MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
April 26, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 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 Dina Titus*
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert D. Faiss, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association
Lee Skelley, Vice President and Casino Manager, Las Vegas Hilton
James Russo, Baccarat Supervisor, Las Vegas Hilton
Thomas M. Roche, State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board
William Bible, Chairman, State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board
Senator James stated the bills scheduled for hearing would be taken in the following order: Assembly Bill (A.B.) 230, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 293, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 297, and Senate Bill (S.B.) 393.
ASSEMBLY BILL 230: Provides that gross revenue of gaming licensee does not include uncollected baccarat commissions.
Appearing to testify on the bill was Robert D. Faiss, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association. Mr. Faiss read from a prepared statement, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
* Committee member only present for a portion of the meeting. This is noted in the body of the minutes.
Lee Skelley, Vice President and Casino Manager, Las Vegas Hilton, and James Russo, Baccarat Supervisor, Las Vegas Hilton, gave a baccarat demonstration to the members of the committee.
Senator Titus entered the room at 2:15 p.m.
Following the demonstration, Mr. Faiss noted the casino never has a problem collecting commissions when the players are winning and added, "It is only when they have lost all of their money, that they have to make a business judgment" regarding payment of commissions.
Mr. Faiss completed his testimony, as set forth on Exhibit C.
He stated the resort association had an amendment to offer, at the request of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, and he introduced Thomas M. Roche, State of Nevada, Gaming Control Board. The amendment is set forth on Exhibit D. An explanation of the amendment is contained on Exhibit C, pages 4 and 5.
Mr. Roche stated the Nevada Gaming Control Board agreed with the modified language contained in the amendment and supports the bill as presented. He said the board wished to make it clear:
The board did not intend through its discussions at the assembly judiciary hearing to indicate we don't advocate the industry's ability to make decisions, whether they be in the course of waiving baccarat commissions or other types of endeavors to build their customer base and extend those types of items to their customers to cultivate additional gaming revenues. What we wanted to accomplish by this legislation...and I think it does accomplish it ...is to insure that when those decisions are made adequate audit trails are generated...and secondly that the processing is properly authorized and approved....
Mr. Roche stated he believed the legislation "gets us to those objectives, in terms of requiring that the record is clear that a regulation will be adopted to insure that guidelines are followed."
Senator McGinness asked what the annual revenue to the state was at this time from uncollected baccarat commissions. Mr. Roche answered those uncollected commissions "account for no more than $500,000 of taxes...more than 99% of baccarat commissions that are owed by patrons are ultimately collected." Senator McGinness asked Mr. Faiss if the rationale behind A.B. 230 was "...that by being able to waive those commissions in certain instances, those players will then come back and continue to be players in the future?" Mr. Faiss replied:
We suggest that historic tradition of the gross revenue statute...is that the state shares in money that the casino collects. This is money that is uncollected. The benefit to the state in allowing the casino to use the benefit of their business judgment is to enhance and increase revenue to the state by increasing the revenue to the casino.
Mr. Roche added, "In the sense of baccarat...it certainly is paramount that you allow an environment to exist which will extend these types of offerings to the customers to attract them to our state."
There was no further testimony on A.B. 230, and Senator James opened the hearing on A.B. 293.
ASSEMBLY BILL 293: Establishes absolute privilege for certain information relating to gaming.
The first to testify on the bill was Robert D. Faiss, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association. Mr. Faiss provided a prepared statement, set forth as Exhibit E.
There was no further testimony on A.B. 293, and the hearing was opened on A.B. 297.
ASSEMBLY BILL 297: Makes various changes relating to gaming.
Testifying on the bill was Robert D. Faiss, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel for the Nevada Resort Association. Mr. Faiss provided a prepared statement, set forth as Exhibit F.
William Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board, stated for the record the board's support of both A.B. 293 and A.B. 297. He stated A.B. 297 "will provide additional flexibility to the regulatory system that is now currently present." Mr. Bible also said in response to a question posed by Senator James, "...it does not compromise the regulatory process in any respect."
The hearing was closed on A.B. 297 and opened on S.B. 393.
SENATE BILL 393: Authorizes Nevada gaming commission to modify decisions of state gaming control board concerning work permits.
