The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, February 8, 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 called the meeting to order and reminded the audience to turn off all devices that emitted a noise so the committee would not be distracted. He explained the committee would not be hearing any bills and therefore, not taking any testimony, but asked those in attendance to please sign in.

For the committee’s review, Chairman Anderson presented Amendment 9 to Assembly Bill 24 prior to it being submitted to the floor. He recalled Mr. Carpenter requested the amendment to enable the court to recover the total fee charged by the issuer for the use of the credit card or debit card. He confirmed with Ms. Lang that other potential amendments discussed by the committee were unnecessary because those issues were already addressed in earlier chapters of the NRS.

Chairman Anderson first welcomed Scott Young, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, who would be joining the committee in Don Williams’ absence, and then introduced Robert Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons.

Mr. Bayer provided an overview of Nevada’s prison system. He introduced Glen Whorton, Chief of the Classification and Planning Division, and Dr. Rex Reed, Research Analyst, Nevada Department of Prisons, who would be assisting in the presentation.

Mr. Bayer announced Nevada had an outstanding law enforcement community and due to previous legislative sessions and capable executive leadership by Governors O’Callahan, List, Bryan, Miller and now Kenny Guinn, Nevada also had an outstanding reputation in the prison system. He noted Mr. Whorton and Dr. Reed were invited to Washington D.C. to do a presentation on classification systems, projections, and computers in the criminal justice system because Nevada’s program was so well reputed.

Mr. Bayer further noted Nevada’s cost effective system; the cost per inmate, per day was $42.12. In 1997, Arizona’s inmate cost per day was $5.78 per inmate higher than Nevada. Alaska’s inmate cost was $65.40 higher with only nine states being cheaper than Nevada. Mr. Bayer exclaimed, "We sentence inmates more per capita for a longer sentence than most any other state. We do it safer. We do it more efficiently than most every state."

Mr. Bayer continued his presentation by explaining the distinctions between jail and prison, probation and parole. He pointed out a jail housed pretrial detainees and misdemeanants. Misdemeanants, by nature of the crime and the sentence imposed, were generally not a serious threat to the community. A prison housed felons or long-term inmates. Felons were usually more dangerous and more violent offenders. The distinction was important because it meant a difference in case law, sentencing, constitutional rights of the inmate, and ultimately how was facility is operated. He commented, "It should also make a difference when legislation about misdemeanants versus felons is considered." In explaining the difference between probation, parole, and house arrest, he emphasized the distinction was set forth by statute. Probation was given to an inmate before he went to prison. An inmate was paroled when and if they had been in prison and were allowed to finish their sentence in the community. An inmate was put on house arrest when they had gone through programming, were close to the end of their sentence, and had not been a problem in the prison system. Immediately prior to parole, they would be in the community under intense supervision by parole and probation. Under house arrest, an inmate’s due process was limited more so than if they were on probation.

Chairman Anderson drew attention to two handouts provided by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division, on the penalties for various felonies. The handouts were attached as Exhibit C and Exhibit D (Exhibit D being sorted by category of felonies).

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall questioned if the $42.12 cost per inmate included all costs, specifically the cost of incarceration? Mr. Bayer replied it did.

Assemblyman Manendo asked if any portion of the Ely State Prison was privatized. Mr. Bayer explained the medical services were privatized and had been since 1995.

Assemblyman Carpenter pondered if there were very many DUI’s who were put on house arrest. Mr. Bayer said there were approximately 89 DUI offenders on house arrest.

In regard to house arrest, Assemblyman Gustavson questioned whether inmates paid any of the cost or if the state paid for all of it. Mr. Bayer replied the inmates paid as much as they could for the house arrest equipment, and parole and probation also had funds available. They made sure the inmates had a job before they went on house arrest.

Assemblywoman Angle wondered if a salary comparison had been done between the states in regard to the prison staff and how Nevada compared. Mr. Bayer did not have that information with him, but stated he would obtain it for the committee.

Ms. Angle also asked if Nevada had a furlough program. Mr. Bayer stated it had the authority to provide furloughs, but did not utilize it and had not for 15 or 20 years.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked if Ely was a model prison, how Lovelock Correctional Center compared. Mr. Bayer stated the Lovelock state prison was Nevada’s second model prison. It was also a state-of-the-art, well-run prison for medium security inmates.

Chairman Anderson announced Mr. Manendo would be making arrangements for interested members to tour the Northern Nevada Correctional Facility and encouraged those members who had not seen a prison to go.

Glen Whorton, Chief of Classification and Planning Division, Nevada Department of Prisons, continued the presentation, referring to tab one of the notebook provided to the committee and attached hereto as Exhibit E. The map on page 1 displayed the location of the 20 institutions and facilities throughout the state. He explained page two provided general statistics and page three showed monthly statistics, which provided a clear view of population projection and performance.

Mr. Whorton continued his presentation, referring the committee to a series of slides focusing on the following matters (Exhibit F):

Slide 3: Historical look at inmate population

Slide 5: Current housing status

Slides 15 to 16: Distribution of offense types

Slides 17 to 18: Categories of offenses

Slide 26: Migration of S.B. 416 (Senate Bill 416 of the 68^th session) inmate population

Chairman Anderson inquired if the projection had become more reliable since S.B. 416 (made various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies). Mr. Bayer asked for more time to gather that information.

Chairman Anderson recognized several large decisions were made about the construction at Lovelock Correctional Center and of Cold Creek State Prison based upon the intent of legislation of the 1995 session and the projected prison population. He noted the question of availability of open beds still existed.

Assemblywoman Buckley commented on a letter she had received which indicated inmates in disciplinary could still earn good time credits. A brief discussion ensued about the earning and removing of good time credits to which Ms. Buckley expressed confusion as to how an inmate who was not following the rules of the prison could earn good time credits. Mr. Whorton concluded, "that process is essentially driven by case law that only allows us to take those credits up to the point of the infraction and after that they are essentially restored because of the practice of giving them."

Chairman Anderson noted good time credits was a major issue of the 1995 legislature. He brought attention to a letter he received indicating inmates were given good time credit for writing letters and asked if that was a way inmates could earn good time credit.

Mr. Whorton recognized the Chairman was probably referring to a situation in which Director Bayer was interested in obtaining the input of inmates placed in out-of-state programs. He noted meritorious good time credit was given in consideration of the stress and difficulties the inmates experienced due to being separated from their families.

Responding to an inquiry by Assemblyman Nolan, Mr. Bayer replied there was a guideline used to determine how many good time credits could be taken away for a particular offense. Mr. Nolan requested a copy of that guideline.

Mr. Carpenter asked for more information on those inmates convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). Mr. Whorton stated there were approximately 600 DUI offenders, representing 6 percent of the total population. Every DUI offender was considered for placement in an in-house treatment program operated at the Indian Springs Conservation Center. That was a requirement before one could be placed in the residential confinement program. Those who did not go in residential confinement were placed in minimum custody and community trustee facilities. That was where the majority of offenders were placed.

Mr. Whorton proceeded to review the charts behind tab one of Exhibit E.

In regard to drugs in prison, Assemblyman Collins noted there was zero tolerance in our schools, there should be zero tolerance in our prisons.

Assemblywoman Leslie agreed with Mr. Collins’ concern, asking, specifically, how many incidents there had been involving drugs in the prison. Mr. Bayer agreed to provide the number of disciplanaries that had occurred and how many drug tests had come back positive. He stated since 1995, Nevada has had one of the most aggressive campaigns of interdiction.

Referring to page three, tab one of Exhibit E, Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Bayer why there appeared to be a number of prisons where the population was over the emergency threshold capacity. Mr. Whorton stated over the last couple of sessions, the Nevada Department of Prisons’ practice had been to create their budget based on the emergency threshold capacity. He noted for a short period of time, it was safe to operate at that level, although they would prefer the population be lower.

Chairman Anderson expressed the committee’s desire to briefly address two issues that had recently arisen and stated the remainder of the prison presentation would be rescheduled. He apologized to Carlos Concha, Chief of Parole and Probation, and stated his presentation would also be rescheduled.

Chairman Anderson explained there were two policy points relative to the prison system: 1) The potential closing of Jean Conservation Camp (Jean) and 2) The possibility of privatization of medical services. He recognized Peter Ernaut, Office of the Governor, who came forward to briefly review those issues.

Mr. Ernaut announced while Mr. Bayer was a trusted and well-respected department head, questions about those issues should be directed to the governor’s office, being they were the governor’s policies. He recognized there were items in the budget that were not popular, however, they were necessary because Nevada was not enjoying a surplus as were many states, but a $141 million deficit.

In regard to the privatization of medical services, he acknowledged that was a difficult decision for the governor, but precedent existed. Mr. Ernaut pointed out, most recently, the bi-partisan vote by the legislature to fully privatize the Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility in North Las Vegas. He conveyed the governor’s belief it would be an effective program and one that Nevada needed.

Ms. Buckley expressed an interest in hearing some details about the governor’s plan for Jean. Mr. Ernaut noted there would be other hearings on that issue, but he would try to give a brief overview.

He elucidated Jean, "has been a historical and maintenance nightmare for this state," and was in desperate need of repair. The governor’s plan consisted of temporarily closing Jean in order to accomplish the following goals: 1) look at leasing the facility to other states such as California and Arizona and 2) to refurbish the facility while no inmates were there, or a combination of the two. He continued the inmates and personnel at Jean would be relocated to phase II of the Cold Springs facility, which they anticipated would be at half capacity. If more beds were needed, Nevada would still own Jean. He made the committee aware a question might come up in connection with the Jean facility sitting on Bureau of Land Management land but emphasized, "we can’t, nor would we want to give up ownership of it." The temporary closure would save Nevada approximately $10 million. The potential was there to turn a liability into an asset.

Mr. Ernaut reasoned the governor’s desire to privatize medical services in the prison system stemmed from the need for cost savings, which had been shown to be plausible by the privatization at Ely. He explained the legislature had addressed managed care for many sessions in regard to workers compensation, the elderly, and working families. From the governor’s standpoint, if managed care was adequate for our families and for the working men and women of the state, then it should be good enough for Nevada’s prisoners. Mr. Ernaut concluded by stating, "We definitely have a responsibility to provide adequate medical services, but we also have a responsibility to provide efficient use of tax dollars to our tax payers."

Ms. Buckley expressed skepticism: "We built the new prison because we needed new beds, not because we now have enough and just wanted a better prison. I am wondering why other states will have it better than us. Their felons will be off the streets but ours won’t be". She, as did other members of the committee, expressed interest in discussing those issues in much more detail.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association, came forward to testify. He stated his interest in letting the state run Jean, rather than another entity. The state could screen the inmates coming in from other states and make sure they were properly classified. His second comment was privatizing the medical services of Nevada’s prison system would not be cost effective. He explained the only reason it was economical in Ely was because the private service sent their sickest inmates back to the state, back to Carson City.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Gagnier for his comments.

Concluding the meeting’s business, he requested the memorandum dated December 9 relative to female inmates earning good time credits be entered into the record. It was attached as Exhibit G.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: