The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:05 a.m., on Thursday, March 11, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County, Senate District 3

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Churchill County, Assembly

District 35

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, Las Vegas, Assembly District 5

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Las Vegas, Assembly District 28

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Kara Kelley, Legislative Representative, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Juvenile Services

Scott Cook, Douglas County Juvenile Probation

Capt. Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and proceeded with roll call. All members were present. The meeting was teleconferenced in room 440l of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Chairman Anderson introduced and gave a brief overview of the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs).

• BDR S-1151 – Revises provisions governing location of gaming establishments in residential neighborhoods. A.B. 522
• BDR 14-298 – Makes various changes concerning domestic violence.

A. B. 523

• BDR 13-329 – Expressly validates trusts for care of animals. A. B. 524

Mr. Anderson announced the committee would meet Saturday, March 27 and also would be meeting some evenings from 4 to 6 p.m.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 340 stating it was an opportunity to repeal several obsolete provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) concerning the legal status and powers of married women.

Assemblywoman Barbara Cegavske, of Las Vegas, Assembly District 5, testified the bill was self-explanatory, and would remove provisions relating to the term "married women." She believed in the reference to a "person" instead of labeling someone a "married woman." They were trying to repeal Nevada Revised Statues 111.110, 111.245, 133.030, 138.030, 139.020 a law written in 1862.

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, testified in support for A.B. 340. The bill would amend NRS 111.110, 111.245 and 133.030 which had attempted to make it known a married woman did not necessarily lose all her rights. Those statutes provided that a married woman would not lose her right to dispose of her property or to act as an executor in a will. The objection was the fact it drew special attention to married women trying to make it clear they had rights even though they were married. Ms. de Braga thought the statute should be generic, the law should apply to all people, and marital status should not be singled out for women.

In NRS 138.030 and 139.020, the sponsors objected to the word "executrix" or to the appendage "trix." She said the dictionary defined "executrix" as a female executor. In the dictionary there was no such thing as an "administratrix." Supporters preferred the suffix "tor" which as near as could be determined had no meaning whatsoever and therefore would not offend anyone.

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, of Las Vegas, Assembly District 28 supported the bill and was happy that NRS 133.030 would be repealed if the proposed legislation passed. She asked for the committee’s indulgence and read the following:

"NRS 133.030 - Wills of married women: disposition of separate and community property.

1. Any married woman may dispose of all her separate estate by will, absolutely, without the consent of her husband, either express or implied, and may alter or revoke the same in like manner as a person under no disability may do. Her will be attested, witnessed and proved in like manner as all other wills.

2. A married woman may dispose of community property by will as provided by law. "

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning remarked "Isn’t that amazing! Now I ask you to think about that and how ludicrous it is to set aside that provision simply because this person is married."

She disclosed in her private life she sold real estate and many years ago sold property for Mr. and Mrs. Cegavske before Mrs. Cegavske was an Assemblywoman. She further disclosed she sold a home to Mrs. McClain and her husband Mr. McClain before Ms. McClain was an Assemblywoman.

She further stated the reason she found it offensive was if they were going to set aside a provision that said, "a married woman may dispose of her property without the consent of her husband" then married men should also take offense to the statute. Nevada was a community property state which meant neither party could take advantage of the other. The supporters of the bill stated they did not want a man selling a property without advising and without the consent of his spouse, nor did they want a woman selling a property without the consent of her spouse. NRS 133.030 was not only antiquated, but it was also a very dangerous precedent, and she did not think it should be kept in the statute.

Chairman Anderson told Ms. Chowning, he had the legal section look at the statute to make sure a conveyance would be removed, but they said it was a matter of legalese. He believed they were trying to affirm the rights of women, not to take the rights of women away. He further stated although they might find it outrageous today to see that language in there, at the time he felt it was considered to be very pro-women rather than anti-women. He applauded their efforts to try and bring Nevada into place but did not want to cast stones upon "our predecessors" who were trying to assert the rights of women at the time.

Assemblyman Nolan asked the panel if while they were researching some of those archaic laws did they come across anything that dealt with vertically challenged males that the committee should repeal. Ms. Chowning said no, nothing.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall wondered if any panelists needed to make a disclosure they belonged to the class that would be affected; but they would not be affected by the legislation any differently than any other member of the class i.e., they were all married women.

Assemblyman Gustavson questioned Ms. Chowning whether the proposed legislation would affect men.

Ms. Chowning reiterated her concern regarding the portion of the statute that set a precedent by saying a married woman may dispose of her property without the consent of her husband. She did not think that was the intent of the Nevada Legislature, because it was totally inconsistent with the community property statutes. The proponents did not want either party being able to dispose of property without the consent of the other person. In answer to Mr. Gustavson’s question, it would directly affect him if he was a married person trying to dispose of his property.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented his wife would probably like the old legislation and would not want it removed. He offered his support.

Chairman Anderson brought A.B. 340 back to the committee.

Assemblyman Collins wanted to make sure they were not taking anything away from women by passing the bill. Chairman Anderson restated he had asked legal to review that very question and had received an affirmative answer.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated she had the same concerns as Mr. Collins. She simply wanted reassurance they were still safeguarding either marital partner’s right to dispose of his or her separate property. Separate property was something received by inheritance, or one had prior to marriage and was not a part of the community.

Assemblywoman Cegavske would present the bill on the floor.

Mr. Anderson said the amendment would bring the State of Nevada into compliance with federal law and was required for purposes of federal funding.

Bryan Nix, Esq., Program Coordinator of Nevada Victims of Crime Program, testified from Las Vegas in favor of A.B. 353. He explained the bill was submitted to essentially clean up a provision that was enacted in 1998. Mr. Nix asked provision NRS 217.220 section 1.(d) be repealed and said the request was received from the Justice Department and Federal Victim of Crime Program.

NRS 217.220 section 1.(d), page 2, allowed the state to determine whether or not nonresident victims would be paid based on the availability of federal funding. NRS 217.220 section 1. (d), was in contravention to federal law, which prohibited discrimination against nonresidents regardless of the status of availability of federal funding. The provision was enacted along with several other provisions to allow Nevada to participate in the Federal Victims of Crime Program grant award.

Nevada was awarded $635,000 last year but was unable to take advantage of the grant until the language was removed from the statute. The change would allow compliance with federal law and was done at the request of the State Board of Examiners to comply with federal law and to assure residents and nonresidents would all be treated the same.

Chairman Anderson inquired if it was an equal protection question for residents and nonresidents. Mr. Nix answered yes.

In 1997 money was distributed from within the state and Mr. Anderson wondered how much Nevada disbursed in 1998 to victims of crime.

Mr. Nix responded the Nevada Victims of Crime Program awarded in excess of $2 million to Nevada Victims of Crime. The bill would allow his agency to process nonresident victim claims. Estimates were done to determine the early impact of the bill, and it appeared grant awards to claims received during 1998 would amount to about $135,000 well below the $630,000 grant awarded by the Federal Government.

Mr. Nix stated they tried to estimate the impact for fiscal year 1999 based on previous numbers, and it would be about $230,000 in federally related claims for nonresident victims. He believed the federal grant for 1999 would be somewhere in the range of $700,000 to 800,000, so federal funds available would far exceed the expected claims against those funds.

Mr. Nix said his agency planned to closely monitor nonresident claims to determine the increase regarding the number of claims received, accepted, and approved and what impact they would have. It was their belief based on limited experience, the available federal funds would always be sufficient to cover those federal related claims. If they were not or if problems occurred in the future, they had the ability to cease further participation in the federal program but felt earlier projections of the federal claims exhausting Nevada dollars did not seem to be well founded.

Chairman Anderson commented the reason he had asked the question, was in the 69^th Legislative Session there was a real fear Nevada would stand to lose more from out-of-state claimants than they were producing in the state.

Mr. Nix revealed the Nevada Victims of Crime Program had always been concerned because of the large population base of visitors compared to the base population of residents.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Nix to provide written documentation. Mr. Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 353 and brought it back to committee.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblyman Nolan.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County District 3, requested support for S.B. 77. She presented her views regarding S.B. 77 saying the proposal took the best of a successful program established in Brevard County, Florida and adapted it to the State of Nevada. The innovative program was like none other in the country. It incorporated a new mindset with regard to juvenile justice in Nevada which she referred to as restorative justice. Refer to Exhibit C for her remaining testimony.

Assemblywoman Leslie commented she loved the concept and asked was there anything in the statute to prohibit the court from establishing such a program. Senator Wiener responded that was why it was an enabling bill. She had hoped to set up a structure and also incorporate the components of work ethics and employability skills.

Senator Wiener introduced Kara Kelley, a representative from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. She said Ms. Kelley shared enthusiasm, sought support, and was eager to implement the proposed program. It would parallel the SMART GRAD program, and included the components of work ethics and employability skills.

Ms. Leslie expressed her concerns regarding adding additional requirements to NRS Chapter 62 and felt the courts already had the authority.

Senator Wiener said similar concerns had been expressed when the bill went to the Senate, but the intent was to show strong legislative support statewide to the restorative justice program. She felt it would establish a new attitude in legislative activity and wanted to place it on the front-end rather than the back-end.

Chairman Anderson thanked Senator Wiener and said he would echo her remarks. Responding to Ms. Leslie’s comment, he had asked the same question and was informed there were judges who believed the law should be defined very, very narrowly, and if it was not mentioned specifically in the law, they were not eligible or would not use that type program as an alternative sentencing mechanism.

Assemblywoman Angle questioned whether the program would be funded through the employers of the community. Senator Wiener responded the Senate amended and protected the language and intent of the bill. The bill originally contained the exemption, often included in legislative exemptions, from an unfunded mandate provision. She was very respectful of the small counties and wanted to protect them, which was why it was an enabling bill with specific language. The Legislative Counsel Bureau said they felt because the strong intent of the legislation was to provide an opportunity to establish the program, they would make it discretionary at the local level and the mandate issue was not there. Grants, contributions, and funding could be received and the employer would pay the youth.

Senator Wiener further stated Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Department of Family & Youth Services, Clark County, testified before the Senate Committee on Judiciary saying they had staff and access to monies to pick up some of the administrative costs but did not state that in his letter Exhibit D. During his testimony to the Senate he stated there were 1500 children he could put in to the program.

Exhibit E was written testimony in support of S.B. 77 from Dan Coppa, Chairman Juvenile Justice Commission. The testimony stated programs of restitution had been demonstrated to have a significant effect on the reduction of repeated delinquent activity on the part of juvenile offenders. Restitution programs developed with the inclusion of skills and training provided the opportunity for not only monetary compensation for victims of delinquent activity, but also valuable vocational skills training.

Mr. Carpenter said he believed it was a very good concept and with adequate supervision a youth might become an excellent employee. He referred to page three, line 28, "A director of the juvenile services may terminate participation by a child in a program of restitution through work or lawful reason purpose." He questioned if the child did not work out, could the business owner go to the juvenile authorities and request termination. Senator Wiener responded yes, that was correct.

Chairman Anderson mentioned to members of the committee there were representatives who wanted to testify from Juvenile Services, and perhaps that would be addressed.

At that time Kara Kelley representing Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce more than 5,700 businesses testified in support of S.B. 77. The Chamber was pleased to offer support for the piece of legislation and had committed to working with Senator Wiener and the judicial system in southern Nevada to obtain prospective employers.

The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce had a longstanding commitment to the youth of their community through their SMART GRAD Program, Leadership Las Vegas Youth Program, and a variety of other business education collaboratives and hoped that S.B. 77 would be an additional opportunity to show support for the youth.

Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services, testified in support of S.B. 77. He felt the bill provided specific language and would be helpful to his department. He referred to page 3, line 19, which indicated "the child who participated in the program would be required to sign an authorization form that permits money to be deducted from the wages of the child to pay restitution." They had set up an employability training program where kids who participated in that program went out and painted over graffiti on Saturdays did other work projects and were paid a stipend. He emphasized most of the money went towards reimbursing the victims in those cases and the kids who participated in the program were prioritized according to who owed restitution as opposed to others who might just want to develop skills.

Concluding his remarks Mr. Pugh stated when they were involved in a case plan it became negotiable in terms of saying "okay you’re going to make this much money, it would be in your best interest to pay us this amount of money at this particular time." The only recourse available once the youth had violated the agreement was to take them back to court for a review hearing, and see what the judge could do.

Scott Cook, Chief, Juvenile Probation Officer for Douglas County, testified in favor of S.B. 77. He wanted to reiterate what Leonard Pugh had said to Ms. Leslie. Upon reading the bill he was concerned because they had the power to set up like programs, but the bill provided some new language beneficial for them to use. He appreciated the Senator’s concern by trying to establish in law some of the principles of restorative justice, which was what they all supported. He did feel although it was one of those concepts that was very logical and simple to understand, it was also very difficult to get across to the general public.

Mr. Nolan felt it a "second chance program" where a youth adjudicated of a problem would be sent back into the environment. He questioned what would happen if a youth was sent back into a retail environment and they reoffended during participation in the program, was any type of enhanced penalty available or established.

Ms. Wiener revealed the offenders selected for the program were first-time and nonviolent. The youth offender had been put on probation meaning they were told to not do it again, even though they were ready to make bad choices in their lives. Because of the overcrowded system nothing was done. She felt Ben Graham could explain what happened once the order of the court was violated.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, said prior to making any statement his testimony would be cumulative because they were in support of those measures. He reiterated the youth would be sent back before the system and the ratchet tightened up another notch or two. He felt the main goal in any juvenile proceeding was to get the young person on the right track, and would not do anything radical with a fairly insignificant violation. The youth offender would be given the opportunity, and he thought most would make an effort to not reoffend.

Mr. Collins said he had been a juvenile in Las Vegas and appreciated Senator Wiener’s endeavors.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 77. It was decided to have Senator Wiener present her second bill and then the committee would vote.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County, Senate District 3, sought support for S.B. 87. The bill was an extension of previous legislation from the 69^th Legislative Session. Provisions in the present law, allowed a judge to determine whether a first-time and nonviolent juvenile offender could benefit from participation in supervised athletic programs and if so, refer the youth to appropriate sports activities.

S.B. 87 would broaden the provision to enable judges to refer a first-time and non-violent youth offender to a publicly or privately supervised program in "the arts."

Refer to the Exhibit F for the remainder of her written testimony.

Ms. Wiener provided the committee Exhibit G, a letter from Kirby Burgess, Department of Family & Youth Services, director’s office and Exhibit H, a letter from Angie Wallin, Executive Director Nevada Arts Advocates, dated March 8, 1999, both in support of S.B. 87.

Ms. Angle questioned whether the program was voluntary and would groups such as the Council on the Arts provide support. Senator Wiener said they would be able to obtain grants and it would be similar to S. B. 77 with regards to obtaining funding. Judges would be given an option to send a child where they believed they would benefit most. She felt the program was a wonderful outlet for children who often were loners and needed to learn and express themselves.

Mr. Carpenter supported the bill and shared a personal experience he had with a boy he felt might go wrong, but once they discovered he had a great talent for drawing, his energies were redirected to a positive program. He thought there were a lot of children who had different talents that were not recognized, and all they really needed was an opportunity to be productive citizens.

Leonard Pugh, Director, Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services stated they were in support of S.B. 87. Historically, in many court settings especially in the juvenile system, a child’s problems or deficiencies were what they always emphasized and continually ordered kids to participate in programs designed to counter their deficiencies or enhance strengths, and abilities. He felt if the legislation passed they would see more success and positive behaviors as opposed to negative behavior.

Scott Cook, Chief, Juvenile Probation Officer from Douglas County, said they supported the bill for the same reasons. As with the last bill he felt it was important for the legislature to start supporting or to lay down the intent of moving towards restorative justice.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing S.B. 87 and brought it back to committee.

Ms. Leslie said her concerns had been thoroughly addressed and she would be voting in favor of both those bills.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Carpenter.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. Leslie.

Chairman Anderson announced that without amendments they could place the bills on the consent calendar. He requested a separate motion for each of the bills.

Chairman Anderson requested the committee pay careful attention to Ms. Leslie’s guest on the floor that day because it would become part of the official record of the next day’s meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: