MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 19, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 2:45 p.m., on Wednesday, May 19, 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:
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Matthew Callister
OTHERS PRESENT:
Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno, Nevada
Steven P. Elliott, City Attorney, City of Sparks, Nevada
Jess Traver, Director, Building Department, City of Sparks, Nevada
Anita Laruy, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada
Kurt Fritsch, City of Henderson, Nevada
Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, Nevada
Irene E. Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association
Ivan R. (Rene) Ashleman, Attorney at Law, Representing Southern Nevada Home Builders Association
Ben Graham, Clark County, Nevada
Tom Grady, Nevada League of Cities
Juanita Cox, Private Citizen
Gail Higgins, Private Citizen
* Committee member only present for a portion of the meeting. This is noted in the body of the minutes.
Sandra Rae Benson, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, California
Frank MacDonald, Labor Commissioner, State of Nevada Labor Commission
Louis Ling, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Division
The chairman announced the first bill to be heard would be Senate Bill (S.B.) 4.
SENATE BILL 4: Expands governmental immunity with regard to inspections.
The first to speak were Madelyn Shipman, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Reno, Nevada, Steven P. Elliott, City Attorney, City of Sparks, Nevada, and Jess Traver, Director, Building Department, City of Sparks, Nevada.
Ms. Shipman stated they appeared as proponents of S.B. 4 because they "...have had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with the issue in the very real sense of paying out major dollars...in building inspection cases." She then distributed to the committee proposed amendments to the bill, which are set forth as Exhibit C. Ms. Shipman stated she had not requested the existing language of the bill which would provide a blanket immunity to cities. She said she would explain the basic problems involved which led to the request for legislative relief:
The existing law in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 41.33 is the law which basically resulted in the rule...which was to provide immunity to public entities....It has historically been decided by the courts it does not relieve an entity of liability where it had actual knowledge of a hazard and failed to take reasonable action to correct that hazard.
Ms. Shipman stated the amendment would differentiate between public improvements and public buildings, and inspections conducted for private property. She said, "We are not trying to get out from under any liability that does exist by virtue of an actual or malicious failure to notice there is a hazard...." Ms. Shipman stated the cities should be held liable if they notice a hazard and do not take steps to correct that hazard.
Ms. Shipman stated the problem with private building and fire inspections, is the cities are being held liable in lawsuits "on theories of implied warranty of habitability, based upon the total cost of repair or replacement. She cited a building inspection case which occurred in the City of Reno:
There was a condominium project completed in 1984...under the statute of repose is extensive on negligence regarding building construction cases...a contractor is held liable for their work under a negligence theory, anywhere from 6, 8 or 10 years...depending upon the type of defect which is in the building. [Since] the statute of repose has been held to be unconstitutional...actions are being brought under the 4-year discovery rule...under the 'catch-all' statute.
There were 64 units in the condominium complex and suit was brought on behalf of all 64 owners...for over $10 million. The contractor had gone bankrupt 4 years before the suit was brought. The financial institutions did not exist.
There was significant cost in defending these lawsuits...it was up to the jury to decide whether or not there was actual knowledge of a hazard or deficiency on the part of the building department or the inspectors. In this state you have joint and several liability with other defendants. They came down with a bottom line figure of $2.6 million which they felt they could prove in damages to these 64 units. The other defendants settled for approximately $350,000 to $400,000...their insurance limits. The court accepted them as good faith settlements and dismissed all the city's crossclaims for indemnity against them. We were looking at a potential exposure, if a judgment came down, and if there was a determination of actual knowledge on the part of the city...even if it was determined by the jury to only be 1 percent...we would have been looking at a potential $2.2 million judgment. Our insurer decided to pay over the balance of our policy at that time, which was $900,000 and get out of the case on behalf of the city.
Ms. Shipman added there was no reservation on that payout, so they are not presently being sued by the insurer for a payback of the $900,000. However, she said, they are being sued by their own insurance company in another case, based on the claim the types of damages being requested, i.e., repair, replacement or implied warranty, is not covered under the insurance policy. Ms. Shipman indicated it costs $275 per hour in attorney fees to defend themselves against their own insurance company.
Ms. Shipman stated their "excess carrier" and the primary insurer have informed the city they will no longer insure it, leaving the city "bare" with several cases pending.
Ms. Shipman said from a policy standpoint, it is important the building and fire inspection function be continued, but added, "As a city, we really cannot afford this kind of exposure." She stated the present legislation "...is one way to try to address this issue...and a policy decision needs to be made as to what we are supposed to be responsible for." Ms. Shipman continued:
If 3 hours on a 90-day job doing mandatory inspections is to be considered a warranty of all of the work completed on that particular project, we can't afford that kind of exposure. The cities are going to be forced to look at other ways to deal with this. We are not liable for failing to inspect...my recommendation to the council was ...if we don't get some kind of legislative relief in this matter, I will be recommending we get out of field inspection altogether.
Ms. Shipman said they cannot indicate buildings should not be inspected, therefore they would require private inspectors. She stated this would increase the cost to the contractors and developers, which cost ultimately would be passed on to the consumer and would make housing more expensive.
Ms. Shipman continued:
I want the committee to be aware it is not the intent...and I will not tell you we should not be liable for negligence that is truly that of the entity. If we did have knowledge and we did not take reasonable steps to correct the hazard, we should be liable. ...
We should not be liable as a warranter or insurer of the ultimate product which is being built by private enterprise.
Mr. Elliott stated the City of Sparks was sued in 1989 with respect to a 150-unit condominium complex constructed in 1979. He said there were numerous problems with the structure because of inadequate framing. Mr. Elliott said in 1991, the city officials entered into mediation and "accepted a judgement in excess of $1 million. He said since acceptance of that judgment they have been in litigation with the city's four insurance carriers. Mr. Elliott said between the attorneys' fees and costs for the initial litigation and additional fees incurred in "fighting with our insurance carriers" they have paid a total of $198,000 to date. He said they could still lose the lawsuit and be liable for $1 million. Mr. Elliott added, "For the City of Sparks, this is by far the worst liability we have ever experienced in the history of the city." He stated it was very difficult to find insurance which will cover this type of liability. Mr. Elliott continued:
In my opinion, when the inspectors go out and inspect a building, they are performing a law enforcement function. Their duty is to make the contractor comply with the building code. It is a misdemeanor violation to violate that building code. We aren't out there to warrant that future tenants of a building are going to be free from problems. Those tenants should go after the contractor. Perhaps something more should be done by way of bonding ...to guarantee that contractors have insurance. It surely shouldn't be the taxpayer that is the ultimate insurance policy for every structure in town....
Mr. Traver stated he felt S.B. 4 was "all-encompassing" and ramifications would be felt from whatever was decided by the committee by contractors, inspection agencies and designers. He said it would "set a job scope for building departments throughout the state." Mr. Traver said if building inspection departments are going to be liable, "...you will see a substantial amount of increase in inspection time needed to guarantee the product...you will have created another industry...an inspection industry." He said this would be costly to the homeowner and insurance costs to the cities. Mr. Traver stated he did not believe the cities were capable of providing a guarantee.
Senator James asked if the courts had held if there is an implied warranty from the city to the home buyer. Ms. Shipman indicated in two district court decisions, summary judgments were turned down on the basis of what type of damages were allowable against the city. She added these cases were settled and did not go to the Supreme Court. Senator James reiterated his question, "Have the courts decided whether or not a home buyer has an implied warranty claim against the city that did the inspection?" Ms. Shipman answered there was one district court decision with regard to one case against the City of Reno, in which the court said the city was not liable under contractual theories of implied warranties. Senator James agreed that was a correct decision, since there was no contract between the city and the person who buys a home. The chairman continued:
This deals with tort liability of governmental entities ...that you are seeking to amend. My question is...we seem to be amending something to say what the law already is ...that the courts have already decided. I sympathize with the situation of being involved in a lawsuit...but does that mean we should change the statute...there wouldn't be a substantive change in the law...Why shouldn't [a person] sue the governmental entity that had knowledge of [a defect] and didn't take the proper action to protect him?
Ms. Shipman answered the key was protection of the public, not protection of any particular property owner. She said the function "as it currently works doesn't allow for that full warranty." Ms. Shipman pointed out section 2 of Exhibit C clarified the existing law, because there are judges who don't understand that the existing law never intended the cities to be liable as a warrantor or guarantor. She said there were two court decisions by judges who said they did not believe that was the law. Ms. Shipman added she did not believe the proposed amendments changed existing law in terms of a city's liability for tort and negligence. She said what she was attempting to do "...was to clarify we are not there to be held liable under implied warranties of habitability or any other type to the third party purchaser.
Mr. Elliott stated there were three Supreme Court opinions on the matter "...which were the major rulings which caused us to become liable." He said they were all tort cases and the Supreme Court held, "...if an inspector has knowledge of a defective condition and fails to notify the contractor and insure it is corrected, the city is liable in tort for the cost to fix that construction problem." Mr. Elliott said the court also held, "If the complaint itself states the inspector had knowledge, you cannot get summary judgment...it must go to the judge or jury." Senator James indicated the amended language to the legislation would not change that law. Ms. Shipman stated she was not attempting to make that change but said the amendment "would limit the scope of the city's involvement." She said the city would not be liable under the total repair and replacement theory but would be liable for personal injury or property damage which was proximately caused by the actual knowledge and failure to take reasonable action.
Senator James said he understood no Nevada court has decided cities would be liable "in contract." He indicated S.B. 4 would set that premise forth in statute. Mr. Elliott stated he had initially sought to have language used in California placed into the legislation, which language would provide "absolute immunity to cities for building inspections." He added if an inspector "fraudulently approves a building...the inspector himself can be held liable for fraud...but municipalities are absolutely immune." Mr. Elliott said he advocated "absolute immunity for cities" because under the "public duty doctrine" they are not inspecting for the benefit of individual tenants of the building. Senator James stated:
The only liability that is left after previous amendments to this law...is if you are inspecting a place and get actual knowledge of a problem...you would have tort liability, for personal injury or property damage...if you didn't do something with the information you had. There is no liability for not inspecting...there is no liability for inspecting and missing it...it is only if you find it. If California's law is that...I disagree with it.
Mr. Elliott said municipalities are not protected under the theory of liability, "...if the inspector knew...but did not notify...." He asked, "Who is the judge and jury going to believe...the inspectors who said, 'I didn't see it,' or an expert witness who says, 'If he is qualified...he definitely would have seen it...so he must be lying?'" Mr. Elliott stated it was a difficult situation for municipalities and added, "That is why absolute immunity is the way it ought to go." He
said another source of insurance should be found for occupants of buildings which are defectively constructed.
Ms. Shipman said she "had been expecting the question...that changing the law or granting this would be a disincentive to the local entities to continue to provide appropriate building inspection services." She stated her answer would be, "I already know entities...where the district attorney's office has instructed [them] not to go out on a complaint after a 'CFO' was issued...because we don't have liability if we don't have knowledge." Ms. Shipman added there is a disincentive under the current law to actually provide the public with the kind of service they should receive.
The next person to testify was Anita Laruy, representing the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada. Ms. Laruy stated the city supported S.B. 4, including the amendments proposed on Exhibit C.
Kurt Fritsch, representing the City of Henderson, Nevada, appeared in support of the legislation if amended as proposed by Ms. Shipman.
The next to speak to the issue was Doug Dickerson, representing the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, stating support for S.B. 4 with the amendments set forth on Exhibit C.
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, appeared with the association's attorney, Ivan R. (Rene) Ashleman. Ms. Porter stated support for the amendments to S.B. 4 as set forth on Exhibit C.
The next to present support for the bill was Ben Graham, representing Clark County, Nevada.
Tom Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities, expressed support for the amendments to S.B. 4.
The next to appear was Juanita Cox, private citizen. Ms. Cox stated she was not familiar with the amendment to S.B. 4 but expressed concern that passage of the bill "...would let our government commit crimes against citizens without recourse." She asked if the bill would make citizens responsible for inappropriate actions by the government. Senator James set forth his understanding that passage of the legislation would not change the fact there is no duty to warrant the habitability of a premises on the part of the government. He stressed the government could be sued for noticing a problem upon inspection and not acting reasonably to take action to see that problem was corrected.
The last person to speak was Gail Higgins, private citizen. Ms. Higgins mentioned the Wells Avenue overpass in Reno, Nevada, stating that was a "flagrant example of failure to inspect properly." She said Washoe County taxpayers had to pay to replace that overpass.
Senator James asked Mr. Ashleman the following, "Under the amendments we have bifurcated the statute...one for public structures and one for private structures...did the old law apply to both public and private structures?" Mr. Ashleman answered in the affirmative.
There was no further testimony on S.B. 4; the chairman closed the hearing on the bill and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B. 462).
SENATE BILL 462: Makes various technical amendments to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes.
Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, appeared to explain the legislation, described as a "reviser's bill." Mr. Malkiewich stated the bill was one of two major pieces of legislation proposed by the counsel bureau each session, the other being the "ratification bill," presently being heard in the assembly judiciary committee. He continued, "Although both are considered technical correction bills, they are completely different." He said everything in the "reviser's bill" was a proposed additional change to the law. Mr. Malkiewich added, "For the most part the changes are minor and technical, but they are changes to the law...you are not approving something that has no substantive effect." He said most of the changes came to the attention of the counsel bureau when the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) is being codified and provisions "which don't make a lot of sense" are found. Mr. Malkiewich said these provisions are accumulated during the interim and placed together in the "reviser's bill." He stressed if the committee had a problem with any of the changes, there would be no problem in taking that portion out of the bill. Mr. Malkiewich said some provisions were to be removed because they had been found to be unconstitutional. He indicated other provisions "were unclear or poorly worded...the bill seeks to clean them up...."
Mr. Malkiewich called the committee's attention to the provision regarding the certificate of need for health maintenance organizations. He said that existed in NRS 439A.103 and was referenced in section 43 of S.B. 462. Mr. Malkiewich stated they were eliminating the exemption for health maintenance organizations from certificate of need approval because the statute reference, 442 U.S.C., section 300M-6, was repealed several years ago. He indicated the statute now reads, "Health maintenance organizations are exempt from certificate of need if it is subject to review under [the above] section." Mr. Malkiewich added, "Obviously, you can't be subject to review under that section if that section has been repealed." He said the substantive concern was whether the certificate of need process should apply or not, and that decision would have to be made.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he would not explain each provision of S.B. 462, since the committee members had previously received an explanation packet. He did refer to several corrections which had been requested by various entities. The first, a memorandum from the Department of Taxation, is set forth as Exhibit D. Secondly, a memorandum from the Department of Insurance is included as Exhibit E. A letter from Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, is set forth as Exhibit F, and a memorandum from Assemblyman Larry Spitler is attached as Exhibit G. Senator James expressed concern regarding review of the exhibits provided, especially with those changes set forth on Exhibit D. He said he must determine "whether or not they are minor changes." He indicated to Mr. Malkiewich that he had a problem "with other people wanting to amend your bill." Mr. Malkiewich reiterated, "There is nothing in this bill that has to be passed...if you have any concern this is too substantive a change...then simply don't put it in." He said they try to accommodate agencies if they agree the change is minor or technical to facilitate "legislative economy," instead of having 75 bills which make minor corrections.
Mr. Malkiewich referred to a letter from a law firm in San Francisco, California, regarding amendments made concerning apprenticeship programs. That letter is set forth as Exhibit H, and Mr. Malkiewich stated, "That letter is absolutely correct in that the provision was placed into the bill because of a 1991 court of appeals case." He said the letter indicates "the issue may not be a cut and dried as the opinion makes it sound." Mr. Malkiewich stated if there were concerns on the part of the committee, the provision may be removed from S.B. 462.
Senator James referred to Exhibit H and said, "We ought to go through the right forum...the right hearing in the correct committee." Mr. Malkiewich answered it would be "a commerce and labor issue."