The first to testify was William Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board. Mr. Bible stated the essence of the bill was contained on page 3, with the only language change occurring on line 26. He said language was added in 1991 which indicates if the board does not object to the issuance of a work permit to an applicant who has been convicted of a crime which is a felony or gross misdemeanor, it may limit the period for which the permit is valid, the job classification for which the holder of the permit may be employed and establish other conditions for the issuance and renewal of the permit. Mr. Bible explained the method for filing an application for a work permit and said the board has the ability to object to the issuance of that permit. He said if the application is refused, the applicant may request a hearing, after which the board may "sustain, modify or reverse the objection." Mr. Bible added if the decision of the board is sustained, the applicant may apply to the Nevada Gaming Commission for final review. He said the language added in 1991 did not give the commission the ability to modify the board's decisions. Mr. Bible indicated the language added in S.B. 393 will allow the commission to sustain or reverse the board's decision.
Mr. Bible also recommended language be added allowing the issuance of work permits which are limited, not only to individuals who have committed felony or gross misdemeanor crimes, but also to those who have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes. He said he would support the inclusion of a regular misdemeanor classification "...if it were done on a limited...or sunset basis," so that item could be "revisited two years from now to make a determination if it did impact on the board's work load." Senator James asked Mr. Bible if there would be a fiscal impact, and Mr. Bible answered it could, but it would be difficult to project until "we have had some operational experience."
He added the intent is to begin "on a slow basis...to see what the work load experience is." Mr. Bible stated 15-20 work permits were "limited" in the past year, based upon felony or gross misdemeanor convictions and the inclusion of a misdemeanor classification will greatly expand that number.
Senator Titus asked if there was a problem which has come to light creating a reason to add misdemeanor convictions. Mr. Bible answered there was no specific case, however, the commission felt it was appropriate in order to "give another option in terms of allowing an individual to work within the industry," particularly if the conviction was for drug or alcohol abuse. Senator Titus inquired if a person convicted of a misdemeanor would be more likely to receive a limited permit than he or she would at this time. Mr. Bible said he felt there would be more likelihood of issuance, since the permit would be limited.
In response to questions by Senator Jacobsen and Senator James, Mr. Bible explained the process of applying for a work permit through the sheriff's office.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 393 and opened the meeting to a work session on the four bills which were heard earlier.
Senator James asked the committee members to review the amendments presented to A.B. 230.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 230.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 293.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 297.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James returned to a discussion of S.B. 393, and asked Mr. Bible if he suggested a 2-year sunset provision regarding the addition of "misdemeanor" be added to the bill. Mr. Bible agreed. Senator Smith referred to page 4, line 4, which changed the word "such" to "the," and suggested the word should be "that." Senator James agreed the language would be clearer with that change.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 393.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James indicated there were a number of requests for bill drafts which have been received and which should be discussed. The first would authorize persons licensed by occupational licensing boards to form limited liability companies.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The chairman stated a request for a bill draft had been received from the Office of the Attorney General, which would involve court orders for donations to charities as part of a punishment for a crime. He said the bill would also include a provision regarding affirmative action on the part of judges to collect fines when they are not paid by the offender.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
A discussion of the merits of such legislation followed. Senator Adler stated he did not know if he wished to give a judge the discretion to order people to pay money to any nonprofit organization he deems appropriate, since the scope of nonprofit organizations is Nevada is so wide. Senator Jacobsen asked if there was any precedent in the court system for this type of order and Senator James answered there was. He added it was mainly used with regard to conditions of probation. Senator Jacobsen asked if a judge would have the ability to enforce such an order, or whether the burden would be on law enforcement. Senator James answered he believed the court would retain jurisdiction. Senator McGinness brought up a Reno case wherein a contractor who caused dust pollution was ordered to pay a certain amount of money to the University of Nevada. He said there might be concern that judges would begin ordering larger awards in order to benefit nonprofit agencies. Senator Smith stated he had a problem with the concept because of how a decision would be made as to what nonprofit organization would be designated to receive the money. Senator Adler brought up the fact that fines at this time go to the school budget, and anytime a general fine would be given to a non-profit organization, the school budget would be reduced. Senator Titus added as the bill stands now, it is up to the judge to do, "...and it is not clear whether he can do it or not." Senator James agreed the matter should be clarified.
Senator James called for the question.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Shaffer indicated he had 10 bills which had not been drafted and asked if committee requests for drafts would "jeopardize the bills which he was allotted a long time ago." Senator James answered this was a concern, but he did not believe a bill draft requested at this time would take precedent over previously requested legislation.
Senator Adler requested a bill draft which would allow clergy from out of the state of Nevada to perform marriages within the state for relatives.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James asked the committee if they would consider introduction of a bill draft request (BDR) as follows:
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-985: Authorizes court to appoint advisory panel of experts to review claim of dental malpractice.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 3-985.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
April 26, 1993
Page 1