The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 7:30 a.m., on Friday, February 19, 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 asked those in attendance to turn off any device they had which emitted a noise. After roll was called, Chairman Anderson drew attention to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 218.5345, which made it a misdemeanor to knowingly misrepresent any fact when testifying or otherwise communicating to a legislator. He reminded those in attendance to please sign in on the attendance roster.

The first order of business before the committee today would be Assembly Bill 70.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, explained he requested A.B. 70 on behalf of an employee of Paulson Dice Company, a gaming device manufacturer. His constituent’s concerns stemmed from the growth in the gaming devices and supplies industry. Mr. Collins stated since the bill had been requested, he had spoken with Dennis Neilander from the Nevada Gaming Control Board and there had also been some changes in the direction of the company. For those reasons, he stated he would either withdraw the bill or the committee could indefinitely postpone it.

Chairman Anderson stated the committee was neither in agreement nor opposed to the bill, but rather Mr. Collins believed some of the problems were being addressed and would therefore, like to see the bill withdrawn. That would allow them the opportunity to see if solutions could be found outside the legislative arena.

Mr. Collins stated he would appreciate the committee taking that position.

The Chair asked if there was anyone from the gaming control board who wished to make a statement.

Dennis Neilander, a member of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, reiterated the issues had been discussed with Mr. Collins. He explained the board would be willing to work outside of the legislative process with Mr. Collins’ constituents, as they did with all licensees to resolve any existing issues.

The Chair announced he would entertain a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 70.

Chairman Anderson stated the next order of business before the committee would be Assembly Bill 77.

Ken West, Chief Deputy Controller, explained the bill was initiated by the controller’s office and its purpose was to more completely identify a defendant in a writ of garnishment. He remarked a tax identification number (tin) or social security number would be required on a writ of garnishment so the controller’s office would not take money from the wrong person or the wrong entity. Mr. West noted the original wording of A.B. 77 was superfluous and in the amended bill currently in front of the committee, the wording had been eliminated.

Chairman Anderson remarked the social security number was originally intended for the purpose of tracing wages and income tax identification. It was not to be used for any other purpose and now there was criticism it was being used for other identifying purposes. The Chair asked if the social security number would be used in that case because it was a wage garnishment issue and thus, a tax question.

Responding to the Chair’s question, Mr. West replied having the social security number would allow them to confirm taxes had been reported for the wages being garnished and that the proper person was being affected.

Chairman Anderson also inquired when documents were filed, if the social security number was used. Mr. West replied the social security number or tin was disguised.

Assemblywoman Buckley informed the committee she would be introducing a bill to address the issue of people stealing other people’s identities. In the course of her research, she found a sure way to prevent that from happening was to keep your social security number private. Referring to public documents, Ms. Buckley pointed out an individual’s name and social security number was easily accessible through the court clerk’s office. Among other things, that information could then be used to apply for credit cards. She pondered the necessity of a social security number and queried why name and address would not suffice.

Mr. West expressed understanding of Ms. Buckley’s concerns, but explained because of the mobility of our population, name and address was not unique anymore.

Assemblyman Carpenter articulated his apprehension with requiring a social security number. He commented, "Maybe in this world, everything in our lives should not be made public record." He stated there should be a better process than to tie social security numbers and tins with the process of garnishment.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall and Mr. West engaged in a discussion about a hypothetical situation in which an individual whose wages were to be garnished had misrepresented themselves by using another individual’s social security number. Ms. Ohrenschall stated it would be harder for her to prove she was not the person whose wages were to be garnished because of the presence of the social security number.

Assemblywoman McClain shared with the committee a story about a young man having to go to court to be able to register to vote because he did not have a social security card. She commented there was now a push to find a different identifying mechanism for voter registration.

Assemblyman Collins agreed the social security card should not be used for identification.

In response to an inquiry by Chairman Anderson, Mr. West clarified the problem was not with the employer knowing who his people were, but with the information received from the courts relative to the person whose wages were to be garnished. He reiterated his office felt that name and address was no longer sufficient.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 77.

Assemblyman Gustavson conveyed his opposition to the bill. He remarked many of his constituents, as well as himself, had a problem with the use of social security numbers for any purposes other than tax purposes.

Assemblyman Nolan agreed with the comments made earlier by his colleagues about the importance of protecting an individual’s identity, but stated it was just as much a consumer protection issue as it was an issue about protecting identities. He said he could support A.B. 77 knowing the social security number would be used only for that individual transaction, which was the garnishment of wages.

Chairman Anderson said he was in a quandary. He recognized the need, relative to the controller’s office, to uniquely identify an individual, but agreed with Ms. Buckley’s concerns about the increasing problem of identity theft. He also pondered whether requesting the social security number would be "going in the wrong direction" since the trend was to decrease its usage.

Mr. Collins remarked he had employees whose wages were garnished for child support. After he received notice from the district attorney’s office, he believed there was time to notify the employee and make sure it was correct. If there was a mistake, it could have been corrected.

Assemblywoman Angle noted she would not support the bill.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee of the 9 a.m. meeting in room 1214 which was a joint meeting to hear a presentation on Nevada gaming and Monday would be the last day for bill drafts to be requested by the committee. He announced each member should be paying attention to the deadlines.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 a.m.

Following the joint committee on judiciary, Chairman Anderson reconvened the assembly committee on judiciary. Roll was called and a quorum was present. He announced there had been a request from the gaming industry to amend Nevada Revised Statutes 463.335. The intent of the request was to allow employees who work at multiple gaming locations to only need one work permit per county. Chairman Anderson reiterated it would not eliminate the need for a work permit but only one would be required in each county. He stated he would entertain a motion for the use of one of the committee’s bill drafts to address that issue.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting and reminded the committee the presentation on Nevada’s gaming industry would continue after the morning’s floor session.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: