The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 11, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 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. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Tom Collins (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson called the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to order. He recognized the meeting would be video-conferenced with Room 4412 in the Grant Sawyer State Office Building and asked anyone who wished to testify to sign the guest list.

After roll call, Chairman Anderson announced there were two Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) for committee introduction, both requested by the Nevada Judges Association:

• BDR 43-570 - Decreases number of hours of community service that offender convicted of driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance for first time may be required to perform.

• BDR 14-569 - Removes statutory bail amounts required for person arrested for battery that constitutes domestic violence.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated he opposed both BDRs but felt they deserved to be heard.

In response to Assemblymen Gustavson and Brower’s concerns, Chairman Anderson clarified the two BDRs would not affect the number of requests the committee was allowed as a whole.

Chairman Anderson pointed out the committee had the option to reconsider those BDRs at a later date if they felt it was appropriate.

Next, Chairman Anderson brought attention to two documents which had been received relative to two bills heard by the committee on Friday, February 5. A letter from Jay D. Dilworth, Administrative Judge, Reno Municipal Court, in opposition to Assembly Bill 19 was attached as Exhibit C and a memorandum from T. J. Grady, Executive Director of the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, in regard to Assembly Bill 24 was attached as Exhibit D.

Chairman Anderson announced the Nevada Department of Prisons would give the remainder of their presentation on Thursday, February 18 at 3:30 p.m.

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Assembly District 8, Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, Assembly District 21, and Bradley Wilkinson, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, came forward to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study Family Courts. The subcommittee’s detailed report was attached as Exhibit E.

Ms. Buckley, chairman of the subcommittee, began the presentation with a brief history of the subcommittee. In 1996 and 1997, complaints surfaced, primarily in Clark County concerning the family court. The complaints stemmed from not only litigants, but lawyers, judges, and community members. They concerned delays in processing cases, the lack of a uniform system of record keeping, accessibility, inconsistency of decisions, and ex parte communications. Due to the proliferation of those complaints, Chairman Anderson and Assemblywoman Tiffany introduced a resolution creating an interim study of the family courts. Referring to page 9 of Exhibit E, Ms. Buckley recognized the hard work of the subcommittee members, especially Assemblywomen Tiffany, Koivisto and Ohrenschall, as well as the advisory committee.

Ms. Tiffany reiterated Ms. Buckley’s comments and noted her interest in addressing the issue stemmed from the abundance of complaints submitted by her constituents. She recognized the sincere effort and significant thought, input, and analysis that went into studying those problems and recognized the mastery of Ms. Buckley as chairman.

Chairman Anderson also thanked Ms. Tiffany, Ms. Ohrenschall and Ms. Koivisto for their hard work and effort. He commented a citizens’ legislature was about trying to find resolutions for real people with real problems.

Ms. Buckley continued her presentation with a brief outline of the subject matter considered by the subcommittee during the five hearings (pages 12-15, Exhibit E). The first hearing consisted of the history of the family court. She noted it was created by legislation, passed in 1987 and 1989. In 1990, the question of whether the Nevada Constitution should be amended to allow the legislature to create the jurisdiction for a family court was voted on by ballot. The family court began in Clark and Washoe County in 1993. Ms. Buckley recognized the many individuals who testified before the subcommittee and who described the history, intent, and goals of the family court system, as well as goals they believed were not currently being met.

The second hearing was devoted to the topics of timely processing of cases, record keeping, case management, and standardization of procedures. The subcommittee found some cases were being processed in a timely manner but many were not. Also, there was no ability to track cases. Cases existed in which the last document had not been submitted and therefore, for example, couples were not legally divorced or the custody of a child had not been finalized. Similarly, in regard to standardization, there were different procedures in every courtroom. Disagreement between judges started to cause problems. Ms. Buckley said the general consensus of the subcommittee was that the family court system was in a sad state of affairs.

Ms. Buckley noted the third hearing focused on the topic of rotation of judges and whether that would benefit the system. The Honorable Scott Jordan and Hunter Hurst III, Director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice, both expressed their opposition to rotating judges as they believed the disadvantages outnumbered the advantages. She stated the subcommittee decided full rotation was too extreme; it would destroy the concept of the family court. Based on extensive testimony, the recommendation of the subcommittee was to allow for a voluntary, rotation system on a pilot basis in hopes it might improve factors such as judicial burnout and infuse new blood and new ideas.

Ms. Buckley explained another factor discussed at the hearing was caseload. In 1997, in Washoe County there was 1 judge for every 2,088 cases. In Clark County, there was 1 judge for every 4,274 cases. She commented the judges’ overwhelming caseloads were a reappearing theme. The subcommittee decided it would recommend the addition of five judges to the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court, but it would prefer the court requested the bill.

Continuing with her review, Ms. Buckley stated the fourth hearing focused on the strong chief judge model, coordination of cases, alternative dispute resolution and mediation, court assessments, grievances, unrepresented litigants, and citizen recommendations. Currently, the only remedies available for grievances were the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission or to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. She pointed out an appeal to the Supreme Court was not a viable remedy as an attorney had to file a brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, which could be quite costly. The subcommittee also heard testimony from the Honorable Michael A. Town from Hawaii. He provided insight about the implementation of a strong chief judge system and how one of the judge’s responsibilities would be to address grievances by litigants. He stressed the grievances could not be about the merits of the case but about procedure, timely processing, and the demeanor of a judge during a hearing. Ms. Buckley also mentioned the interesting method Judge Towne used to handle some of the complaints. He explained in Hawaii, as in Clark County, all family law cases were videotaped and that proved to be a valuable tool in studying the validity of a complaint. He testified the expanded role of the chief judge worked very well in his community. Ms. Buckley pointed out Assembly Bill 50 would consider that issue in more detail.

In regard to the coordination of cases in the family court, Ms. Buckley explained the lack of coordination had caused a lot of confusion. She noted the subcommittee recommended a resolution urging the courts to better coordinate cases especially those involving the same parties. After the interim committee had finished its hearings, Judge Steele brought to Ms. Buckley’s attention the increasing problem of different judges issuing contradictory orders on the same case. Ms. Buckley announced she would introduce a bill tomorrow, which would ensure there was better coordination and that different judges were not issuing contradictory orders on the same matter, the same family, and the same case.

During the final session, the subcommittee examined each one of the areas and voted on their final recommendations. At that point, the presentation was turned over to Mr. Wilkinson.

Mr. Wilkinson stated as an employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), he would not be advocating the passage or failure of the legislation before the committee. He proceeded to review each of the 24 final recommendations of the subcommittee (pages 1 through 8 of Exhibit E):

• Assignment of judges in the district court

• Role of the chief judge

• Additional family court judges for the Eighth Judicial District Court

• Access to family courts by litigants not represented by an attorney

• Legislative monitoring of the family court caseload

• Coordination of cases

• Case management and tracking

• Assessments

• Mediation

• Settlement conferences

• Family court procedures

• Ex parte communications

• Guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates

• Temporary protective orders

Ms. Buckley proceeded to further review the problems of accessibility to the general public and unrepresented litigants. She pointed out testimony had been received which indicated both Clark and Washoe County had plans to establish self-help law centers. Those centers would not provide legal advice but forms and attorney information. Having been asked by the court, Ms. Buckley noted she had joined a task force composed of the court, Christina Chandler, Administrator of the Family Court in Clark County, a representative of the State Bar, and the Clark County Bar Association, to work on the Clark County center. Since then, funding had been awarded, a facilitator hired, a site chosen, and forms such as do-it-yourself complaints and motions for custody had been drafted. Ms. Buckley recognized some problems could not be solved by legislation, but the legislature would do what it could to improve the system for the betterment of all the people who used it.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged decisions made by the family courts could have profound effects on people’s lives with longstanding outcomes. He expressed it was the legislature’s intent to create the opportunity for the public to be heard and the problems addressed in order to improve the system. He thanked Ms. Buckley and those who served on the committee for all their hard work.

Responding to Assemblyman Nolan’s inquiry, Ms. Buckley pointed out the specific problems in regard to the child support formula and accountability of support payments were not in the scope of the subcommittee. Due to the emotional nature and time needed to address those topics, she suggested it would be an appropriate issue for study by an interim subcommittee.

Assemblywoman Leslie commented she frequently heard the complaint that Washoe County judges had an overwhelming number of cases which affected cases being heard in a timely manner. She questioned if the subcommittee considered expanding the number of judges in Washoe County. Ms. Buckley replied the Washoe County judges had not made that request.

Chairman Anderson pointed out the next order of business before the committee would be Assembly Bill 49.

Ms. Buckley introduced Chuck Short, Court Administrator, and Christina Chandler, Assistant Court Administrator and Administrator of the Family Court Division, who were present in Las Vegas and attending the hearing via video-conferencing. She recognized they provided the subcommittee with support, hard work and cooperation during the study.

Mr. Wilkinson proceeded with a brief review of the language of the bill. He pointed out section 3 defined a "chief judge". That term was used to facilitate the drafting of the bill and also clarified confusion encountered by the subcommittee when discussing the issues. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) currently referred to the person who was the head of the entire district court as the "presiding judge". However, in actual practice, that person was called the "chief judge". The change would attempt to more accurately reflect what was currently occurring.

Pointing out section 7 contained the substantive provisions of the bill, Mr. Wilkinson continued his review. That section would establish the chief judge could allow rotation of judges between the family court and general jurisdiction court for a specific time period, not to extend beyond the term of either of the judges’ terms of office. When one of the judge’s terms ended, the agreement would be finished. Subsection 2 of section 7 provided for the specific conditions of that assignment. He explained other than the length of the assignment, the specific conditions of the agreement could be modified.

Chairman Anderson questioned if a judge could be forced to move against his will. Ms. Buckley explained section 7, line 2 established a double-voluntary system. It would be voluntary on the part of the chief judge to allow the move, as well as the district court judge to agree to move. She stated there was testimony that Washoe County currently operated in that manner and the legislation would allow the law to conform to the practice.

Assemblyman Brower asked for clarification of section 3, specifically how it affected Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 3.025. Ms. Buckley explained NRS 3.025 was standard operating procedure whereby each district selected one judge to be the administrative head. It was done on a rotating basis. She added section 3 of A.B. 49 would not change or alter the current system; it only changed the title of the presiding judge. Mr. Wilkinson added the changes to NRS 3.025 were set out in section 12 of the bill.

Ms. Buckley pointed out A.B. 49 would allow for voluntary rotation of judges on a pilot basis to see if it improved the quality of justice dispensed and also gave the chief judge the additional duty of administering that system.

Referring to section 7, subsection 3(b)(2), Chairman Anderson pondered if 60 days was a sufficient amount of time for the judges to decide the matters before them. Ms. Buckley confirmed the 60 days applied to a matter already submitted to the judge. "It might not be the full resolution of the case but just a pending motion."

After Mr. Wilkinson concluded his review, Chairman Anderson questioned if the judges supported sections 10 and 11. Ms. Buckley stated she did not recall any opposition and explained the reason behind redesignating the courts from letters to numbers was due to testimony indicating sometimes family court judges were treated as inferior to general jurisdiction judges. The policy rationale of the subcommittee was it would be a symbolic elimination of differentiation.

Mr. Brower asked Ms. Buckley if she would expound on the testimony heard by the subcommittee in regard to rotating. She referred him to pages 17 and 18 of Exhibit E. In short, Ms. Buckley pointed out there were people who believed it went against the development of specialization; a reason the family court was created. Timeliness of cases was also a concern. She pointed out some of the possible advantages of rotation were a reduction in judicial burnout, the development of more rounded judges, and the infusion of "freshness". She also noted a judge who was not interested or did not care would not have to switch. Based on the belief it achieved the best of both worlds, the subcommittee determined it would recommend the option for voluntary rotation.

Upon recognition by Chairman Anderson, Karen Kavanau, Director, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), came forward to address the committee. She thanked the A.C.R. 32 subcommittee for their hard work and acknowledged the validity of their recommendations but noted the Supreme Court did have a few concerns. Ms. Kavanau’s written testimony was attached as Exhibit F.

Upon further review, Ms. Kavanau suggested an amendment to the existing language of the bill. She pointed out language on page 7, section 12, subsection 3, currently requested the report to be submitted to "the clerk of the supreme court". Ms. Kavanau stated "the clerk" was incorrect and the report should go to the AOC.

Mr. Wilkinson stated it could be changed very easily but pointed out that issue would be addressed in Assembly Bill 51 which would be heard by the committee tomorrow.

Chairman Anderson said the committee would hold her concerns until the hearing on A.B. 51. There being no further comments on A.B. 49, the Chair closed the hearing and informed the committee he would entertain a motion.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 50.

Ms. Buckley explained A.B. 50 created an additional duty for the chief judge (formerly presiding judge), which would be to address grievances. Based on testimony heard by the subcommittee, it was determined a more efficient method was needed to deal with complaints, not about substantive legal decisions but procedure. Ms. Buckley reiterated judges in other communities testified the mechanism of a strong chief judge had worked for them and asked the committee for its support.

Ms. Buckley further explained the idea of the mechanism applying to all types of cases, not only family court cases, was presented to the subcommittee. She expressed ambivalence toward that idea. On one hand, she did not think it would hurt to have a mechanism available to everyone. On the other hand, the subcommittee had not received the same type of complaints in regard to civil or criminal jurisdiction cases. While the subcommittee believed its purpose was to concentrate specifically on the family court, she stated the decision was in the jurisdiction of the committee on judiciary. The committee had the "broader responsibility of making sure that the whole box fits together and works."

Ms. Buckley remarked one amendment that could be considered would be to provide for a chief judge role in districts with three or more judges. That would discourage any potential problems that would stem from having to choose a chief judge in those districts that only had two judges.

In regard to the concerns raised earlier in the meeting by Ms. Kavanau, Ms. Buckley stated if the Supreme Court felt the chief judge ruling should come from the judicial branch, she suggested they could copy the statute after it was enacted into court rule. She noted her desire to continue making recommendations.

Responding to a request made by Ms. McClain, Ms. Buckley reiterated her previous statements and explained there was currently a chief judge in Clark County, the Honorable Lee Gates. He resided over the entire Eighth Judicial District Court, which included the family court. Additionally, there was a presiding judge, Judge Sanchez, who resided over the Family Court Division. They would decide, amongst themselves, the distribution of duties. She noted that was current practice.

The Honorable Dianne Steel, Eighth Judicial District Court Judge, stated the other judges of the Eight Judicial District Court neither opposed nor supported A.B. 50. She stated they believed the subcommittee’s suggestions were timely and appropriate and expressed appreciation of the subcommittee’s hard work. She noted she had been recently assigned to serve on a committee with six other judges to create a strong chief judge rule for the Supreme Court to consider. Judge Steel commented she would suggest, as a gesture of working together, the committee consider postponement of action on the bill. That would enable the two committees to discuss their individual concerns and hopefully be able to create a uniform rule everyone could follow. Judge Steel said the first meeting of her committee would be today and they intended to meet with the Supreme Court sometime next week.

Chairman Anderson offered the intent of A.B. 50 was broad in scope in regard to establishing the role of a chief judge. He expressed concern that if Judge Steel’s committee would be considering the minutia of paperwork and developmental questions, it would take a significant amount of time.

Responding to his concerns, Judge Steele said she could not speak for all the judges on whether the bill should go forward or not. She only wanted to make the committee on judiciary aware of her participation in a committee established to study the same matter for the Supreme Court.

Ms. Angle asked Judge Steel to elaborate on the issue of inequity felt by the Family Court Division.

Judge Steele explained a perception existed that family court judges did not have the power of a civil or criminal court judge. She noted the perception in Clark County was emphasized because the Family Court Division was located in a separate building apart from all of the other district court judges but stated she was uncertain how the perception developed. She expounded the perception was family court rulings were not to be taken as serious and there was not the need to comply with their rulings as there was with the general jurisdiction rulings. "The perception is there among the people that come before us."

Chairman Anderson commented the legislature had previously heard that concern. He stated he would like to see A.B. 50 processed and he would recommend it be assigned to a future work session.

Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County, stated she had the privilege of sitting on the advisory committee and commended Ms. Buckley for her leadership skills. Referring to a letter submitted by the judges of the Second Judicial District Court (attached as Exhibit G), Ms. Shipman explained the concern expressed in the third paragraph was not indicative of any lack of favor of the bills being heard by the committee. It only expressed a concern those grievances were not unique to the Family Court Division. She recognized the concern might have been addressed by Ms. Buckley when she clarified the bill and the subcommittee were only intended to affect family court issues and so the parameters were not extended beyond the family court. Addressing earlier comments regarding the situation in Washoe County, Ms. Shipman clarified since 1990, Washoe County had two permanent family court judges. Since 1994, one additional judge had voluntarily participated in family court matters. She stated they did not feel that was in violation of the law and agreed those bills would clarify the assignment could take place. In conclusion, Ms. Shipman conveyed the judges’ disappointment in not being able to attend the hearing and expressed their support for both bills, with the minor observation expressed in Exhibit G.

Chuck Short, Court Administrator of the Eighth Judicial District Court, testified from Las Vegas. He reiterated the previous praises of the subcommittee and the work they had done. In regard to A.B. 50, he asked the committee to do whatever it could to mitigate the perception of disparity between the general jurisdiction and family court judges.

There being no one else who wished to testify, the Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 50 and asked the research staff to schedule it for a future work session. In addition, Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang and Mr. Wilkinson to research language so the legislation would apply to judicial districts with three or more judges.

After addressing some housekeeping issues with the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:36 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: