.B. 75 and S.B. 77.
Senator James advised the Senate Committee on Judiciary had received a request from the State of Nevada Department of Parole and Probation, for a Bill Draft Request (BDR) 16-917.
BDR 16-917:Requires department of parole and probation to approve or assist in development of plan of prisoner released on parole.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO MAKE BDR 16-917 A SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILL DRAFT REQUEST.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James stated at the last meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, testimony was heard regarding A.B. 48. The proponents requested a simple modification to allow 20 days instead of 10 days for perfection of a purchase money security interest. There were three places in the statute where this change would apply. Forty states had already done this.
ASSEMBLY BILL 48:Extends period for perfection of purchase money security interest. (BDR 8-1203)
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 48.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator James advised at the last meeting of the committee, Senator Titus raised a question on the status of S.B. 15. Senator James incorrectly responded to that question. He had received a letter from Anne Cathcart stating the amendments desired, and Senator James had never sent them to be drafted. He advised he would request the drafting of the amendments and have Lorne Malkiewich explain them to the committee and bring the bill for a vote.
Their being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
February 24, 1993
Page 1