MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
June 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, June 4, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David E. Humke
Assemblyman Scott Scherer
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Erickson, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lorne Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel
Bureau
Senator James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 523.
ASSEMBLY BILL 523: Revises exclusive jurisdiction of family court. (BDR 1-1685)
Assemblyman David E. Humke provided testimony in support of A.B. 523. He advised the first draft of A.B. 523 was requested by District Court Judge James A. Stone. The judge requested the addition of adult sanity hearings to the list of jurisdictional items of the family court. Assemblyman Humke advised there are two family court judges in Washoe County, who both agree this would be a good change. He advised the change was also agreed to by the Clark County family court bench. Assemblyman Humke advised the Assembly Committee on Judiciary amended the bill to remove compromise of claims of minors from the list of jurisdictional items.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 523 would allow a minor's claim to be heard in district court, because the claimant may already be there.
Assemblyman Humke advised he is not a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and therefore could not testify as to why the amendment was proposed. He assumed that testimony had been received indicating it was a good idea.
Senator James advised most cases are in family court because they deal specifically with families or children. He advised that a compromise of a minor's claim would require a guardian, and must be approved by the court.
Senator Jacobsen asked who would make the decision regarding which court would hear the case.
Assemblyman Humke replied the list of jurisdictional items is fairly clear cut. He does not believe there would be discretion as to the court hearing the case. He advised a child or the child's family could present several different problems, therefore presenting a mixture of regular versus family court jurisdiction.
Senator James advised these cases are filed in district court. The provisions of A.B. 523 would eliminate the need to, for example, present and file a settlement in family court which was decided in district court.
Senator Jacobsen asked which court is easier to deal with, from the perspective of a minor. He gave the example of truancy.
Assemblyman Humke replied that for compromising a claim, the non-family district court would be easier, because this is where the claim is pending. He advised if a minor is a truant, there is no discretion. That case will go to the family court division in Washoe and Clark counties.
Senator Jacobsen was concerned regarding a bill recently passed from the committee which allows the district court judges to handle both types of cases.
Assemblyman Humke advised the family court legislation passed in the 1991 session, as to counties other than Clark and Washoe, contains a phrase that the judges may handle these cases. The discretion is left to the judges. He further advised A.B. 523 would only affect those counties which have established a family court.
Senator James advised the bill referred to by Senator Jacobsen only attempted to allow the minor traffic offenses to be dealt with by the justice and traffic courts, as opposed to the juvenile court.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony regarding A.B. 523, and closed the hearing.
The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 576.
ASSEMBLY BILL 576: Revises penalties for certain violations concerning commodities. (BDR 7-1673)
Assemblyman Scott Scherer provided testimony in support of A.B. 576. He advised this is a bill which arose out of a comment he made when another bill came through the assembly. The previous bill doubled the penalty for securities or commodities fraud when the victim is a senior citizen. He stated he noticed a discrepancy in penalties of securities and commodities fraud. The penalty for securities fraud is 1 to 6 years, and for commodities fraud, is 1 to 10 years. He advised the idea was, with the current crunch in the budget, to prioritize who should receive the long prison sentences. He stated in his opinion, it is the violent criminals who should receive the longer sentences. He stated since a bill exists to double the penalty for the most vulnerable victims of these kinds of crimes, and if securities fraud does not carry any heavier penalty, it made no sense to him to have a higher penalty for commodities than for securities fraud.
Senator James asked when the different sentences for the two offenses were instituted.
Assemblyman Humke was not sure, but believed commodities fraud was enacted later, at a higher penalty.
Senator Jacobsen asked what is involved in commodities fraud.
Assemblyman Humke replied the most common is gold and silver schemes. He advised people are misled regarding investments in one of these, or other, commodities.
Senator James advised the futures market is one of the most risky in which a person can become involved. Therefore, the market is fraught with the potential for abuse.
Assemblyman Humke agreed, and stated additionally, those persons who become involved in the futures market are more sophisticated investors. They are aware of the risk involved.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony regarding A.B. 576, and closed the hearing.
Senator James closed the regular hearing and opened the work session to discuss bills previously heard in committee.
The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 481.
ASSEMBLY BILL 481: Provides mechanics' lien on land and improvements for services of engineer, land surveyor or geologist. (BDR 9-1831)
Senator James advised A.B. 481 creates a statutory mechanics' lien for land surveyors, geologists and engineers. This provision already exists in the law for architects and anyone else providing labor and materials to a project. He reminded the committee of amended language which was proposed at the first hearing of the bill. He asked Assemblyman Sader to review the proposed amended language for two reasons. First, the bill came through Assemblyman Sader's committee, and the amendment was not proposed in that committee. Secondly, Assemblyman Sader is a recognized expert in mechanics' lien law. Therefore, Senator James wished to confer with Assemblyman Sader to be certain the amendment would effectuate the intent of the statute. Senator James advised his understanding that as soon as the first shovel of dirt is turned on a project, all mechanics' liens have priority over other subsequent liens. Therefore, if the deed of trust on the property by a lender is not filed before the actual work commences, the mechanics' lien comes ahead in priority of the deed of trust. He stated the concern is that when a lien is given to architects, surveyors, and others, something those people are doing should not be deemed work on the property because it would not give notice of commencement to lenders or others with an interest in the property. He advised the amended language clarifies that the liens all start from the beginning of actual physical work on the property, regardless of whether the architects were drawing or the engineers were working before that time. He advised the reason the issue came up in this context is that land surveyors and geologists and engineers kick rocks around on the property but that should not be enough to create notice.
Senator James confirmed that the committee members understood the bill and the proposed amendment.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 481.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The hearing was reopened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 576.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 576.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The hearing was reopened on A.B. 523.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 523.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 462.
SENATE BILL 462: Makes various technical amendments to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes. (BDR S-1280)
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, provided testimony regarding S.B. 462. Ms. Hansen referred to page 29 of the bill dealing with the declaration for a living will. She stated there was a section changed which she believed was more than simply a technical correction. She stated it is a significant change in the message given to those reading the declaration. She advised there was a controversy on this bill in the 1991 session, and one thing which is important to have in the declaration is the fact that if hydration and nutrition are taken away from a person, death by starvation would result. She stated the original language indicates this, thereby giving a choice on whether to have hydration and nutrition removed, the knowledge this would cause death by starvation. The new language does not indicate that this could be the result. Ms. Hansen stated it is important to differentiate between artificial means and life support, rather than basic food and water which no one can live without. She read from line 38:
I direct my attending physician not to withhold or withdraw artificial nutrition or antidration by way of the gastrointestinal track if such a withholding or withdrawal would result in my death by starvation or dehydration.
She stated her belief that this is a significant change and one about which she is very concerned.
Senator Titus stated she worked on this bill extensively in the 1991 legislative session. She advised the reason the declaratory language is being changed is that the statement is confusing because of the inclusion of the double negative "not to withhold." The new language makes it clear that the person does or does not want these things withheld.
Ms. Hansen suggested the addition of language that this action might result in death by starvation would give people a better idea of the significance of the statement.
Senator James advised Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, that this is one of the points he wished Mr. Malkiewich to address. Senator James reviewed the concerns indicated by Ms. Hansen.
Mr. Malkiewich explained the purpose of S.B. 462. He advised that during the interim, various people contact the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), pointing out problems with the statutes. Additionally, members of the LCB discover areas of concerns. Referring to the declaration provision mentioned by Ms. Hansen, Mr. Malkiewich advised this was an area frequently mentioned during the interim. Many attorneys stated the provision is not comprehensible. He stated the concern of the LCB was to turn the statement around to the positive, as it is difficult to tell what the statement means. It is difficult to determine, if a person checks this box, if the physician will or will not withhold nutrition and hydration. He advised other than turning it around, this is just a proposal on the part of the LCB to straighten it out.
Senator James asked why it could not be left in, with other language.
Ms. Hansen suggested the statement could still include the instruction to initial the box, and indicate what the result would be. Her concern is that people will not understand what the result would be.
Senator Titus stated she did not believe "death by starvation or dehydration" needs to be spelled out. She advised if a person states nutrition or hydration are not to be given, that person knows if he or she does not receive these things starvation or dehydration will occur. She stated her belief that the proposed change makes the language much clearer.
Mr. Malkiewich added that this language is in addition to a declaration to withhold life sustaining treatment. Therefore, the person first directs the physician to withhold life sustaining treatment and then an additional statement allows the person to indicate whether artificial nutrition and hydration is to be withheld. He reiterated the concern expressed to the LCB was that the language was very confusing in the negative.
Ms. Hansen advised the reason the phrase regarding death by starvation was originally used is to differentiate between other extraordinary artificial means and simply hydration and nutrition.
Senator Titus advised much testimony was heard in the 1991 session that people who consider extraordinary means to sustain life consider nutrition and hydration extraordinary means. These things keep a person alive beyond the point where a person is functioning. Those people believed that phrase would be included under the term "extraordinary means." Senator Titus advised the language regarding nutrition and hydration was added as a concession and compromise to Ms. Hansen in the 1991 session, even against the opinions of some people that the language was unnecessary.
Senator James stated the language makes a person acutely aware that, even if medical treatment is eliminated, death by starvation or hydration would be a terrible death.
Ms. Hansen stated the person could die of dehydration or lack of nutrition rather than from the illness. This is a very painful death, and the former language separates, in a person's mind, medical means and food and water.
Senator James asked Mr. Malkiewich for confirmation that this is a direction to the person to initial the box. He asked why it would not be consistent with the existing law to begin the statement with "withholding or withdrawal of artificial nutrition could result in death by starvation or dehydration. Please initial this box if you wish to continue receiving nutrition and hydration after all other treatment is terminated."
Mr. Malkiewich advised he is considering how the phrase would read if the following was added:
Initial this box if you want to receive or continuing receiving artificial nutrition and hydration by way of the gastrointestinal tract after all other treatment is withheld pursuant to this declaration, if withholding or withdrawal would result in death by starvation or dehydration."
Senator James opposed this, and stated it is two different things. The old language is in the first person. The proposed language is a direction to that person. He advised to make it consistent, the second portion would have to be a direction to the person, advising that if nutrition and hydration are withheld, it could result in death by starvation or dehydration. He stated this would take care of Ms. Hansen's concern. He suggested the language would go on to say how the person could be certain the election was followed through.
Mr. Malkiewich asked if the language would start with saying "withholding or withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration may result in death by starvation or dehydration; initial this box if you want to receive. . ." He stated this language would make sense, however it is a policy decision to be made by the committee.
Senator James stated his belief that this would address the concern. It makes the person aware, keeps the language in, and then goes on with the language regarding how to accomplish the declaration. He asked Ms. Hansen if this would satisfy her concern.
Ms. Hansen stated this would satisfy her concern, which is that the seriousness of the decision is lessened by the new language.
Senator Smith stated he is approaching the time in his life when he must make these decisions. He advised that he did not know why anything needs to be stated past the declaration that life sustaining devices not be used. He stated if he was in this situation, he would read the declaration and would know what it is, would be expecting his death and preparing himself for it, and would not want to linger and cause grief longer than necessary. He stated it would be a declaration he would want to make, and would not want anyone else to make it for him.
Ms. Hansen stated this would not change that, and the person would have a perfect right to do exactly what he or she wished to do.
Senator James stated the proposed language would simply make certain that as part of the declaration, the person has the knowledge.
Senator Titus stated her belief that the proposed language would complicate the issue and put a burden on the person to initial something additional, and makes it difficult for the doctor to decide what the person really wanted.
Senator Titus said she did not like the whole section. She advised she opposed putting in the entire section in the 1991 legislative session. She stated it would be more clear without including the phrase regarding death by starvation. She stated this applies to a person who is incapacitated and dying, and who cannot make a decision. She stated her belief that to include that language changes the impression of what is really happening.
Senator Smith agreed with this analysis.
Senator James asked if the person does not have to also decide if they wish the food and water to be terminated.
Ms. Hansen replied this is not necessarily so. The form in question does not have to be used, but is only a suggested form. She related an instance in which someone signing the form was not aware that the nutrition and hydration was separate from acute medical care.
Senator James stated he would like to see the language proposed by Ms. Hansen inserted, indicating exactly what is being decided.
Senator James asked Mr. Malkiewich to address other areas of the bill about which questions were raised by the committee. Senator James asked for and received confirmation that section 33, regarding the apprentice program, is to be removed. He asked Mr. Malkiewich to address Sections 59 and 60, dealing with the fund for workmen's compensation.
Mr. Malkiewich stated he believes two different provisions are addressed. Section 59 addresses inconsistency in the statutes. He advised that in the 1991 legislative session, omnibus industrial insurance legislation was proposed to rewrite the industrial insurance laws. This proposed legislation included some changes to the fund for workers' compensation and safety. He advised the changes were made both in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapters 616 and 232. He stated there was some confusion between the provisions, and the end result was a provision in Chapter 232.680, which provides the money in the fund may be used for the broad range of purposes. He advised NRS Chapter 616.423 has a much more narrow definition of how the money could be used. He stated his belief that it was simply a drafting oversight that the two provisions were drafted inconsistently. The provisions were supposed to express some of the broader purposes which were included in the legislation. He stated that, from the LCB reviewer's position is that NRS Chapter 232.680 reflected the intended use of money in the fund for workers compensation and safety. He advised to eliminate the inconsistency, NRS Chapter 616.423 has been amended to make that provision reflect the provisions in NRS Chapter 232.680.
Senator James asked if both chapters were amended at the same time.
Mr. Malkiewich advised they were both amended in the same bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 7.
SENATE BILL 7: Makes various changes relating to industrial insurance and other rights of employees. (BDR 53-605)
Senator James asked if the broad use of the money in NRS Chapter 680 was added later.
Mr. Malkiewich advised the broad use of the money was one of the changes made by S.B. 7. This was why the LCB opted for that interpretation rather than the other. He advised the LCB contacted the agency. The agency's understanding was that in the course of the various amendments and conference amendments, the inconsistency crept into the bill. At one point it was narrower and was amended to be broader, and the two were not made to match.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that one of two interpretations had been chosen.
Mr. Malkiewich advised that, where there are options such as this, the LCB attempts, based upon their research, to determine the more reasonable interpretation. He stated this is exactly the purpose of S.B. 462. If what the LCB assumed was the appropriate interpretation was incorrect, then the chapter could be amended the other way.
Mr. Malkiewich advised the second change was another mistake arising from S.B. 7. NRS 617.275 was amended to provide that a payment from the uninsured employer's claim fund could be made for certain occupational diseases. However, it failed to amend the provision which created the uninsured employer's claim fund to indicate that this was one of the authorized provisions. Therefore, NRS 616.437 currently states payments can only be received under one section, and NRS 617.275 states payment can be taken out of the claim fund. Because NRS 617.275 was the provision added to specifically allow payment out of the fund, to make the provisions match, NRS 616.437 has been amended to indicate another section allowing payment is NRS 616.275.
Senator James referred to section 68 of the bill, deleting the provision which apparently the Nevada Supreme Court says is constitutional but the United States Supreme Court and the attorney general say is unconstitutional. He asked if this is a broader concern than should be addressed in this bill. He asked why this was not brought up in a separate bill.
Mr. Malkiewich replied that the LCB reviewed the attorney general's opinion on the issue, and the case law cited in that opinion. He stated his belief that the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in 1960 was long before the development of First Amendment law on permissible commercial speech and restrictions on advertising. He stated it is fairly clear under the law that restrictions on accurate, non-deceptive advertising are extremely limited. He stated his belief that the provision referred to in S.B. 462 is clearly unconstitutional. He advised unconstitutional provisions have been left on the books, and nothing says it must be removed. The reason for the proposal to put it in a revisor's bill is that it may be misleading at this point. There may be people who believe they need to comply with this provision when, in fact, it is now unconstitutional, and the people need not comply.
Senator James asked if the LCB makes an effort to review the statutes to attempt to locate unconstitutional provisions.
Mr. Malkiewich replied that NRS is annotated, and when a provision such as this is said to be unconstitutional, the LCB researches the issue and suggests that the provision be removed.
Senator McGinness referred to section 68 of S.B. 462. He recalled an issue in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor this session regarding motel advertising.
Mr. Malkiewich asked Senator James if he has a conflict notice on NRS 651.040. He stated a change to this section may have already passed.
Senator James confirmed that he did have this conflict notice.
Mr. Malkiewich asked for and received confirmation that the conflict notice advises this provision was repealed by Senate Bill (S.B.) 249.
SENATE BILL 249: Repeals provisions which ban certain outdoor advertising by hotel, inn, motel or motor court. (BDR 54-600)
Mr. Malkiewich advised that when amendments to S.B. 462 are drawn, conflicts will be resolved. The conflict in section 68 will be resolved by deleting the provision from S.B. 462, because it was taken care of in other legislation.
Mr. Malkiewich advised since many of the changes in S.B. 462 are technical, those changes may be made in other bills and picked up in conflict amendments. In the case of section 68, he assumed another substantive bill was proposed by the attorney general to do the same thing.
Senator James again reviewed the declaration at section 45, page 29 of the bill.
Mr. Malkiewich advised there is a related declaration on page 35 of the bill.
Senator James asked Robert E. Erickson, Senior Research Analyst, to explain his idea regarding this declaration.
Mr. Erickson considered, as was stated by Senator Smith, a patient wishing to die as soon as possible and not put a burden on their family. He stated if a person signs the form indicated and wants to die as quickly as possible, the first box would be initialed, but the second box would not be initialed. He stated as the declaration is presently written, some people would be confused, thinking if both boxes were initialed, life support would be withheld. This would be a mistake, because the second initial means nutrition and hydration would be continued. Mr. Erickson suggested making the statements consistent, so if a person initialed both places it would mean to totally withhold support.
Senator Smith stated his concern regarding a person signing exactly the right thing.
Senator Adler advised he has these forms in his law office. When the forms are prepared, the statement is with both life support and nutrition, or without both.
Senator Smith referred to the last sentence on the declaration:
. . .withhold or withdraw treatment that only prolongs the process of dying and is not necessary for my comfort or to alleviate pain.
He stated his belief that this already makes the exceptions.
Mr. Erickson suggested the following language:
I hereby direct my physician to withhold food and water, knowing that death by starvation or dehydration may occur.
Mr. Malkiewich advised in that case the person would need to initial the second box. He stated his belief that Senator Smith said he would not initial the second box, but would only sign the declaration. Having not initialed the box, he would not receive or continue to receive artificial nutrition.
Mr. Erickson stated his belief that a person asked to sign certain waivers will typically do them all. He suggested it could be confusing to a person to have different directions for different things.
Senator James stated the sentiment of two members of the committee is to eliminate the statement regarding death by starvation. He advised he believes if the option is available, the import of the decision should be spelled out. He stated, therefore, this is not properly addressed in the context of a revisor's bill. Taking the statement out completely is a substantive change, which as Senator Titus said, was a concession in the 1991 legislative session. He stated he is inclined not to make the change and if someone wishes to bring up a separate bill, he would bring it into the committee.
Senator Adler stated he had received many complaints regarding the current form in the statute.
Senator James was concerned regarding the number of people in the state who are even aware this change is under consideration. He stated he did not believe things should be in the revisor's bill which create this kind of controversy.
Senator Adler advised that the law states this form or any equivalent form may be used. This is the state's representation of an acceptable form.
Senator James asked for a motion on this particular part of the bill to amend it to reflect the language suggested by Mr. Erickson.
Senator Titus stated she believes a person should have to initial the box if extra treatment is desired.
Senator Adler agrees.
Senator Titus stated she wanted to make it as easy as possible. If the person wants the extra treatment, the second box should be initialed. If this is not done, the person would not receive the extra treatment. She stated she would agree with some version of Mr. Malkiewich's language which states withholding of treatment will result in death by starvation.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 462. THE AMENDMENT SHALL PROVIDE, IN THE DECLARATION IN SECTION 45, FOR A PERSON WANTING EXTRA TREATMENT TO INITIAL THE SECOND BOX. IF THIS BOX IS NOT INITIALED, THE PERSON WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE EXTRA TREATMENT. THE AMENDMENT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE LANGUAGE STATING THAT WITHHOLDING OF TREATMENT WILL RESULT IN DEATH BY STARVATION.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James stated he would accept an amendment to the bill as a whole. He recalled discussion regarding removal of section 33, regarding apprentices, and removal of section 1. He advised A.B. 522, which is being brought back from the Governor's office, repeals NRS 38.235.
ASSEMBLY BILL 522: Makes various changes regarding program for court-annexed arbitration.
Senator James recalled a question asked on the floor, and also in the committee, was if this applies to anything other than the auto arbitration cases, and if this is repealed, how is trial after arbitration to be dealt with. He advised the answer he received from legislative counsel was that the court rules deal with this. Senator James advised, however, apparently this is not the case.
Mr. Malkiewich stated the LCB believes NRS 38.235 only applies to auto cases and it is in S.B. 462 to clarify that. He stated only when A.B. 522 reached the Governor's desk was the LCB informed by people who do arbitration that this section is used, even though it is not in the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA). He advised the UAA is found at NRS 38.005 - 38.205. He stated the provisions of section 1 of S.B. 462 are outside of the UAA, however the arbitrators are applying it anyway. A.B. 522 was brought back from the Governor's desk for amendment, to make the provision in section 1 of S.B. 462 apply to the UAA. He stated in any event, the provision in section 1 of S.B. 462 will be repealed by A.B. 522. Whether or not it is made a part of the UAA is a decision the legislature will be making. He advised there is no need to address it in S.B. 462, because the legislature has now consolidated the automobile arbitration provision with the other arbitration provisions.
Senator James read from NRS 38.215, repealed by A.B. 522:
. . .all civil actions for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle . . .
Senator James asked how this deals with anything other than motor vehicles.
Mr. Malkiewich advised the problem is the reference in section 1 of S.B. 462 to NRS 38.215. He stated the reference is there because the automobile provisions say the arbitration is done under the UAA, and states the procedure when the decision is reached under NRS 38.105. He stated his belief that this should not apply to all arbitration cases.
Mr. Malkiewich suggested four things which should be done with S.B. 462. He suggested the deletion of section 1, subsection 33, resolve the conflicts, add the four changes suggested, and the language approved regarding the declaration for life sustaining measures.
Senator Shaffer asked if there was any reason why the issues in S.B. 462 pertaining to the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) were not addressed in Senate Bill (S.B.) 316.
SENATE BILL 316: Makes various changes to provisions governing industrial insurance. (BDR 43-1764)
Mr. Malkiewich advised the changes in S.B. 462 are viewed by the LCB as technical oversights. He stated that S.B. 316, although it did address some technical problems, is primarily a substantive measure. He advised that, in the event the conference committee decides to repeal industrial insurance as a whole, that will take care of the problem. The LCB does not want to have the resolutions of the technical concerns dependent upon a substantive bill. This is the reason the technical changes were included in S.B. 462.
Senator James reviewed the remaining suggested changes in S.B. 462. He referred to a change regarding the Department of Insurance, adding the word "written" after "premiums."
Mr. Malkiewich advised this comes from the Commissioner of Insurance. The commissioner indicated this is a clarification. He advised the LCB added the word "direct." He advised the phrase "direct premiums" was added in one subsection but not another, therefore the word "direct" was added in the second subsection. The commissioner advised the LCB that technically it should be "direct premiums written," and requested that, since the language was being changed, this change be added also.
Senator James asked for clarification of the change from Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) to Aid to Families and Dependent Children (AFDC).
Mr. Malkiewich advised the state is now mandated to have AFDC for at least 6 months, therefore the program name ADC is incorrect. He advised a clause will be added to pick up any other bills from this session in which this phrase needs to be added.
Senator James mentioned the change requested by Assemblyman Larry Spitler at the first hearing regarding the consistency between 90 and 180 day notice.
Mr. Malkiewich advised he had checked on this and determined that the change from 90 to 180 days was the last change, made in one place and not the other.
Mr. Malkiewich advised the fourth change concerns the certification of the tax rate. He advised currently, when a budget is prepared a submission is made to the Department of Taxation the total amount of money a county needs to raise. The Department of Taxation certifies the rate which the county will need to impose to attain that amount. He stated that, as a practical matter, the Department of Taxation, rather than the Tax Commission, has been doing this. This then goes back to the counties, who impose the tax, and if they are over the limit they do the various things needed to get down to the limit. He advised the language will change from "Tax Commission" to "the Department of Taxation." He advised this change was intended to be made in the 1991 legislative session. He advised the amendment was requested by the Department of Taxation, and he believes the Tax Commission has no objection.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that this change has been approved by the tax committees.
Senator James briefly reviewed that a motion to amend and do pass would include the changes in the sections discussed, making the four changes just discussed, all conflict notices, and the change in the language in the declaration.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 462.
SENATOR SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James confirmed there was no further business to come before the committee, and adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
June 4, 1993
Page 1