Senator Jacobsen referred to Exhibit F and asked Mr. Malkiewich how technical corrections were made by the counsel bureau. He asked, "What leeway do you have?" Mr. Malkiewich answered:
There are two different issues. The first: In codifying NRS we have authority to resolve conflicts between bills... to correct manifest clerical and typographical errors...we need to do that to print the NRS. We have that authority. We then take those changes back to the ratification bill.
In addition, one of the functions of our office is statute advisor. There used to be a separate statute revision commission. One of the things they did was to make sure the NRS was as clean as possible. That function is now one of the duties of our office. As we are codifying NRS...as we are working with the law...we get questions. People call and say,
'This declaration doesn't work...this declaration is confusing ...would you clean up the language?' As statute revisers, we present that to you. We do not have the authority just to go in and change the law. We bring them to you...we put the notes in to help you understand why we are proposing those changes. It is up to you whether or not you want to do that.
...
Sometimes we will have confusion between what gets into a bill and what should get into a bill. Some of it we can take care of in codification. Other times there are problems generated we need to bring back to you because they raise substantive problems.
The next to appear were Sandra Rae Benson, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, California, the author of the letter set forth as Exhibit H, Frank MacDonald, Labor Commissioner, State of Nevada Labor Commission, and Louis Ling, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Division.
Ms. Benson said the technical changes regarding the apprenticeship program, as referred to by Mr. Malkiewich, "...are very substantive." She said they were appearing to urge the committee not to include that portion of the amendment to NRS 338.080 which adds the phrase, "...or who are in a program for apprentices approved by the federal government." Ms. Benson stated that language "...would make a very substantial change in the way the State of Nevada certifies apprenticeship programs." She referred to the court decision set forth on page 2 of Exhibit H, named the MacDonald case after the labor commissioner, who was the defendant in the case.
Ms. Benson said the MacDonald case was "handled in a very strange fashion" in that no evidence was taken before the district court. The 9th Circuit Court's remarks are set forth on page 2 of Exhibit H. She said that court made a decision "lacking the very foundational evidence of what the Nevada Apprenticeship Council does, and lacking the very evidence the Fitzgerald Act provides." Ms. Benson stated this was further detailed in Exhibit H. She said Nevada has had an apprenticeship council "for decades," since the Fitzgerald Act was part of "the great depression" legislation. Ms. Benson said that act provides that a state with an apprenticeship council can impose higher criteria on what the state will require for the certification of an apprenticeship program than the federal government does. She continued:
In the State of Nevada...you have taken that duty very seriously. Apprenticeship programs, specifically in the construction industry, are very dangerous. When you send young men and women out on construction projects...on the 40th floor of a high-rise building...they are in a very serious safety area. They are in an apprenticeship program to learn. Therefore, this state has taken their responsibility to certify apprenticeship programs extremely seriously, and you have codified 14 or 15 requirements... those qualifications require the program prove the safety of the apprentices is going to be assured....
One of the most important things you have decided in your statutes is that the employers must show a commitment to the apprenticeship program...if you pass this legislation, you are advocating and taking away the responsibility from your own state apprenticeship council and giving it to the federal government. The federal government has a less stringent criteria for what it will approve.
Ms. Benson provided to the committee a copy of a transcript of a deposition by David G. Turner, the director of the Federal Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (Exhibit I). She said this testimony from a California case as to a program which the federal government approved in 1982, was called the "Golden Gate Chapter." Ms. Benson said 8 years later, when Mr. Turner was asked, "How many trainees completed the program?", his answer was "zero." She said the program was then placed on restriction because of certain inadequacies. Ms. Benson indicated Mr. Turner was asked 2 years later if any of the inadequacies had been corrected and the answer was "No."
Ms. Benson said if the amendment contained in S.B. 462 were approved, "...that type of apprenticeship program...or any program approved by the federal government...must be registered in the State of Nevada." She continued:
You will be taking away from your own apprenticeship council the right to say, 'No, that is an inferior program, that does not meet the criteria the State of Nevada says our apprenticeship programs must meet...we will not register you in the State of Nevada.'
Ms. Benson stated if that was allowed to happen, the state would be "doing a disservice to the young men and women of this state" who look to the state to develop quality programs.
Senator James asked if the 9th Circuit Court case had come all the way through the court system. Mr. Lane answered the case had been taken up on certiorari which was not granted. Senator James stated, "If the court said the statute is unconstitutional unless you include the federal apprenticeship program...what are you suggesting we do?" Ms. Benson replied, "That is not what they actually said. They didn't reach the constitutional issue; they reached the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) issue." She provided the committee with a copy of a congressional bill, H.R. 1036, which is attached as Exhibit I hereto. Ms. Benson explained passage of this federal legislation would rectify the problem. She indicated President Clinton is expected to sign the bill. She said the bill will clarify that ERISA does not preempt "any state law establishing minimum standards for the certification or registration of apprenticeship or other training programs...." Ms. Benson said at the same time the federal government is trying to make it clear that ERISA does not take away from Nevada's apprenticeship council any of its authority, the language of S.B. 462 "...is going in the exact opposite direction to take that authority away from your state apprenticeship council."
Mr. MacDonald stated they wanted to "buy time" by delaying passage of the applicable provision of S.B. 462 until the congressional bill has been passed and signed. He indicated they are complying with the 9th Circuit Court decision at this time. Senator Adler stated he believed it would be wise to remove that section of the bill and if other legislation were needed, it could be done at a later time on an emergency measure. Senator James agreed and thanked Ms. Benson for her presentation.
Mr. Malkiewich concluded:
I would urge the committee to look through the notes regarding S.B. 462, and if any of the provisions give you concern, I will be glad to come back and explain to any member of the committee why it was done. If the committee is uncomfortable with any of the provisions...there is nothing in any of them that really needs to be done....
There was no further testimony on S.B. 462, and the chairman opened the meeting to a work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 152, Senate Bill (S.B.) 243 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 413.
SENATE BILL 152: Requires owner to deliver copy of recorded notice of completion to any person who previously gave notice of materials supplied or work or services performed.
SENATE BILL 413: Makes various changes regarding civil actions.
Senator Matthew Callister indicated to the committee he had achieved resolution of the problems connected with both pieces of legislation. Irene Porter, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, concurred regarding resolution of S.B. 152. Senator Callister stated the bill "provided a little more equanimity in the mechanic's lien law procedures." He said under the present law, a person has 90 days from the date of work completion to begin a lien claim action. Senator Callister stated the difficulty was the 90-day period could be shortened to 40 days by mailing a "Notice of Completion," which is only sent, pursuant to statute, to the general contractors. He indicated such notice was not sent to the subcontractors or journeymen. Senator Callister said their proposed amendment to S.B. 152 would state:
If at any point in time, but in no event later than 90 days after the conclusion of the provision of materials or work...if that subcontractor or materialman mailed, by certified mail to the general contractor or owner/ developer, a request to be included in the notice of completion mailing list, they would receive such a notice.
With respect to S.B. 413, Senator Callister stated resolution of earlier problems, as follows:
The Nevada Judges Association has agreed justice courts', small claims jurisdiction would be increased from the present $2,500 to $3,500, with the overall justice court jurisdictional limits being increased to $7,500. In order to deal with the increased caseload, there would be a $25 fee increase on each additional $1,000 of claim.
Senator Callister read the following statement of Chief Justice Robert E. Rose into the record:
Due to the amount of work involved, that is an appropriate increase. When the change increasing jurisdiction was made in 1991 there was not a commensurate increase in filing fees. This should have occurred 2 years ago.
Senator Callister indicated the sponsors of the bill had all agreed with this amendment.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 152.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 413.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 243: Makes various changes relating to gaming policy committee.
Senator Titus stated there was no appetite to create another commission which meets regularly; she suggested changing the composition of the existing committee to leave it as an advisory committee. Senator Titus said this could be done by changing line 13, page 1 of the bill to "...someone the [Indian] council chooses." She said on page 2, lines 4-12 would return to the original language of the bill to keep the commission as an advisory one.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 243.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
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
May 19, 1993
Page 1