The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 4, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson went over the rules regarding the sign-in sheet for testimony. It showed who would be testifying or showed those present at the committee meeting.

In discussing A.B. 72, Chairman Anderson explained it was a piece of legislation derived from an interim study committee chaired by Assemblyman Goldwater. Even though the legislation was relative to mortgage investments, the principal topic of the statute was within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. However, major sections of the bill were within the domain of The Committee on Commerce and Labor. At the request of the interim study chairman, and after consultation with the chairman of Commerce and Labor and Speaker Dini, it was the Chair’s intent to accept a motion to rerefer A.B. 72 to Commerce and Labor.

Chairman Anderson continued with the introduction of seven Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):

• BDR 2-615 - Provides for service of legal documents by means of facsimile machine. (A.B. 120)

• BDR 1-838 - Provides that trials and other proceedings in justices’ courts must be conducted without juries. (A.B. 118)

• BDR 14-842 - Authorizes court to enter judgment of conviction and impose sentence if person who is issued traffic citation violates his written promise to appear. (A.B. 121)

• BDR 1-555 - Authorizes justice’s court and county to collect and distribute restitution ordered by court. (A.B. 122)

• BDR 10-676 - Exempts certain common-interest communities from certain provisions of Uniform Common-Interest Ownership A (A.B. 123)

• BDR R-376 - Urges family courts to coordinate and integrate certain cases, and to ensure that certain parties and children are directed to appropriate agencies and services in a timely manner, and directs chief judges of Second and Eighth Judicial Districts to submit certain information to the Nevada Legislature. (A.C.R. 4)

• BDR 3-514 - An Act relating to sovereign immunity; removing the limitation to certain damages that may be awarded to a person in a tort action against the State of Nevada or any of its political subdivisions for an act or omission of certain officers or employees thereof or of an immune contractor or state legislator; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. (A.B. 119)

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE BDRS

COLLECTIVELY.

MR. MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson explained there were copies of a study done by an interim subcommittee he had chaired, which dealt with Fees, Fines, Forfeitures and Administrative Assessments Imposed and Collected by Courts, Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R) 10 of the Sixty ninth Session (Exhibit C).

Chairman Anderson gave a brief overview of the legislative history of S.C.R.10 and explained he had the pleasure of serving as chairman of the subcommittee. His prepared remarks are attached as Exhibit D. After completing his overview of the resolution, Chairman Anderson introduced the legislative auditors who completed the 1995 audit report.

First to be introduced was Mr. Gary Crews, the Legislative Auditor. He was accompanied by Rocky Cooper, Audit Supervisor, and Stephen Wood, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor. That division completed the audit of the state courts in 1995. That audit and conclusions were the basis for the S.C.R. 10 study.

Mr. Crews commenced his presentation by pointing out one of the primary functions of the audit was to determine if all fines and assessments were properly received, collected, and remitted to the state. He stated, unfortunately, what they had found were widespread management control weaknesses within the state’s court system. Because of that lack of management, millions of dollars in state fines were uncollected or not remitted to the State of Nevada. He believed retention of fines by local governments, instead of remission to the permanent school fund, was a violation of the Nevada Constitution.

Mr. Crews noted the audit report focused on Nevada Highway Patrol citations issued in fiscal year 1993. The audit was completed in fiscal year 1995, but because of issues regarding uncollected revenue, it had come before the legislature again in 1997. That prompted another interim study. He expressed his concern for the financial impact that might have on local governments, but stated it also had a major monetary impact on the permanent school fund. He stressed that issue by pointing out from 1993 to date, he estimated $50 to $60 million in fines, fees, forfeitures, and assessments had not been properly collected and remitted to the state as provided by the constitution and state law. He also noted if a reasonable interest rate, such as 5 percent, had been assumed on that amount, $2.5 to $3 million per year would have been earned by the permanent school fund.

Mr. Crews referred to the report by the interim study committee (Exhibit C) which contained an appendix (B) to the study, beginning on page 27 and concluding on page 72. Mr. Cooper conducted the audit and had visited 53 courts and studied 700 citations during the course of the audit.

Chairman Anderson wanted to clarify although the state school distributive fund was not a parcel of this committee, the dollars that had been lost from those accounts need to be made up in general revenue dollars. That would impact other programs which had to be sustained from the general fund. He also stated the actual loss to education was not in real dollars, but a loss to the general fund because those dollars had to be made up. He asked Mr. Crews if that was a true statement, to which Mr. Crews agreed.

Mr. Cooper directed attention to page 40 of the study, which discussed distribution of fines and provided an explanation of the information found on pages 41 through 48 of Exhibit C.

Chairman Anderson commented on the inconsistency in collection and expressed that was why the committee was concerned. The situation was exacerbated when municipal and justice courts had been combined into a single court in several jurisdictions.

Mr. Wood directed attention to a rate table on page 49 of the study, which indicated there was an overall collection rate of 63 percent. He felt collection rates approaching 80 percent should have been attainable. He continued to discuss information contained on pages 49 through 58 of the report (Exhibit C). In conclusion, he referred to a list of recommendations found on page 58. The recommendations were directed to the Administrative Office of the Courts, under direction of the Supreme Court.

Responding to Mr. Wood, Chairman Anderson stated in regard to the four recommendations by the auditors, several of those audit procedures were taken up by the Administrative Office of the Courts (A.O.C), and some procedural changes had been accomplished as a result of the recommendations. He asked for confirmation on that. Mr. Crews responded he thought the courts had accepted some of the recommendations, and perhaps implemented them, but they had not completed a followup audit. Mr. Anderson asked if Mr. Crews and the staff of auditors had any plans for a subsequent audit of the courts. Mr. Crews responded they had not added it to the 2-year plan and would like to complete prior audits before considering another audit of the courts.

Mr. Anderson called for questions from the committee relative to the audit.

Mr. Collins questioned that recommendations found in the audit did not address staffing procedures for the smaller counties. He observed it instructed them to do the procedures, but did not allow for part-time employees or employees who had combined duties, which would restrict quality control and accountability. He also pointed out they were using a 1993 audit. Staff of those smaller counties might be in the same position of attempting to be current on their procedures as well.

Mr. Crews agreed with Mr. Collins that some of the local governments were small operations, but felt that was where the A.O.C. was taking a major role. He stated they provide guidance, set up procedures, and assist smaller county governments, and the statute actually provided for that.

Chairman Anderson pointed out to Mr. Collins, Mr. Crews was correct in his statement there had been a dramatic change since the A.O.C. had assumed a major responsibility in assisting smaller counties. There had been a certain level of reluctance on the part of those local entities because of their concerns about increased cost of personnel and the technological cost of installing computer systems. He stated that was, in part, what the concurrent resolution had dealt with.

Mr. Carpenter questioned Mr. Crews’ summary which indicated the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s opinion that those traffic citations, in which the person paid the amount and "everybody goes merrily on their way," should be a fine rather than a bail forfeiture. Mr. Carpenter asked under what scenario would it be a bail forfeiture.

Mr. Crews responded there were certain provisions in which bail forfeitures were intended to apply, but Mr. Cooper could probably answer the question better than he.

Mr. Cooper explained the bail forfeiture issue was related to posting bail and assurance that someone would appear in court. There was a provision for posting major bails in amounts of $10,000 or $20,000. The issue the auditors addressed when they asked the legislative counsel for clarification was, when a person paid a traffic citation by mail, were they really posting bail with the intent to come back to court and contest the citation. He pointed out that was addressed on page 44 of Exhibit C. He also referred to Exhibit C when he explained there was a complete legal opinion on the posting bail issue. The auditors asked if the persons involved did not come back to court, were they supposed to be arrested for failing to appear. The legislative counsel took that into consideration when they formed the opinion, when a fine was paid by mail, they essentially were paying for the citation and not posting bail.

Chairman Anderson explained Ms. Lang would give a presentation later in the meeting, and address those issues. He wanted to clarify that the auditors were there to explain why the audit was needed, the historical development of the audit, and what were major failings of the courts to collect a substantial dollar amount. He also explained there was a public perception that when the judge handed down a fine, the fine was going to be paid. He asserted the judge was not responsible for collecting the fine himself, but his court had that responsibility. He asked Mr. Crews if that was a true statement. Mr. Crews responded it was correct and the collection effort was a major portion as was the forfeiture issue.

Chairman Anderson proceeded to explain forfeiture was the issue that had to be ultimately dealt with again. In fairness to the courts, if the legislature was going to ask them to come up with a clean accounting practice, they must make a definitive statement of whether it was forfeiture or not, and if there was a loss of dollar revenue. He stated there was clearly a loss of revenue dollars and it was the responsibility of the legislature to make a constitutional amendment to clearly state what would happen regarding forfeitures. He asked Mr. Carpenter if he understood and asked him to just address the audit.

Mr. Carpenter asked on what page in Exhibit C would he find the diagram explaining the distribution of fines from Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) citations.

Mr. Crews referred him to page 43 and explained according to the diagram, most people did not appear and payments were considered bail forfeitures instead of fines, and that local government retained those. He stressed those made up a large portion of the dollars identified in their report.

Mr. Carpenter still emphasized he wanted clarification between fine and forfeiture. He pointed out according to the report, in the area of driving under the influence and other traffic citations, some judges collected fines immediately. If they collected those fines, which would be going to the state, it would help with the deficiency. He believed when a person put money up to pay a traffic ticket, it was not a fine. If the judges collected fines for traffic citations and the like, it would go a long way toward equalizing the funds, no matter if they went to the state coffers, the counties or wherever.

Mr. Crews noted they did not have statewide statistics in that area, but in the one court at which they looked, it was very significant. He did not know if it was characteristic of the state as a whole but, did know for traffic citations, it was a statewide problem. It was a problem which needed to be addressed, so "everybody is playing on the same court." He said everybody was doing it differently; everybody was interpreting the laws differently and it needed to be clarified.

Mr. Crews stressed the fact when the auditors initially issued the report, they saw it as having administrative remedy to the situation. They viewed the AOC having responsibility for the whole process. He expressed the opinion they did not carry out their responsibilities. That was why their recommendations addressed the AOC. The AOC had the power to enforce that, and did not comply with the recommendations.

Chairman Anderson noted Mr. Carpenter also sat on the fees, fines, and forfeitures subcommittee and had heard the argument several times. Chairman Anderson went on to describe a hypothetical situation in which he received a citation from the NHP, for excessive speed between Elko and Carlin. After he returned home, he mailed in the amount of the citation to the court in Carlin, and it was considered a forfeiture. He continued with this hypothetical situation by explaining if he appeared in court in Carlin, argued his case, and the judge determined he was still liable for the citation, then it was a fine. He went on to explain both situations were treated differently; if he admitted guilt and paid the fine, it was a forfeiture, but if he fought the citation and lost, it was a fine. He stressed that did not make sense to him.

Mr. Carpenter, referring to the table on page 42 and the diagram on page 43 of Exhibit C, continued to express his opinion if the judges had been doing their jobs, situation would never have occurred. He questioned if it would take a constitutional amendment to correct it.

Mr. Collins wanted to express an observation he had made. He queried if it was the conclusion of the study, that if a person paid somebody for not using their time, versus if a person used their time, they were not compensated.

Ms. Leslie referring to page 56, which pertained to uniform court procedures, questioned if two-thirds of those responding indicated at least some improvement would be made, because statewide accounting procedures were developed, what did the other one-third think?

Mr. Cooper responded since that was a survey, he would try to answer it as best as he could. He visited more than 50 courts and, over a period of time, each one had developed its own procedures. Because of those differences, it was the desire by those surveyed for the courts to standardize. He felt the courts were looking for guidance at that point in time.

Mr. Crews wanted to address the fact that some of courts are sophisticated enough to have good collection procedures, but it was smaller courts which needed guidance. He used Washoe County as an example of courts with good collection procedures.

Chairman Anderson referred to his opening remarks (Exhibit D) when he stated some of the legislation on fees, fines, and forfeitures, passed last time, had been cleared up, making the collection of fines by a collection agency a little more acceptable.

Mr. Collins noted there was an amnesty program in Clark County at Christmas time for fees, fines, and forfeitures. He questioned whether there was a local obligation as well as a state obligation, if the county waived those fees, were they still bound to the state for some of the money.

Mr. Crews interpreted it would be up to the judge to waive the fee, so in that situation there would be obligation.

Mr. Carpenter, in reference to the example Mr. Crews had made in which he stated one of the courts had imposed $96,000 and had collected $1,800, he questioned if that court was in Elko, to which Mr. Crews responded in the negative.

Mr. Carpenter continued if $96,000 in fines was imposed on DUIs, the court to which Mr. Crews was referring must have a high DUI conviction rate, and there must be quite a few courts out there that were doing about the same thing.

Mr. Crews replied it could very well be, but they had only studied one district court to get an idea on how it functioned. The primary interest of the audit had been with fines and fees for traffic citations and they had not gone to district courts.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Carpenter to refer to pages 60 and 61 of Exhibit C, which contained a table showing statistical samples drawn from the various NHP citations only. There was no breakdown of citations relative to DUIs, but the audit included all jurisdictions of the state, and statistically, all counties came out pretty even.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang to give a summary of the final report of the subcommittee. Refer to Exhibit C.

Mr. Lang opened her presentation stating she served as the nonpartisan staff to the subcommittee on fees, fines, and forfeitures. She also mentioned Ms. Leslie Hamner also served as legal staff on that committee and would be assisting Ms. Lang during the session.

Ms. Lang provided an overview of the entire report. She discussed the five major issues the subcommittee considered over the course of the study, (Exhibit E). She stated she would only discuss one of the four recommendations contained in the report. Refer to appendix I of the final report on page 191 of Exhibit C. She would provide the other three in tomorrow’s meeting.

Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Lang if it was true bail forfeitures remained with local governments. Ms. Lang responded it was true. Mr. Carpenter then proceeded to give a hypothetical situation if he hit Mr. Anderson and was arrested and taken to jail, he could post bail and get out. And if he did not appear in court to plead guilty or not guilty, it would be bail forfeiture. He continued with that scenario by stating if he and Mr. Anderson were driving from Carlin to Elko and were stopped by the NHP for speeding and they took him to jail, he could post bail and leave. Then if he did not appear in court regarding the ticket, that would also be bail forfeiture. He asked Ms. Lang if these two scenarios were the same.

Ms. Lang responded she thought the difference was if you were taken into custody and released on bail, and then showed up in court, you would get that money back. Whereas, bail forfeitures that are paid on traffic citations were not returned to you.

Mr. Carpenter explained the point he was trying to make was in a great number of situations when you were arrested, you were allowed to post bail and leave. He also repeated the same was true if you received a traffic citation, and the NHP took you to jail. You were allowed to post bail and leave. But he stated by being able to mail in your payment for a traffic citation, instead of being taken to jail and posting bail for the citation, it was making it easier for the police and the courts to handle those citations. He concluded his statement by questioning what the difference was between posting bail and mailing the payment in for the citation.

Ms. Lang responded she did not want to argue the point, but if you were in jail and you got out on bail forfeiture, you did not just forfeit the bail and you were "off the hook." At that point, the court would issue a failure to appear in court and you were still liable for the underlying offense. She repeated that was the difference between a bail forfeiture where you were taken in for battery versus bail forfeiture paid on a traffic citation, where it ended the consequences of the charges against you.

Chairman Anderson added to Ms. Lang’s explanation, a bail amount was a percentage of the overall fine, which was considered to be the bail rather than the full amount, and that a person was putting up this percentage as real property for your promise to appear. Whereas, with traffic citations, the signature was the promise to appear, and if you chose to mail in the assessment, you were admitting guilt by paying the fine. He addressed Mr. Carpenter and stated there was a difference between the two situations.

Mr. Carpenter repeated he still did not see the difference between the two. He went on to explain a person had the simplified process of mailing in a payment for a citation, but that person could do the same thing if the NHP took you to jail for the citation and payment was made right then. To Mr. Carpenter, whatever a person paid was bail and if the person did not appear in court, the person forfeited the bail.

In addressing Ms. Lang, Mr. Brower noted in the report, Mr. Noel Waters, Carson City District Attorney, had written a letter (Appendix G, page 153 of Exhibit C) which expressed concern with the practice of changing citations from Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to local ordinance. He was not clear, if it was the conclusion of the report that practice was unlawful, or perhaps it had just not been a good practice.

Responding to the question, Ms. Lang stated it was the opinion of Legislative Counsel certain procedures would have to be implemented in order to do that practice and it appeared the courts were not using those procedures. It was the counsel’s opinion that practice should change; however, the committee had not taken any action. There was a division as to how they felt it should have been handled.

Mr. Brower noted Mr. Waters had made a very compelling case that the practice did comply with Nevada law. He asked Ms. Lang if the report disagreed with Mr. Waters’ opinion, or had they not taken a position. Ms. Lang stated the report itself did not disagree, but the Legislative Counsel took a different position.

In pointing out he chaired the interim committee, Chairman Anderson said he might be able to explain how those different opinions were reached. He used an example of how the direction of fees, fines, and forfeitures could be changed easily. If a clerk at the front desk drew a line through a citation and administratively changed it from a NRS citation to a municipal citation, without going through a court process, it could change the direction of that citation. Another example he used was the court itself. From the bench the judge could make a change in the citation from a NRS statute to a county ordinance, again changing where the fees, fines and forfeitures were being directed. He reiterated Mr. Carpenter’s concern of what was going to be done about the question of forfeitures and there was a dollar amount attached to it. He noted there were three basic questions that needed to be addressed. The first was the constitutional question of what to do with fines, because forfeitures were not a big question in 1864. The second was what the Legislative Counsel Bureau had stated and the third was the AOC and the accounting questions they were trying to address and to clean up so there was a single practice that was uniform.

Ms. McClain noted she has not had a chance to go through the entire report, but based on past conversations she asked if they were going to address the issue of changing NHP to local ordinance violations?

Chairman Anderson responded procedurally every time the legislature met it met as a fresh, new body, and was not bound by past practices of past legislators and, therefore, that session came forward with a new set of books. He stated they could address the older questions the committee may have chosen to ignore; however, at that time they were restricting themselves to the committee recommendations.

For clarification, Ms. McClain asked if the committee was only dealing with the issues which affect justice court and not municipal court. Chairman Anderson responded that was generally the case.

With no further questions for Ms. Lang, Chairman Anderson introduced Jeanne Botts, Senior Program Analyst with the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. He asked her to provide information concerning the state permanent school fund and the affects the lack of deposits had on that fund and the state general fund.

Ms. Botts commenced her presentation by stating she was neither supporting nor opposing the bill, but was appearing to provide information only. At that point she provided a spread sheet (Exhibit F) for the committee, showing the sources of revenue to the permanent school fund. She proceeded to discuss Article 11, section 3 of the Nevada Constitution. It stated all proceeds from the sale of lands given or bequeathed to the state, for educational purposes, and fines collected under the penal laws of this state, shall be pledged for educational purposes only, and shall not be transferred to other funds for other uses. Continuing, she pointed out the 1956 special session of the legislature provided for the creation of the state permanent school fund to account for money accruing to the state, from this section of the constitution. The permanent school fund was created as a non-expendable trust fund to ensure the corpus of the fund would be preserved. All earnings from the fund’s assets were transferred to the state distributive school account in the state general fund, and then were apportioned among the several school districts around the state. She noted the 1997 legislature added a provision which allowed school districts to enter into guarantee agreements with the state treasurer, whereby money in the permanent school fund was used to guarantee the debt service payments on school bonds issued by the school district.

Ms. Botts went on to explain the amount of the guarantee for bonds from each district, outstanding at any one time must not exceed $25 million. The White Pine School District and the Douglas County School District had entered into guarantee agreements since the passage of the legislation in 1997, having guaranteed general obligation bond principal amounts totaling $7.5 million and $8.7 million, respectively, during last year. She asked the committee to refer to the spreadsheet (Exhibit F), which showed the revenue sources to the permanent school fund. She stated she isolated those coming from court fines by placing those figures in a box on the left side of the sheet, and then proceeded to read from the spreadsheet and explain the revenue sources.

In fiscal year 1997-98, Ms. Botts noted, $8.4 million had been deposited to the permanent school fund. The fund balance as of September 30, 1998, was $67 million. She mentioned she had contacted the state controller’s office the day before and they had not concluded their quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 1998. Interest earned on the investments of the permanent school fund and an amount equal to the change in fair market value of the investments were transferred to the distributive school account each quarter. A little over $5 million was transferred to the account for fiscal year 1997-98. Five million dollars was transferred to the distributive school account and proportioned out to the school districts, which comprised .95 percent of the $523 million apportioned to districts from the distributive school account. The same $5 million comprised .36 percent of the $1.4 billion spent by Nevada’s 17 school districts, through their general and special education funds, all during the same fiscal period.

Special revenue funds of the school districts for categorical programs, such as class size reduction or federally funded programs, were not included in those programs. She added capital projects or debt service funds were not included either. She stated if the $5 million in income from the permanent school fund was not available for transfer to the distributive school account, the amount would have to be made up by increased appropriations from the state general fund to the distributive school account. Any increase in revenue to the permanent school fund, which might result from more fines directed to the fund, or improved collection of delinquent fines, helped reduce the amount of state general fund revenue needed by the distributive school account.

Ms. Botts stressed Nevada had continued to lead the nation in the growth rate of school enrollment, by over 5 percent per year for more than a decade. With each increase in enrollment, roughly $60 to $70 million per year was added in school expenses, not including amounts needed for class size reduction.

Ms. Botts stated the general fund appropriations to the distributive school account in the upcoming biennium, was estimated to be $547.5 million in the first year and $568 million in the second year. She pointed out if the additional $5.5 million the auditors found in their study had been deposited to the permanent school fund, the general fund appropriations to the distributive school account might have been reduced. In the report by the legislative auditors, if the improved collection procedures and the direction of the fines to the permanent school fund had been followed, from 1993 to the current date, approximately $50 to $60 million more would have been available in the fund. She reminded the committee as of September 30, 1998, there was about $67 million in the fund.

Referring to NRS 387.030, State Distributive Account, Mr. Collins asked Ms. Botts if the money from increased sales tax for education, which was passed by the legislature a few years back, had gone from the General Fund back to the school fund over the years.

Ms. Botts confirmed that the local school support tax, 2.25 cents, of the sales tax went directly to the school districts, as well as 75 cents of the property tax, for school operations. The distributive school account made up the difference between what the two local sources produced and what was needed to meet the school’s guaranteed basic support.

Mr. Collins asked for clarification, because he had been told differently. At each biennium in which the legislature met, a certain amount of money was put into a budget and distributed back to the counties for the schools. He stressed he wanted to make sure some of that money was not kept in the General Fund, either from sales tax or property tax, and that 100 percent went into the school fund.

Ms. Botts tried to clarify what Mr. Collins had been told, by noting when the revenue from the portion of sales tax that went to schools exceeded what had been estimated, the school got less state aid from the distributive school account. She used Clark County as an example, where revenue from the local school support tax had greatly exceeded estimates; therefore, they had received less state aid. Because of that, her opinion was it had been characterized incorrectly that the state kept sales tax. Schools had been getting their sales tax, but because their revenues had been high, they were getting less state aid. That was why Mr. Collins may have thought some money was kept in the General Fund.

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification regarding money allotted to each school district. He asked, on the average, did each school receive the same amount of money per student? Ms. Botts said each county had a different dollar amount, guaranteed per student in that county, and was derived from the formula of the Nevada Plan, which guaranteed an equitable education. It guaranteed more revenue for the rural counties, which had a lesser ability to generate their own revenue, and a smaller amount for the larger counties which had more local wealth.

Chairman Anderson still wanted to emphasize the fact the state did guarantee a minimal amount of revenue for every student, regardless of where they attended school in the state. He pointed out if there was a shortfall in mining revenue or taxes in a school district, then it would require a greater effort from the state to meet the minimum dollar requirement. Conversely, if there was greater mining revenue and taxes, it would require a lesser effort by the state in order to meet the minimum requirement per student.

Mr. Collins again asked for confirmation that, by law, two taxes that were directed for education were going 100 percent back to education, and Ms. Botts confirmed.

Chairman Anderson, referring to the spreadsheet wanted to make sure he was drawing the right conclusion from the information contained in the spreadsheet. He stressed Nevada remained the fastest growing state in the Union. From that fact, he would draw the conclusion there would be a greater number of traffic fines because of increased traffic; yet he pointed out there was less revenue being generated for the permanent distributive school fund since 1987. He noted fines collected in justice court in 1987 were $1,245,902 and fines collected in 1997-98 were almost $3 million. In that period of time the State of Nevada had a 60 percent population increase, yet there had not been an equal percentage of revenue from fines collected in the same time period. He asked for confirmation on that statement.

Ms. Botts agreed with his conclusion, and pointed to those same figures on the spreadsheet.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.C.R. 2 and testimony commenced.

Ms. Karen Kavanau, Director of the A.O.C., offered to provide the committee with a brief status report on the A.O.C.’s progress toward the initiative contained in A.C.R. 2. Ms. Kavanau read from a prepared statement,(Exhibit G).

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Kavanau if she felt A.C.R. 2 would go a long way toward implementing some of the needs of the court and reaffirm support of the legislature to meet the judicial branch’s needs? Ms. Kavanau responded the key word was reaffirm, and she felt it would underscore the court’s desires and objectives.

Mr. Collins commented during the course of that morning’s meeting he heard local governments, auditors, and now administrators do not have the resources to implement a program to make the resolution work. He asked for confirmation of that statement. Ms. Kavanau explained the A.O.C. was capable of completing their work without a full staff, but there was a lot of work yet to do. She felt A.C.R. 2 underscored some of the things the A.O.C. could do, and they were doing. She commented it was unfortunate the A.O.C. had only recently, in the past 18 months, taken the role everyone had expected it to take and the A.O.C. now had the full cooperation of the state court system.

Chairman Anderson added reinforcement to Ms. Kavanau’s position by stating the Legislative Commission and the Interim Finance Committee had given additional support to the A.O.C.

Ms. Buckley made an observation pertaining to all issues explored by the subcommittee. She felt there were compelling arguments on both sides. She stated improved collection procedures were supported by everybody, and applauded the court for looking at that now. She pointed out Ms. Kavanau had not been with the court when it had not done much in the collection area, and she spoke for everyone when she said the improved collection procedures would improve funds for the local governments and add potential revenue for the school funds.

Mr. Carpenter concurred with Ms. Buckley’s statement, but asked Ms. Kavanau if she felt the resolution gave them enough latitude to meet the needs of all the courts? In responding, Ms. Kavanau stated if Mr. Carpenter was asking if they had enough money, the answer was no. The courts implemented technology for those systems with money from a number of different sources. She pointed out the A.O.C. had about $300,000 a year that it distributed in grants and loans. There were federal grants, loans and local government funding, and until every court in Nevada had a minimum level of technology, the A.O.C. would not achieve 100 percent of a uniform system for judicial records. She wanted to point out it did not have to be as expensive as a number of people perceive. Many of the courts around the state already had the technology. In her opinion, the resolution affirmed the role the A.O.C. had been given due to NRS 1.360. The statute was already there and required the A.O.C. to look at the operation of the individual courts and make recommendations to the Chief Justice for improvement. The statute also required the A.O.C. to collect caseload statistics. She said that had not been happening, so there was still work needed to comply with existing mandates.

Chairman Anderson addressed Mr. Carpenter’s concern about the latitude given by the resolution. He reminded Mr. Carpenter about the auditor’s finding there was no uniformity in the way the courts were handling fees, fines, and forfeitures, and that was why the A.O.C. must take a more proactive role. Chairman Anderson pointed out the resolution was reaffirming the position they had already taken, and felt encouragement was necessary. He stated he was not trying to laud the court, but clearly there had been a dramatic change in their attitude over the last 18 months.

Mr. Carpenter agreed with Chairman Anderson, but pointed out some of the wording in A.C.R 2 concerned him. He referred to page 2, lines 18 and 19 of the resolution, where it specified "the development of uniform collection policies, procedures and support systems." He wondered if that gave the courts the latitude to use different systems in different areas. His concern was that somebody would read it literally.

Ms. Kavanau stated she understood Mr. Carpenter’s concern about not using one procedure or one policy for every court. She stressed everyone knows one policy would not work for everybody, and pointed out the objective of the task force was to identify a series of practices that would work best for each court’s environment. She also stated she did not read the part of the resolution to which Mr. Carpenter had referred to, as everyone needing the same technology or the same anything. She stressed technology was just a tool that produced information. What the A.O.C. was looking for was uniform information. How the courts got the information to them was important. They were not interested in what vendor’s product they chose, they were only interested in receiving data that met the uniform standards.

Chairman Anderson drew attention to page 2, line 17 of A.C.R 2, where it stated "without limitation, the development of minimum standards." He pointed out, given the other language of the existing law, the A.O.C. already had the capability to do some of those things. He used Clark County versus Mountain City as an example of why all of the courts did not need the same systems.

Mr. Carpenter asked the resolution be changed to state a person did not need to have uniform collection policies, procedures, and support systems. He asked it allow each individual court to tailor it to their specifications.

Ms. Lang was asked for her opinion on changing the wording of the resolution. She pointed out the resolution was encouraging them to take certain actions, and the wording was set out in their own recommendations to the subcommittee. She stressed it was the committee’s way of telling them they wanted them to develop something uniform.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if Mr. Carpenter’s concerns were already addressed in the language, or did there need to be further clarification. Ms. Lang responded that if it was the desire to the committee the language could be changed, as long as the A.O.C. was under the correct understanding that was to provide guidelines for them and was not a requirement. She stressed that it was just an encouragement to take those actions.

Ms. Kavanau suggested the word "effective" replace the word "uniform."

In referring to lines 18 and 26 of A.C.R. 2, Chairman Anderson asked that the word "uniform" be replaced with the less directive word "effective."

Chairman Anderson stated the motion: an amend and do pass on A.C.R. 2. The amendment was being stated at lines 18 and 26, of page 2, remove the word "uniform" and substitute it with the word "effective."

The meeting adjourned at 10:38 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Chris Casey,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: