Carson City (Tuesday), May 6, 1997

Senate called to order at 11:07 a.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senator James, who was excused.

Prayer by The Reverend Dave Ditolla.
Father God, as we pause just for a moment this morning, we pray for the courage to make not necessarily the popular decisions but the right one. Lord as we reflect on the important decisions that are about to be made, I pray that Your words would echo through our minds. "I have not called You to a Spirit of Timidity, but a Spirit of Power, Love and Discipline." God give the courage to do what is right. In Your Name.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 262, 308; Assembly Bill No. 122, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 5, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Senate Bill No. 66, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendment.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 113.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 195, 271.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

By Senator Regan:
Senate Bill No. 361--An Act relating to emergency management; establishing a state disaster identification team; providing the powers and duties of the state disaster identification team; authorizing the release of certain information and records to the state disaster identification team; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Regan moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Bill No. 362--An Act relating to natural resources; requiring the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada to cause to be conducted a study of the issues relating to the changing uses of rural land and water supplies; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 363--An Act relating to public works; increasing the threshold amount for requiring performance and payment bonds from contractors on certain public works projects; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 113.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 195.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 271.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

(b) The independent study be offered during the regular school day.".
Amend the title of the bill, first line, by deleting "pupils of" and inserting:
"full-time pupils in".
Amend the summary of the bill, first line, by deleting "pupils of" and inserting:
"full-time pupils in".
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 229.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Finance:
Amendment No. 285.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 7, by deleting "$15,104,000." and inserting "$19,234,000.".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 5, by deleting "$15,104,000." and inserting "$19,234,000.".
Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 231.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 259.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 5 through 9 and inserting:
"child [under 14 years of age] who is in the lawful custody of the petitioner.
[2. Proposed] If the proposed ward is a minor who is 14 years of age or older [and the petition is] :
(a) The petition must be accompanied by the written consent of the minor [or the minor] to the appointment of the guardian; or
(b) The minor must consent to the appointment of the guardian in open court.
[3.] 2. Petitioner is a foreign guardian of a nonresident proposed ward, and".
Amend the bill as whole by adding a new section designated sec. 2, following section 1, to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. NRS 159.052 is hereby amended to read as follows:
159.052 1. A petitioner may request the court to appoint a temporary guardian. [The petitioner must] To support the request [by presenting under oath] , the petitioner must set forth in a petition and present to the court [facts] under oath:
(a) Facts which show that the [:
(a) Proposed ward faces] proposed ward:
(1) Faces a substantial and immediate risk of financial loss or physical harm or needs immediate medical attention;
[(b) Proposed ward lacks] and
(2) Lacks capacity to respond to the risk of loss or harm or to obtain the necessary medical attention; and
[(c) Petitioner]
(b) Facts which show that:
(1) The petitioner has tried in good faith to notify the persons entitled to notice [under] pursuant to NRS 159.047 [.] ; or
(2) The proposed ward would be exposed to an immediate risk of financial loss or physical harm if the petitioner were to provide notice to the persons entitled to notice pursuant to NRS 159.047 before the court determines whether to appoint a temporary guardian.
2. If the court [finds] :
(a) Finds reasonable cause to believe that the proposed ward is unable to respond to a substantial and immediate risk of financial loss or physical harm or to a need for immediate medical attention [and that the] ; and
(b) Is satisfied that the petitioner has tried in good faith to notify the persons entitled to notice [, it ] pursuant to NRS 159.047 or determines that such notice is not required pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1,
the court may appoint a temporary guardian to serve for 10 days. The court shall limit the temporary guardian's powers to those necessary to assist in the emergency.
3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, after the appointment of a temporary guardian, the petitioner shall make a good faith effort to notify the persons entitled to notice pursuant to NRS 159.047. If the petitioner fails to make such an effort, the court may terminate the temporary guardianship.
4. If, before the appointment of a temporary guardian, the court determined that advance notice was not required pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the petitioner shall notify the persons entitled to notice pursuant to NRS 159.047 not later than 24 hours after the appointment of the temporary guardian. If the petitioner fails to provide such notice, the court may terminate the temporary guardianship.
5. Within 10 days after the appointment of a temporary guardian [under] pursuant to subsection 2, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the need to extend the temporary guardianship. [If] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed ward is unable to respond to a substantial and immediate risk of financial loss or physical harm or to a need for immediate medical attention, the court may extend the temporary guardianship until a general or special guardian is appointed, but not for more than 30 days. The court shall limit the temporary guardian's powers to those necessary to assist in the emergency.
6. The court may not extend a temporary guardianship pursuant to subsection 5 beyond the initial period of 10 days unless the petitioner demonstrates that:
(a) The provisions of NRS 159.0475 have been satisfied; or
(b) Notice by publication pursuant to N.R.C.P. 4(e) is currently being undertaken.".
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

"An Act relating to guardians; revising the provisions governing the appointment of certain guardians without issuing a citation; revising the provisions governing the appointment of temporary guardians; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

"Summary--Revises provisions governing appointment of certain guardians. (BDR 13-396)".

Senate Bill No. 264.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 267.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 223.
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 30, by deleting "4." and inserting "[4.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 33, by deleting the brackets.
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 35, by deleting "day." and inserting "day.]".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 36, by deleting "This" and inserting "1. This".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, after line 36 by inserting:
"2. Section 1 of this act expires by limitation on July 1, 1999.".
Amend the title of the bill, second line, after "holidays;" by inserting "temporarily".
Senator Augustine moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Augustine, O'Connell, Raggio, Neal, Townsend, Mathews and Coffin.
Conflict of interest declared by Senators Mathews, O'Connell, Raggio and Townsend.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 277.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 262.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 2, by deleting the comma and inserting:
"and section 1 of [this act,] Assembly Bill No. 39 of this session,".
Amend section 1, page 3, by deleting lines 27 through 43 and inserting:
"(m) If the child has not previously been found to be within the purview of this chapter and if the act for which the child is found to be within the purview of this chapter did not involve the use or threatened use of force or violence, order the child to participate in a publicly or privately operated program of sports or physical fitness. If the court orders the child to participate in such a program, the court may order any or all of the following, in the following order of priority if practicable:
(1) The parent or guardian of the child, to the extent of his financial ability, to pay the costs associated with the participation of the child in the program, including, but not limited to, a reasonable sum of money to pay for the cost of policies of insurance against liability for personal injury and damage to property during those periods in which the child participates in the program;
(2) The child to work on projects or perform public service pursuant to paragraph (i) for a period that reflects the costs associated with the participation of the child in the program; or
(3) The county in which the petition alleging the child to be delinquent or in need of supervision is filed to pay the costs associated with the participation of the child in the program.".
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 4, following sec. 3, to read as follows:
"Sec. 4. Section 1 of this act becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 1997.".
Senator Wiener moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Wiener.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 285.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 258.
Amend sec. 3, page 2, line 1, by deleting "If " and inserting:
"1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if ".
Amend sec. 3, page 2, between lines 5 and 6, by inserting:
"2. If a child who is subject to the provisions of subsection 1 is not adjudicated delinquent for any other subsequent act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony and is not otherwise convicted of a felony as an adult before reaching 24 years of age, all records relating to the child must be automatically sealed when the child reaches 24 years of age as provided in subsection 4 of NRS 62.370.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 5, by deleting "or" and inserting "[or".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 6, by deleting "California" and inserting "California]".
Amend the title of the bill, third line, by deleting "sealed;" and inserting:
"sealed in certain circumstances;".
Senator Washington moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Washington.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 295.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Amendment No. 274.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 15, by deleting "person" and inserting:
"representative of one of the Colleges of Education".
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 231.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 261.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 362.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. It appears to me that the manner in which this works is that the Ethics Commission is going to end up as the ultimate arbiter of truth in campaigns. They will hold hearings and assess penalties. The decision will essentially decide the results of the election. This is true even if their findings are incorrect and are reversed later on in court. I do not know if this is much of an improvement over the system written into the bill. I do have concerns that the Ethics Commission is going to become a political body rather than one which is ruling on the ethics of candidates. This amendment assumes the commission is infallible. If they make a mistake which is later reversed, that could cause long term damage to the candidates involved.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. In reading this amendment, I draw a couple of conclusions. If you want to commit an unfair campaign practice, or if you want to place a mole in someone's campaign staff, then you want to vote for this amendment. This amendment considerably reduces the penalties for those individuals who would outright lie in order to seek public office. In the amendment itself, there is listed a penalty of $10,000; but if you should happen to violate these provisions 10 days before the election, it is raised to $30,000. This would only be feasible for those who have big campaign war chests and to those who are able to employ the Newt Gingrich scheme, when they run afoul of the ethics or violate the law; find another rich Republican to borrow the money from in order to pay your fine. This is what this amendment seems to be saying. If you are really true and want real campaign reform, then why not let the criminal penalties stand so that those individuals who would outright lie about a candidate in order to elevate himself to the office he is seeking would be penalized. I believe that we have missed the boat if we pass this amendment because that particular individual could very well be exonerated.
I do not mind the stiff penalties found in the bill because the manner in which I campaign, I never mention my opponent's name. I only speak about myself and tell the voters what I would like to do if I am re-elected. I find that, if a person should outright lie and distribute false information on an individual because he or she wants to be elected to some office, without explaining what they see their need in public office to be, I think we are missing a good chance to send a real message to the public and to those who wish to seek re-election to an office or seek a higher office, that we believe that those elections should be fair and deal with issues with which the public is concerned rather than what an individual has or has not done, using innuendoes to put someone down in order to lift up himself. The penalties listed in the bill go a long way in establishing truth in campaigns. If we want truth in campaigns, then I believe you need to defeat this amendment. If you want a campaign where the candidate puts people down and lies about their education, reputation, etc. then you need to support the amendment before us. On the other hand, if you believe that we should tell our young people that we should rise above mudslinging in campaigns, then we should vote for the stiffer penalties so that the public will understand that what we do here becomes an honorable endeavor. We should say strongly that if you treat it otherwise, then you must pay the price. You must pay the price for lying about your opponent. I think it is time that we look at this and remove the type of campaigning we have seen in the past. That type of campaign was seen in the race for Justice of the Supreme Court. This type of campaign has been reflected in some of our Senatorial races in this house. If we defeat this amendment, then we have a bill which says that you cannot issue false information concerning any individual. The bill says that you cannot lie about an individual. If we defeat this amendment, it means that when election time comes that we would deal with the issues of the campaign and not with the personality of the individual who is standing for office. I believe that is what the public wants because they have seen so much of our air waves being taken up by dirty tactics. Take Las Vegas, for instance, and listen to the mudslinging and statements about various candidates that has nothing to do with the running of city government.
I do not think that we should codify the practice whereby we should allow the putting down of individuals in order to elevate ourselves. If we vote for this amendment, we are saying that practice should continue. If we vote for the stiffer penalties, we then send a message to those candidates who wish to be elected or re-elected that they cannot do this. I think the public would be more appreciative of this body if we did pass such strict penalties. There is nothing wrong with being the first state in the nation that is trying to enact this. The time has come that we, as men and women elected to office, should try to put into statute those things which are meaningful and those things necessary so that people would not use dirty tactics in trying to get elected to office. It is time that we recognize the fact that to be elected to office and serve the people of this state is an honorable endeavor. We should send that message very strongly. We can not do it with this amendment, but we can do it with passage of the bill. I would vote against this amendment.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I also rise in opposition to the amendment. I am probably one of the strongest supporters of free speech in this house, with the exception of perhaps the Senator from North Las Vegas, but I would like to remind you that the Supreme Court has long since ruled that lies are not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. I also agree that something must be done to restore the public's faith in elections. One way to do that is to address negative campaigning tactics. If you ask voters how they feel about elections, every single one of them will tell you that he/she is sick and tired of the lies, name calling, mudslinging and negative campaigning. We need to do something about that because people who are turned off by campaigning do not turn out at the polls. This bill is a way to address that problem, but the amendment waters down that effort.
I also can not believe that the sponsors of this amendment are willing to turn over this function to the Ethics Commission. That is a body which is currently under the scrutiny of the Government Affairs Committee where we have heard hours of testimony about how that commission was abused during the last election. We heard that they have no rules of procedure in place. We heard that they have no staff for conducting investigations. We heard that there is no consensus within the commission itself in terms of what its own role should be. Furthermore, the Ethics Commission is not the body to deal with this issue; that belongs with the Secretary of State's office, which supervises and enforces all election laws.
Senator O'Connell:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I think it is important that this body understand that the comments that have been expressed by the Senator from North Las Vegas are exactly those expressed by the committee. Before we were voting on the bill earlier in the week, there were so many expressions of concern made to us that we felt we should have a caucus. We did not want to see the bill die. In trying to accommodate the concern over Sections 15 and 16 and in a good faith effort we tried to quickly remedy the situation by thinking of what body was already in place that could address the issue and had some of the rules established that were in the original bill. That is why this amendment is before you today. The committee did not want to lose the bill. We think it is a very good bill on which we have worked since February. We have had many hours of hearing and a lot of blood, sweat and tears over this bill. We believe it to be an extremely important measure. We would have liked to see it pass in its' original form. If the people who have spoken this morning feel that strongly about it, then we certainly have no pride of authorship in this amendment. Again, it was just a good faith attempt to save the bill.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I would like to echo the comments made by the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee. Let's get one thing straight today, this committee has worked long and arduously on this bill for campaign finance reform. As a matter of fact, I am the one who proposed an addition to the bill in order to try to do something about negative campaigning. This is a provision which originally came from a law enacted in the State of Ohio. That statute carries a criminal penalty. When this bill was up for consideration last week, there had been a number of editorials written against proposal for criminal penalties for the type of conduct addressed in Section 15 concerning false statements. On the day this was to be heard on General File, a number of Senators in this chamber indicated they were opposed to this provision since it contained a criminal penalty. That is the reason the bill was placed on the Secretary's desk for purposes of obtaining an amendment. Let me say to all of you that I am perfectly content to leave the severe penalties in this bill if that is what you want.
The problems envisioned, and the reason that this amendment was proposed as an alternative, were two-fold. First, to address the concern that criminal penalties, even though severe, would have little impact at the time that the false statement occurred. What could one do about it? File a criminal complaint and then wait for the wheels of justice to turn? Or, as has been suggested by the Senator from Carson City, go through the libel process which as you know is costly and takes a great deal of time even if you have a meritorious claim. This amendment was an attempt to provide a remedy that was immediate. If, in the course of a campaign, completely erroneous statements were made a person had an immediate opportunity to file a request for an opinion. This amendment would give it immediate priority with the Ethics Commission and the Ethics Commission would have to act within 10 days, make a report within three days and would have the opportunity for the wide range of penalties provided to that commission. If it occurred within 10 days of the election date, it trebled the damages. In offering this amendment, the committee felt that this was an answer to the concerns that could not be addressed otherwise in a practical manner. It sounds good to rise and say that we need tougher penalties for this type of campaign tactics. As a matter of fact, they may be tougher but they are impractical when you are in the midst of a campaign. This was an attempt to provide an alternative and to answer the concerns expressed in this body, both publicly and privately, but also those expressed by those who represent the media.
I am perfectly content if the wish of this body is to have us withdraw this amendment. Then the bill would go out as I voted for it in committee which is to have some harsh criminal penalties. I will tell you one thing, it will not do anything to give an immediate opportunity to someone who has been subjected to this type of situation - either through false statements or infiltration into a campaign. I am amazed to hear someone suggest that the Ethics Commission is that inept. If so, then they should offer a bill to do away with the Ethics Commission. I think it is still the best system that we have been able to devise. The jury system is not perfect either, but it is still the best system we have for determining truth in a criminal matter. I have faith in the Ethics Commission. Like many of you, I have been subjected to some complaints. Although it may have some faults, it is means and procedure to address something which is uncalled for or inappropriate with respect to a public officer. To reject this today, and to do it on what appears to be some partisan effort, I think is really a tragedy. This Senator is willing to have the bill stand as is if you want to vote down this amendment which provides the opportunity to do something meaningful at the time; then do it. there is still a criminal libel statute in this state. There is still an opportunity to take other action in a civil libel suit. You can still do that. So, do not use it as an excuse that those are better remedies. Those remedies are still available. This amendment would give an opportunity to have something done about it when the incidence occurs during a campaign. I think it is an opportunity to do something constructive, but if it does not pass I am more than happy to have the bill pass with a felony in it.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President proTempore. I appreciate the fact that some members of the Majority Leader caucus read the newspapers on Monday morning and saw the editorials against this section of the bill and became scared to vote for it. So, I commend the sponsors of the amendment for trying to come in with something that would take out that part in order to satisfy the editorial boards and save the members of their caucus some grief in the press. However, I do not think that is the way to make good policy. There is currently a bill in the Government Affairs Committee that addresses the Ethics Commission. Nobody thinks that we should do away with the Ethics Commission since it is a very important part of the entire process, which I strongly support. But, there is no question about the Ethics Commission having had some problems. The Commission itself brought the bill to this body in order to ask us for some tools to help them solve their problems so that they would not be used for political reasons as in the last campaign. If we want to save this S.B. 215, and I think everyone does, I would suggest that we remove Sections 15 and 16 that are so controversial and consider amending the Ethics Commission bill with these provisions. We could address the issue, we could have testimony, we could have hearings on it and we could address it in the context of the Ethics Commission and let the rest of this bill go forward. I offer that as a proposal to this body in order to get this bill moving on out.

Senator O'Donnell:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I read this amendment just this morning. I am uncomfortable that we are using the Ethics Commission. I just realized that there are only two appointed members that are elected officials on that commission. I have gone through the Ethics Commission process and was a victim of that. I look at that and wonder if I am going to have to go through that process again 20 or 30 days before the election. If someone wants an opinion, do I have to give evidence that I did not do what they say I did? I am uncomfortable with this. The Ethics Commission needs to be above reproach. I think at this point in time it is questionable. We have had problems with the Ethics Commission. I am going to vote for this amendment, but I am uncomfortable in the way it is being presented. If we had a body of individuals who were elected officials who could give a rational, educated, bipartisan opinion about what was going on in elections, I would feel more comfortable. We all know what is being used as a ruse for the truth. I think that if we had a commission set up of legislators or elected officials, city, state or county, to determine whether someone was lying during a campaign, I would feel a lot more comfortable than I would with the opinion of someone who is appointed by a political party. I have been before the Ethics Commission and set in on others ethics complaints. I saw members of the Ethics Commission not to show up. They were in town, but did not show up in time to vote on a measure. If they did not vote, the measure was held for another 30 days. If there is a better avenue, I would support it. If there is a better commission, I would support it but this seems to be the best so far.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I don't mean to prolong the discussion on this measure, but the senior senator from Reno made mention of the fact about the existing libel law. Of course, we have statutes against libeling individuals, but those statutes are not as clear as the one listed in this bill. The one listed in the bill sets out what you can be liable for. The only thing that person has to present is that "I have this degree, I went to this school, I have this occupation" and the burden of proof rests with the person who is libeling him. If he can't come up with an answer, that is tough under this bill. It makes it very simple to go into court and prove these incidents. It may not be as speedy as one being proposed by the amendment, but there is a court action. A court action speaks well to the public if, when someone does this, they are fined. It sends a message to individuals that they should not do this. I think that is the better way to go. If you have the money, you don't have a problem. You can libel anyone as long as you can come up with the money. We don't say, in this amendment, how that money is to be raised. It can come from your campaign chest or you can find a good friend and borrow the money. I think we should send a message which is loud and clear that we want campaign reform and that we are tired of negative campaigning and do not want to permit that to continue to happen. I think the bill as opposed to the amendment sends that message.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. Having come off of a campaign that was rife with this kind of behavior, as many of you know who read the campaign literature sent out, I would be one of those people who might like to say to put the perpetrator behind bars and consider him a criminal. Yet, I was one of those who was arguing on the floor the other day that we ought not to have criminal penalties because I felt that the existing system does work. There were judgments emanating out of New Orleans in 1991.Recently, there was also a judgment emanating from one of the mid-western states where the libel laws have worked in the case of elected officials suing each other or a newspaper. So, I was very, very uncomfortable with the criminal penalty involved in this bill. I would have been reluctantly voting against this bill because of that. When I was assured that an amendment would be brought forth that took that out, I was gratified. Today I realized that this house seems to be closely divided on this issue. I felt I needed to speak on this because of my own recent personal experiences. I also appeared in front of the Ethics Commission a year and a half ago. In my opinion, I felt I was fairly treated by them even though they are understaffed and not able to handle the kind of work that would be required of them by this bill. A number of years ago, the members of the California State Legislature attempted to address this same kind of problem by creating what was called the "Fair Campaign Practices Commission." What has happened is that it has grown into a huge bureaucracy and it does not solve the problem. California's campaigns are still considered the dirtiest in the country no matter what has happened. It now worries me that the amendment would carry a provision, in essence, giving an under funded commission of volunteers who serve at our request. I am torn in listening to both sides of this issue because I feel that the amendment is well intended. I don't see anything conspiratorial in this amendment, but I am also persuaded by arguments made by members of my own party. I do not want to see the bill die, therefore I will make a motion to place it on the Secretary's desk.
Senator Coffin moved that Senate Bill No. 215 with Amendment No. 295, be taken from the General File and placed on the Secretary's desk.
Remarks by Senator Coffin.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 220.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Amendment No. 302.
Amend section 1, page 2, line 1, after "ensure" by inserting:
"high standards of ".
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 8 and adding a new section designated sec. 8, following sec. 7, to read as follows:
"Sec. 8. The legislature hereby declares that by authorizing the formation of charter schools it is not authorizing the formation of such schools on the basis of a single race, religion or ethnicity.".
Amend sec. 9, page 5, by deleting lines 12 through 16 and inserting:
"trustees of a school district or the state board for authorization to form a charter school in the school district. The board of trustees or the state board shall deny an application if the applicant proposes to:
(a) Convert into a charter school a private elementary, middle school, junior high school or other secondary school in this state that is providing instruction to pupils pursuant to chapter 394 of NRS; or
(b) Generate money for pupils who are receiving instruction at home.".
Amend sec. 9, page 5, between lines 18 and 19, by inserting:
"3. A charter school must have as its stated purpose at least one of the following goals:
(a) Improving learning opportunities for pupils;
(b) Encouraging the use of effective teaching methods;
(c) Providing an accurate measurement of the educational achievement of pupils;
(d) Establishing accountability of schools;
(e) Providing a method for public schools to measure achievement based upon the performance of the schools; or
(f) Creating new professional opportunities for teachers.".
Amend sec. 11, page 5, by deleting lines 25 and 26 and inserting:
"(a) Evidence of support from the teachers who are employed full time at the public school that will be converted, demonstrated by:
(1) A petition signed by more than 50 percent of those teachers; or
(2) The written results of an election, in which more than 50 percent of those teachers approved, by secret ballot or otherwise, the proposed conversion; and ".
Amend sec. 11, page 5, by deleting lines 34 through 41.
Amend sec. 11, page 5, line 42, by deleting "5." and inserting "4.".
Amend sec. 11, page 5, line 43, by deleting "6." and inserting "5.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 1, by deleting "7." and inserting "6.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 4, by deleting "8." and inserting "7.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 7, by deleting "9." and inserting "8.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 8, by deleting "10." and inserting "9.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 9, by deleting "11." and inserting "10.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 11, by deleting "12." and inserting "11.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 13, by deleting "13." and inserting "12.".
Amend sec. 11, page 6, line 17, by deleting "14." and inserting "13.".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, lines 19 and 20, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 21, after "meeting" by inserting:
"or 14 days after the receipt of the application, whichever occurs later,".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 23, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, lines 30 and 31, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 32, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 36, after "comply." by inserting:
"If the state board denies such an application, the applicant may, not later than 30 days after the receipt of the written notice from the state board, appeal the denial to the district court of the county in which the proposed charter school will be located.".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 37, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, lines 38 and 39, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 41, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 6, line 43, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 7, line 9, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 7, line 11, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 7, line 13, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 7, line 17, by deleting:
"or the board of regents".
Amend sec. 12, page 7, line 19, by deleting:
"trustees or the board of regents," and inserting "trustees,"
Amend sec. 13, page 7, line 23, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 13, page 7, line 28, by deleting "14," and inserting "13,".
Amend sec. 13, page 8, line 3, by deleting "and ".
Amend sec. 13, page 8, line 8, by deleting the period and inserting:
"; and
(j) Provide written notice to the parents or legal guardians of pupils in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, who are enrolled in the charter school whether the charter school is accredited by the Commission on Schools of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges.".
Amend sec. 14, page 8, lines 15 and 16, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 14, page 8, line 19, by deleting:
"board of regents" and inserting "state board ".
Amend sec. 15, pages 8 and 9, by deleting lines 38 through 44 on page 8 and lines 1 and 2 on page 9.
Amend sec. 15, page 9, line 3, by deleting "(d)" and inserting "(b)".
Amend sec. 15, page 9, line 6, by deleting "(e)" and inserting "(c)".
Amend sec. 15, page 9, line 8, by deleting "At " and inserting:
"Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, at ".
Amend sec. 15, page 9, between lines 17 and 18, by inserting:
"3. A sponsor may revoke a written charter of a charter school without written notice to the governing body of the charter school if there is reasonable cause for the sponsor to believe that immediate revocation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the pupils who are enrolled in the charter school or persons who are employed by the charter school from jeopardy, or to prevent damage to or loss of the property of the school district or the community in which the charter school is located.".
Amend sec. 17, page 9, line 29, after "1" by inserting "or 3".
Amend sec. 18, page 9, line 40, by deleting "is:" and inserting:
"may consist of, but is not limited to, teachers, parents and representatives of nonprofit organizations and businesses.
2. The governing body of a charter school is: ".
Amend sec. 18, page 10, line 3, by deleting "2." and inserting "3.".
Amend sec. 20, page 10, by deleting lines 32 and 33 and inserting:
"2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a charter school shall not accept applications for enrollment in the charter school or otherwise discriminate based on the: ".
Amend sec. 20, page 11, between lines 2 and 3, by inserting:
"4. This section does not preclude the formation of a charter school that is dedicated to provide educational services exclusively to pupils with disabilities or to pupils who pose such severe disciplinary problems that they warrant an educational program specifically designed to serve a single gender and emphasize personal responsibility and rehabilitation."
Amend sec. 23, page 12, line 13, by deleting "apportionments" and inserting "money".
Amend sec. 23, page 12, line 15, by deleting "apportionments" and inserting "money".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, by deleting line 3 and inserting:
"(c) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b):
(1) If a charter".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, lines 4 and 5, by deleting ", computer science".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, by deleting lines 7 through 22 and inserting:
"(2) If a charter school specializes in the construction industry or other building industry, licensed teachers to teach courses of study relating to the industry if such teachers are employed full time.
2. A charter school may employ a person who is not licensed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 391 of NRS to teach any course of study for which a licensed teacher is not required pursuant to subsection 1 if the person has:
(a) A degree in the field for which he is employed at the charter school; or
(b) At least 5 years of experience in that field.
A person employed pursuant to this subsection must not be employed full time.
3. At least 50 percent of the personnel who provide instruction at a charter school must be licensed teachers. As used in this subsection, "licensed teacher" means a person who is licensed pursuant to chapter 391 of NRS.".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, line 23, by deleting "3." and inserting "4.".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, line 25, after "in" by inserting:
"school administration,".
Amend sec. 26, page 13, between lines 28 and 29, by inserting:
"5. A charter school shall not employ a person pursuant to this section if his license to teach or provide other educational services has been revoked or suspended in this state or another state.".
Amend sec. 27, page 13, line 32, by deleting "12" and inserting "11".
Amend sec. 27, page 13, line 36, by deleting the period and inserting:
"pursuant to chapter 288 of NRS. Employees of a charter school may remain part of the appropriate existing bargaining unit of a school district if the choice to remain is specifically agreed upon by more than 50 percent of the employees of the charter school and the governing body of the charter school.".
Amend sec. 27, page 14, line 12, after "determining" by inserting:
"participation in the public employees' retirement system and determining".
Amend sec. 30, page 15, line 43, by deleting the period and inserting:
", including, without limitation, regulations that prescribe the procedures for accounting, budgeting and annual audits of charter schools.".
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 39.5, following sec. 39, to read as follows:
"Sec. 39.5. NRS 387.1221 is hereby amended to read as follows:
387.1221 1. The basic support guarantee for any special education program unit maintained and operated during a period of less than 9 school months is in the same proportion to the amount established by law for that school year as the period during which the program unit actually was maintained and operated is to 9 school months.
2. Any unused allocations for special education program units may be reallocated to other school districts or charter schools by the superintendent of public instruction. In such a reallocation, first priority must be given to special education programs with statewide implications, and second priority must be given to special education programs maintained and operated [by school districts] within counties whose allocation is less than or equal to the amount provided by law. If there are more unused allocations than necessary to cover programs of first and second priority but not enough to cover all remaining special education programs eligible for payment from reallocations, then payment for the remaining programs must be prorated. If there are more unused allocations than necessary to cover programs of first priority but not enough to cover all programs of second priority, then payment for programs of second priority must be prorated. If unused allocations are not enough to cover all programs of first priority, then payment for programs of first priority must be prorated.
3. A school district or a charter school may, after receiving the approval of the superintendent of public instruction, contract with any person, state agency or legal entity to provide a special education program unit for pupils of the district pursuant to NRS 388.440 to 388.520, inclusive.".
Amend sec. 41, page 20, line 40, by inserting an open bracket before "sum".
Amend sec. 41, page 20, by deleting line 42 and inserting:
"year, the larger sum must be used in computing basic support.] enrollment of pupils on the last day of the first school month of the school year in a school district or a charter school is less than the enrollment of pupils in the same school district or charter school on the last day of the first school month for the immediately preceding school year, the larger number must be used for purposes of apportioning money from the state distributive school account to that school district or charter school pursuant to NRS 387.124.".
Amend sec. 52, page 25, line 16 after "thousand " by inserting "dollars".
Amend sec. 105, page 48, by deleting lines 22 through 24 and inserting:
"392.465 1. Corporal punishment may not be administered upon a pupil in any public school [.] , including, without limitation, charter schools.".
Amend sec. 105, page 48, by deleting line 38.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 106.5, following sec. 106, to read as follows:
"Sec. 106.5. NRS 286.070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
286.0701. "Public employer" means the state, one of its agencies or one of its political subdivisions, the system, irrigation districts created under the laws of the State of Nevada, a nonprofit corporation to which a public hospital has been conveyed or leased pursuant to NRS 450.500, a public or quasi-public organization or agency that is funded, at least in part, by public money, including a regional transportation commission, a governing body of a charter school and a council of governments created pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada.
2. State agencies are those agencies subject to state control and supervision, including those whose employees are governed by chapter 284 of NRS, unless specifically exempted therefrom, and those which deposit money with the state treasurer.".
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Rawson and Schneider.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 253.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 253:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--James.
Senate Bill No. 253 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 294.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 294:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--James.
Senate Bill No. 294 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 313.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 313:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--James.
Senate Bill No. 313 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

On request of Senator Townsend, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to teachers Kari Newberg, Kathleen Maxfield and Diane Best and the following students from Anderson Elementary School: Efrain Arciniega, Crystal Armstrong, Juan Basurto, Dayna Byram, Esmeralda Cartagena, Ross Collins, Jose Garcia, Courtney Hennessey, Carlos Lopez, Liezl Magan, Angelica Martinez, Elizabeth Morgan-Beesley, Matthew Moutray, Elsa Navarro, Jayson Robbins, Tracy Rodriguez, Kirstie Sapuay, Megan Soltani, Jala Zakholy, April Aguilera, Russell Alejandria, Brianna Canfield, Michael Currie, Heather Davis, Ma Del Garcia, Dustin King, Christian Lahman, Kristina Mueller, Amanda Nolte, Leticia Ramirez, Marlene Rivera, Ivan Segoviano, Nathan Tester, Mariah Thomas, China Tillotson, Ashley Webb, Heather Woodford, Dominique Burrows, Michelle Carral, Carina Castillo, Donald Fells, Frances Franco, Celia Hernandez, Shajuanna Hodges, Erwin Lemus, Sean Madigan, Derrick Manciel, Francisco Marinez, Lindsay McLaughlin, Francisco Oliden, Sandra Plascencia, Eddie Rivera, Angela Scroggins, Mari Solomon, Ashley Stone and Barbara Varga.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Wednesday, May 7, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 12:34 p.m.

Approved:

Lawrence E. Jacobsen

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate