The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Monday, March 22, 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. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson stated there were three Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) for committee introduction.

• BDR 3-636 - Makes various changes concerning recovery of support for children (A.B.644).

• BDR 3-840 – Revises procedure for granting trial anew for certain matters that have been arbitrated (A.B. 643).

• BDR S-819 – Makes various technical changes to Nevada Revised Statutes (Reviser’s Bill) (A.B. 645).

Chairman Anderson indicated the committee had a full agenda and at the request of Ms. Freeman, the first order of business before the committee would be Assembly Bill 331.

Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Assembly District 24, thanked the Chair for his indulgence in allowing the bill to be addressed first because there were many people in Las Vegas who wished to testify who had made special arrangements to be there. She had introduced the same bill last session and because no action was taken, the proponents of the bill asked her to reintroduce it. The intent of A.B. 331 was simply to retain local control of smoking and tobacco issues. Ms. Freeman explained she was present in 1989 when the current statute was passed, but noted things had changed in the last 10 years and the public was now more aware of the health risks involved with smoking. She expressed surprise the tobacco industry had voiced opposition to the bill but noted the voters were in favor of local control. She stated one concern she had heard was local control would create a "patchwork of regulations and laws throughout the state" which would be confusing for the visitors to the state. She did not agree. Ms. Freeman said the local governments needed to be trusted. She opined because it was a major industry, no local government would "be that foolish", no matter how strong they felt about smoking. She further stated local governments were more available to the public than were the legislators. Ms. Freeman deferred to Erin Kenny, Clark County Commissioner, to further elaborate on A.B. 331.

Erin Kenny, Clark County Commissioner, came forward in support of A.B. 331. She indicated there were approximately 125 to 150 people present in Las Vegas prepared to testify because they cared about the issue. She pointed out a packet which had been distributed to each member. She drew their attention to the large number of signatures obtained on the petition in favor of A.B. 331, the many letters of support she had received, and the resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Clark County District Board of Health, and many other local jurisdictions. The packet was attached as Exhibit C. Because those documents represented only a week’s work, she remarked the support for local control of tobacco products should be evident. She explained local control was critical to local representatives being able to responsibly represent their constituents and the citizens of Clark County. Continuing her presentation, she referred to an amendment behind the first tab of Exhibit C. The amendment stated if a business held either an unrestricted or tavern license, it would remain under state control. She opined it was a fair compromise, which would leave the areas where children and families went to the local jurisdictions. Commissioner Kenny told the committee, state laws should be a minimum requirement while allowing the continued operation of ordinances to provide a higher level of public protection. She believed local governments were more flexible and responsive than state government in attacking emerging problems, finding solutions to existing problems, and experimenting with solutions, and would therefore, be more effective in addressing the problem of tobacco use.

Ms. Kenny warned the tobacco industry would argue that "a patchwork quilt" of local ordinances was bad for business. She argued preserving local government’s power to pass local control ordinances would protect the public health and would not hurt the business community. She stated the tobacco industry had a clear plan and they had implemented it with flair. The internal documents of the Phillip Morris Company had labeled Nevada a class A state. She believed their strategy was to put preempted laws into place nationwide. She noted in the 1985-86 California elections, the tobacco industry donated $790,000 to legislators. In the 1991-92 elections, they donated $7 million dollars to the California legislators. During that same legislative cycle, local control was removed from local jurisdictions in Nevada and preemption was put into place. She announced the realities of failure for tobacco control in the state of Nevada could not be denied. Since 1991, one out of four deaths in Nevada had been attributed to smoking. Nevada was number one in deaths relating to tobacco, lung cancer, and for youth smoking. She informed the committee in 1998, over $800 million was spent in Nevada to care for patients with smoking related illnesses and of the cost, the tax payers paid over $78 million in uncompensated care for patients with smoking related illnesses. Ms. Kenny exclaimed, "Score one big victory for the tobacco industry, one huge loss for the residents of Nevada."

Paula Brown came forward to testify in favor of A.B. 331 as a North Las Vegas councilwoman and the Vice Chair of the Clark County District Board of Health. She stated local control of smoking was critical to responding to the public health and safety concerns of the Clark County residents. She drew attention to a proposed agreement attached to the back of Exhibit C. She explained it was a template that could be implemented if local control of tobacco was restored in Clark County. The control would be administered through the health district. They had prepared to deal with local control constructively, regionally, and responsibly and asked the committee to return law-making power to the local level. Ms. Brown echoed the comments of Commissioner Kenny noting there was no benefit to the public from preemption and yet there was always cost. "In this case, lives are lost, dollars are spent. The youth are corrupted. It's just not worth it." She advised preemption was a serious threat to preventing tobacco use effectively. With preemption law, those communities that wanted to go further to protect their own health would not be allowed to do so. It also eliminated the process of passing local legislation, which was critical to education, communities, and changing social norms. She asked that the members of the District Board of Health be able to protect the health of the public and the well being of their citizenry. She urged the committee to support the passage of A.B. 331 as amended because it was time for a change.

Dr. Donald Kwalick, Chief Health Officer of the Clark County Health District, spoke in support of A.B. 331. He reiterated Nevada ranked first in the nation with the smoking prevalence rate of almost 30 percent. Each year, 3,000 people in Nevada died due to tobacco related diseases and while the disease presented itself in a person’s later years, it began in childhood. Dr. Kwalick emphasized the importance of local control so each county could begin to determine the best response to meet the needs of its citizens and ultimately reduce the number of tobacco-related diseases and deaths. He reiterated local governments were able to respond more quickly to the health and safety needs of their citizens. Local communities would be able to enact stronger laws and the businesses and individual citizens would be able to voice solutions. "We believe local issues are best served by local solutions."

Mark Savage spoke on behalf of the American Cancer Society and the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition. He explained one of the reasons he was there to testify in favor of A.B. 331 was because of his daughter, Jessica Savage. She was 14-years old, an honor student at Sparks Middle School, and a star forward on her basketball team. Mr. Savage stated an internal memorandum from Phillip Morris stated, " Our objective is to work with the hospitality or resort industry to ensure that we are positioned to fend off attempts to remove preemption." He believed that was clever politics but an insult to every Nevadan. Mr. Savage said if the bill failed to pass, the tobacco industry would win again. He announced the American Cancer Society and the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition urged the committee to pass A.B. 331.

Barbara Hunt, Director of Community and Clinical Health Services for the Washoe District Health Department, stated it was in the best interest of the public’s health to allow local entities to decide how stringently to control tobacco. A community with a strong health orientation should be free to institute protections that accurately reflected the desires of their constituents.

Ben Graham, a Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, and Lieutenant Stan Olsen, from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, indicated their support for the legislation.

Andy Anderson, representing Las Vegas Police Protective Association, also came forward in support of the bill.

Mr. Graham commented the Attorney General’s Office had been doing an admiral job; however, he believed there might be a need to do something different on the local level. His office would be willing to accept that additional responsibility along with the attorney general.

Gary Reese, councilman for the city of Las Vegas and a member of the District Board of Health, owned the oldest barbershop in the city of Las Vegas and about 15 years ago, he made it a non-smoking barbershop. He said that decision was not detrimental to him as a businessperson or his customers. The available statistics conclusively pointed out that Americans wanted their local governments to be able to make decisions on their behalf when it came to tobacco issues. He believed there was a decisive rejection of the tobacco industry and its strategy of preempting local government authority. He asked the committee not to let the tobacco industry control the destiny of Clark County.

Stephanie Smith, a North Las Vegas City Councilwoman and a member of the Clark County District Board of Health, testified by continuing in the current fashion, the health and well being of Nevada’s residents was being sacrificed. She reiterated the argument about the costs associated with smoking related illnesses noting, Nevada’s health care costs rivaled those of states with 10 times the number of people living in them. She concluded local control was necessary so everyone could have a say and they would not have to wait every 2 years to do so.

Lance Malone, a commissioner from Clark County, shared with the committee a story of a young couple that went to a local convenience store to purchase a gallon of milk. When the pregnant wife returned to the car, her husband commented, "You smell just like you smoked a pack of cigarettes." He pointed out that was after being exposed to second hand smoke for only 5 minutes. Mr. Malone stated the Environmental Protection Agency had classified second hand smoke as a known cause of cancer in humans. He acknowledged smokers had rights, but that non-smokers also had rights. Being able to breathe clean air, free from harmful irritating tobacco smoke was a serious issue for everyone.

Frances Santas, a resident of Fallon, Nevada, said she was a laryngectomee and explained that was someone who had their voice box removed. Showing the committee the hole in her throat, she said that was her life support. She breathed, sneezed and coughed through it. She shared with the committee her personal story which began with her learning how to smoke at 16 years of age. She told how her first son was now waiting for a heart transplant, one daughter had asthma, another daughter had ovarian cancer, and she lost twins at birth. While she did not smoke when she was pregnant, she still believed those problems could be attributed to her smoking. She asked the committee to pass A.B. 331.

Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Santas for the courage she showed in sharing her story. He said his heart went out to her and other victims of cancer. He remarked unfortunately, there was no legislation that if passed would turn back time.

Chairman Anderson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Manendo in order for him to testify on another bill being heard in another committee.

Jordan Olsen, President of the Nevada Association of Student Council, offered a student’s perspective of A.B. 331, and noted his remarks did not represent the opinions of the Clark County School District or any other entity with which he was affiliated. He opined local governments were closer to the citizens and better able to offer local solutions to local issues. "Through the implementation of government by the people and for the people in a local sense, the governing of a given populace is more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more representative of the needs for that given body." He further noted though, the concept of freedom and personal responsibility are defining characteristics which separate the way citizens of the United States are governed versus those of nondemocratic societies. He pondered if the proposed amendment to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 202.294 would be compromising the need for personal responsibility of each citizen and inversely compromising their freedom by allowing local government to impose more stringent restrictions on smoking, including the use, sale, distribution, marketing, display, and promotion. He concluded by complementing the legislators for attempting to create "a more perfect government which instills a more perfect freedom for its citizens."

I-Che Lai, Student Body President of Clark High School, testified in support of A.B. 331. He stated Nevada had the highest number of youths to use tobacco. It was projected that 31,606 of the youths would die prematurely from their smoking. He pointed out that was equivalent to the student population of approximately 10 schools. Mr. Lai exclaimed the system in place was not working when it came to protecting the youth in Nevada. "Local control must be restored to local entities where it belongs where we can all have a say. We want a future where we don’t have to cough every 5 seconds from the impure air." He urged the committee to support A.B. 331.

Samuel Tobler, President of the Students Taking Action to Terminate Unlawful Substances (STATUS) Club at Clark High School, commented the average teen-age smoker started at about 14 ½ years old and became a daily smoker before they were 18. He also noted there were at least 516 million packs of cigarettes that were consumed by minors per year and at least half of them were illegally sold to minors. He noted vending machines dispensed cigarettes to nearly 500,000 children everyday. He asked the committee to pass the bill.

Afsha Bawany, from Durango High School representing the National Honor Society, Student Council, and STATUS, and Selam Kekrom, also a student from Durango High School, offered additional statistics in regard to teenagers who smoked. They stated the statistics indicated the need to return control of smoking regulations to the local governing bodies. They commented there was a need to impose stricter guidelines in order to curb the addiction from spreading and to ensure the welfare of the community.

Mylan Hawkins, Executive Director of the Nevada Diabetes Association for Children and Adults, testified in favor of A.B. 331. Ms. Hawkins remarked diabetes affected a large percentage of the citizens of Nevada. They were at particular risk to second hand smoke and tobacco products because it contributed to their death from diabetes. She urged the return of local control in order to help eliminate the many ills tobacco caused in the State of Nevada.

Due to the lack of time, Chairman Manendo stated he could only allow a few more minutes of testimony in support of A.B. 331.

Due to that restriction, Commissioner Kenny read the names of the individuals remaining from the list she had prepared who wished to testify in support of A.B. 331. The list was attached as Exhibit D. Ms. Kenny suggested another hearing be scheduled in order for those individuals to be allowed to speak.

Chairman Manendo encouraged those individuals who were unable to testify to submit their testimony in writing so it could be distributed to the members for their review. He expressed his appreciation to the high school students who chose to participate in the process and apologized for the necessity of the time limits.

Assemblywoman Freeman concluded the testimony in favor of A.B. 331 by pointing out local government would have the ability to address the concerns of the young people who had testified. They were the ones she believed needed to be protected. She asked the committee to pass the bill as amended.

Chairman Manendo stated he would now allow 1 hour of testimony in opposition to A.B. 331.

Peter Krueger, representing the Cigar Association of America and the Nevada Petroleum Marketers Convenience Store Association, introduced Dave Kette, Vice President of Convenience Store Operations for the Berry Hinkley Group, which operated the Winners Corners convenience stores. He began his testimony by noting the people who supported A.B. 331 as amended, were unwillingly contributing to the likelihood of increased usage of tobacco by underage youth. He noted since the passage of Assembly Bill 622 in the 1995 legislative session, tobacco retailers had made great strides in reducing youth access to tobacco products. At that time, the surveys indicated that 63 percent of underage youth were able to purchase tobacco products over the counter. Currently, the rate of over the counter purchases was down to 12.6 percent. He announced youths were not obtaining tobacco products from convenience stores but from older youths and family members. Mr. Krueger stated the bill would do nothing to prohibit youth usage of tobacco products, and it was not about tobacco companies. He noted the state was unable to achieve a reduction in youth access because of the "hodge-podge" of state regulations. Referring to the barbershop owner who had chosen to ban smoking in his store, he said current law permitted any business or organization to do what they thought was in their best interest. He reiterated the passage of A.B. 331 would not reduce access to cigarettes by youth. It would, however, present a problem for retailers because instead of one set of rules with which employees would have to comply, there was the possibility for multiple sets of rules. He deferred to Mr. Kette to address the specific problems the retailers would encounter.

Dave Kette told the committee there were 30 convenience stores in several different counties in northern Nevada. Presently, there was one training manual and one tape on tobacco issues that was used to train all of the employees. The manual contained a section, which specifically addressed the ramifications of selling tobacco to minors, and how to be a more responsible retailer. Mr. Kette explained all employees were tested on their knowledge of the manual. He opined that was adequate. To require compliance with several laws would create a "mind boggling" burden for the retailers.

Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President of the Carson City Chamber of Commerce, noted the chamber represented over 1,000 local businesses, most of which had less than 5 employees. He expressed opposition to A.B. 331 because it was not an issue of local government control but of more government control. If a local business wished to limit or restrict smoking, they currently had the right to do so. He noted the customer also had the right to either patronize or not patronize those establishments. "We do not support further government intervention in those rights." He pointed out the Carson City Board of Supervisors unanimously voted not to take action on the resolution of support for A.B. 331 and asked the committee to do the same.

Harvey Whittemore came forward to testify in opposition to the bill on behalf of the Nevada Resort Association and R. J. Reynolds. In regard to gaming licensees, he pointed out there was no need to amend section 4 as proposed. Presently, the state law provided a licensed gaming establishment could designate separate rooms or areas within the establishment, which could or could not be used for smoking. In regard to tavern licensees, current statute provided a business which derived more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages or gaming operations could be designated as a smoking area in its entirety by the operator of the business. In both instances, the legislature had already created a significant and fair balance. Mr. Whittemore announced the entire purpose of the bill was to create a situation where the base line minimums could be changed. He pointed out NRS 202.2491 already prohibited smoking in public elevators, public waiting rooms, lobbies, doctor’s offices, school buses, amongst other areas. The legislature had already made a determination that for the public’s health and safety those were areas where smoking was not allowed. Mr. Whittemore stated if there were additional areas which the legislature needed to identify, it should be debated. But, he believed the proponents of the bill were not interested in a patchwork quilt of regulations, they would simply like to ban a product. He elucidated an agency, board, commission, or any political subdivision could impact the use, sale, distribution, market, display or promotion of tobacco products. He explained the reason behind Assembly Bill 622 was to clarify that if a debate was to occur on whether a display was appropriate, it should be conducted on the state level so the impact could be appropriately determined. That was important because of taxes and how the state would be impacted in terms of revenue. He emphasized if the debate was to occur at the local level, there would be a patchwork quilt of regulations that would unfairly impact the industry. Mr. Whittemore suggested the legislature continue to make sure kids do not have access to tobacco products but reminded the committee that was not the intent of A.B. 331.

Jack Jeffrey representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company, testified against A.B. 331. He noted there had been a bill that addressed underaged kids having access to tobacco through police sting operations. One of the major concerns was who would handle the enforcement. The original bill called for the sheriffs department in the 17 counties to do it, but with the exception of one county, none wanted that responsibility. The attorney general was approached and they accepted the responsibility to police the program. Mr. Jeffrey reviewed the eight issues the manufacturers agreed not to oppose in regard to potential items of legislation agreed upon as part of the national settlement. He pondered how those issues would be handled on a statewide basis. He opined some could be addressed on the local level but overall, there would be cause for great confusion when 17 counties and 18 incorporated cities throughout the state would all be taking action on the various proposals. He pointed out in Clark County there was Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, the county itself and the lines that separated those areas were becoming less clear. Mr. Jeffrey stated when people did business within those entities, they should be able to do it in a uniform manner. Referring to California outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants, he noted it did have an effect on its economy and the people who worked in those businesses. He stated the bar business was down over 15 percent and the restaurant business was down over 8 percent. He noted that equated to quite a bit of money for the people who were working in those areas. Although he was not aware of the culinary union or bartenders having taken a position on A.B. 331, he noted there had been concern raised by the service industry, specifically the people who worked in the casinos. They were very interested how the prohibition of smoking would affect their jobs. Mr. Jeffrey noted that was what the bill was all about.

Bob Bonner, Vice President of Nevada Taverns Association, recognized A.B. 331 would not affect him with the inclusion of the proposed amendment but still came forward to express some concerns. He did not believe the issue would be handled better at the local level. In regard to youths smoking, he noticed improvements in the taverns being targets of some of the programs implemented by the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Boner stated Nevada’s state government was fully capable of protecting public health when it came to the tobacco issue. He took offense to those who testified the tobacco industry had insulted them by using the political system in order to make more money for itself. He explained using all their means to better their position in life was the American way, and it was what business was all about. On a local level, if for example, people wished smoking to be outlawed in grocery stores, they should address it with the store. Mr. Bonner felt he could depend on the lawmakers of Reno and Carson City to make the right decisions in regard to the safety and health of the public. He acknowledged that individuals could speak with their assemblyperson or their state senator. He felt it would be better for the state for control to remain on the state level.

Chairman Anderson pointed out two handouts which were distributed to the committee. A memorandum submitted by Carl Wilcoxson in favor of A.B. 331 was attached as Exhibit E. A resolution adopted by the Henderson City Council, also in favor of A.B. 331, was attached as Exhibit F.

C.O. Watson, Director of the Nevada Association of Tobacco & Candy Wholesalers, drew attention to a handout distributed to each committee member. His handout was attached as Exhibit G. America had been a haven for many countries and many individuals and the reason they came here was the freedom to make a decision. He opined there were laws to control youth smoking, A.B. 331 would simply be duplication.

David Howard, a Legislative Representative of the Greater Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, pointed out California was replete with examples of what happened when control was given to the local government. He noted the San Francisco Chronicle had a weekly story about their difficulties with governments with that type of legislation. Mr. Howard offered a short explanation of how local businesses were trying to accommodate that problem. In 1994 in response to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that were proposed to regulate restaurants and casinos, a survey was done of some of the chamber’s members in the northern Nevada area to see the impact of those particular regulations. The results found those individual business owners to be far ahead of the OSHA regulations in that they were already surveying their customers to be aware of their wishes. One restaurant actually did a poll on a daily basis of their customers to view how they should accommodate smoking and non-smoking in their restaurant. Monday through Thursday, that restaurant had a higher percentage of requests for non-smoking tables. On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, it was the exact opposite. The restaurant was accommodating their customers and they should be allowed to continue to do that. Another restaurant made the decision to implement a nonsmoking policy. Mr. Howard added they had a 60 percent loss in their bar business. He reiterated those were individual decisions made by individual business people and he opined that was the way it should remain. He concluded by noting his opposition to A.B. 331.

Sam McMullen, a Legislative Representative for the Retail Association of Nevada, explained Assembly Bill 622 of the 1995 session was a construct put together by the business community. A key aspect for the retail industry was there had to be some uniformity of the laws as well as understanding of the restrictions and allowances. Another key part of the bill which required full approval was knowing the laws would be structured at one level, the legislative level, so there would be a consistent set of rules. Mr. McMullen stated during the last number of years, the retail industry had become the front line for tobacco issues being their practices were frequently attacked or at least questioned. He remarked there were now more stringent restrictions than had ever been in the law before. He believed the current practice had been successful.

Amy Hill, Vice President of the McMullen Strategic Group, also representing the Retail Association of Nevada, drew the committee’s attention to several different handouts, which were attached as Exhibits H and I. Referring to Exhibit H, which spoke to the success of Nevada’s uniformity law, she read, "In 1995, Nevada passed a uniform state law on smoking and regulating tobacco products promotion and sales. Since then the compliance rate has increased from 37 percent in 1994 to 83.2 percent in 1998, according to the Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant application." Ms. Hill further added, IN 1998, a 93.1 percent compliance rate was reported in regard to reducing youth access to tobacco products from retail outlets. She opined that level of success would not have been achieved without uniformity in the laws. Referring to Exhibit I, she noted the maps showed the compliance grades of the various states. Reviewing the map, which showed compliance rates for 1997, she noted Washington State, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona all had uniform laws. Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska did not. There were higher compliance rates for the states that had uniformity than those who did not. Ms. Hill stated with all the things that California had done, they were still unable to keep tobacco products out of the hands of the youth as well as Nevada had.

Mary Lau, Executive Director of the Retail Association of Nevada, also came forward in opposition to A.B. 331. She pointed out the retail association was made up of general merchandisers, grocers, drugstores, some casinos, and that there were also affiliate members who were venders and suppliers of which were tobacco companies as well as Coca-Cola. No affiliate member could sit or direct any legislative activity. In response to an earlier question, she explained the retail association belonged to other national organizations, specifically so they were informed of what was happening in other states. Local control in other states had created problems which affected their members because they operated in those states as well. Local government activities had become a major expense for them.

Joe Guild, representing UST Public Affairs Inc., pointed out the bill would also affect smokeless tobacco. That was a product produced by U.S. Tobacco Company, a parent company of one of his clients. Mr. Guild noted usage of smokeless tobacco by youths was decreasing nationwide as well as in Nevada. He opined the success was due to uniformity in Nevada. U.S. Tobacco’s policy was to prohibit youth access and use of its products and that it had helped sponsor the nationwide training programs which were working effectively in Nevada. He asked the committee to oppose A.B. 331.

The Chair pointed out testimony had been heard on A.B. 331 for approximately 2 hours. In order to be able to address the other bills on the agenda, he closed the hearing on the bill. He announced he had received more Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) for committee introduction.

• BDR 41-416 - Changes deadline for the collection of annual excise tax on slot machines and clarifies statutory provisions governing issuance of certain license (A.B. 646).

• BDR R-1651 – Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study concerning evaluation of sex offenders by panels (A.C.R. 35).

• BDR 14-588 - Makes various changes concerning disposal of stolen or embezzled property and property evidencing crime (A.B.647).

• BDR 3-847 - Authorized the attorney general to represent justice of the peace or municipal judge under certain circumstance (A.B. 648).

• BDR 15-734 – Removes certain obsolete provisions concerning certain protective services for older persons (A.B. 649).

• BDR 1 – 845 - Makes various changes concerning use of electronic means to create, file, store and reproduce certain legal documents and to issue certain misdemeanor citations (A.B. 650).

Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, Assembly District 29, explained she requested A.C.R. 26 on behalf of a constituent. The resolution would urge the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada to adopt rules in regard to requiring certain judges to allow parties of a civil action to address the court under certain circumstances. Ms. Angle read the resolution to the committee. She further explained her constituent sustained an injury which resulted in him suing the Ford Motor Company. The case was arbitrated and he was awarded $26,000. A trial de novo was filed and the case eventually went to trial. During the trial, certain evidence was not submitted to the jury which had been allowed in the arbitration. His constituent was unaware that evidence was omitted and at the point he became aware, he wished to communicate with the judge in order to ask him for the evidence to be permitted. That was not allowed to happen. Her constituent believed he lost the case because that evidence was not allowed. He felt robbed of his right to a fair trial and, therefore, presented his situation to Ms. Angle. He asked for her assistance in regard to something being done to encourage the courts to allow complainants in a civil suit to be able to ask pertinent questions. Ms. Angle explained because he was not familiar with the system and how it worked, he was unaware he could have terminated his attorney and gone to the judge himself. Ms. Angle reiterated A.C.R. 26 would urge judges to allow that kind of interaction between claimants and judges.

Ms. Buckley commented it was a shame he did not fire his attorney and expressed doubt the legislation would have helped him. In civil actions, an individual was not allowed to address the judge because there were certain procedures such as the right to cross-examination and to due process. In a civil case, both sides testified and there were rules of evidence. Those rules did not apply in an arbitration. Ms. Buckley expressed uncertainty that the way every court case worked should be changed and, "It kind of throws the rules of evidence out the window." She suggested it would be more appropriate to work with the state bar in order to educate the public about legal procedure.

Ms. Angle stated she would have rather brought forward "a kind of claimant bill of rights". Nonetheless, she noted something should be in place to help the public understand what their alternatives were and how they could proceed.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.C.R. 26 and after a brief recess, opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 435.

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2, presented A.B. 435 to the committee. It would revise provisions relating to the execution of a power of attorney. She explained frequently, a person would give another person power of attorney when they underwent major surgery, were unable to conduct their own affairs, or when they were absent from home or business for a long period of time. A power of attorney could be used to allow another the authority to make decisions, cancel transactions, or sign legal documents. She asked for the bill because sometimes the power of attorney was not being used as was intended, and particularly in the care of elderly people. Existing state law provided for the power of attorney or other written instrument containing the power to convey any real property to be acknowledged or proved, certified and recorded. A.B. 435 would add a new subsection to the law. Ms. Berman stated it would provide that a power of attorney executed by a principal who was 60 years old or older must be signed by two subscribing witnesses before the instrument may be acknowledged or proved as was now required. Furthermore, the person to be named as the attorney in fact or agent could not sign the instrument as a subscribing witness. Ms. Berman explained, "As Nevada continues its rapid growth, it is important to have laws that protect all of our citizens especially our seniors."

Chairman Anderson questioned why the age of 60 was chosen. Ms. Berman replied similar laws were currently being heard across the country and they were using 60 as the common age.

Ms. Berman shared with the committee an incident about a woman who had accidentally signed her house over to her attorney. She stated the Secretary of State’s Office had been deluged with similar complaints.

Chairman Anderson drew attention to two Las Vegas Sun newspaper articles. One addressed the investigation of estate planners which was attached as Exhibit J and another titled "A Victim’s Story" which was attached as Exhibit K.

Ms. Buckley indicated the committee on commerce and labor was going to hear a couple of bills that also focused on people who were preying on seniors by taking their investments. She pondered whether A.B. 435 would help solve the problem. She stated an attorney could simply have two people who worked in his or her office witness the execution and the problem would still exist. On the other hand, she wondered if it would hurt the frequent and proper use of power of attorneys.

Ms. Berman replied it was her intent for the bill to concentrate only on a power of attorney for real estate transactions. It would not apply to children being given legal power of attorney when a parent went into a hospital.

Chairman Anderson questioned why it would be limited to real estate when there were other things within the estate of value to family members. The power of attorney would control those as well.

Ms. Berman reiterated the bill was to apply only to real estate transactions.

The committee briefly discussed the scope of the bill.

Ms. Berman noted she was a member of the subcommittee which would hear the similar bills referenced by Ms. Buckley. Because she was unsure how those bills would appear in their final draft, she asked that A.B. 435 be considered on its own merits.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 435 and announced there was one more BDR for committee introduction.

• BDR 41-1645 - Makes various changes relating to manufacture, sale and distribution of gaming devices and associated equipment and inter-casino linked systems (A.B. 651).

The meeting was adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: