The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, April 15, 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, Senatorial District 3

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Senator John Porter, representing District 1 of Clark County, testified that during the interim he had spoken with agencies in the service of taking care of the children of southern Nevada. In looking at the growth issues, specifically southern Nevada, he felt priority fell with the children. He felt there were areas in Carson City that needed attention regarding the adoption of children.

S.B. 232 covered three major areas:

• Fees the Department of Child and Family Services charged for home studies of children up for adoption.

• Disclosure to all adoptive parents of all social behavior and medical information on child and birth parents.

• Encouragement of the adoption of siblings. Nationwide there were 35,000 brothers and sisters sent to different foster homes causing separation.

Senator Porter then explained the new language to be added to section 1 of the bill. "A child–placing agency shall, to the extent practicable, give preference to the placement of a child for the adoption or permanent free care together with his siblings." He said that particular language would be found throughout the bill. He then went on to section 2, line 4. The section dealt with providing the medical and sociological history of the child and identity of the natural parents of the child; along with any behavioral, emotional, and psychological problems the child had. That information had to be discussed in accordance with policies adopted by the division for the disclosure of such information.

The last area discussed was the fee impact. He felt that area was critical in the outcome of the particular language. He said they tried to encourage those families that could afford private adoption agencies to do so. Fees varied from agency to agency. The current price charged was $8900 in the private sector for adoptions and the State of Nevada charged $2500.

He felt the Senate thought the fees were of serious concern. It appeared families were being limited to adopt through the state system. He said the energies of the State of Nevada programs in taking care of those children came first and foremost. Hundreds of hours were spent taking care of private adoptions for families who could afford to go to the private sector for adoptions. He went on to say the language provided in the bill allowed the state to provide a competitive rate, not for raising money, but to encourage families who could afford private adoption to do so.

Chairman Anderson then called on Judge Hardcastle to testify.

Judge Gerald W. Hardcastle, Family Court, Clark County, said he appreciated the comments of Senator Porter and those working on the legislation before the committee. He felt the bill made sense, and the preference for placing siblings together was very important. The trend in placing children in homes did not give high priority to placing siblings together. He found in the lack of placement, children were often separated from the time they arrived. They never got to get back together. He thought the State of Nevada should give high priority to keeping siblings together, not only through foster care but also through adoptions. He felt passage would lead to the development of resources through the foster care and adoption system. It would enable the agencies to focus on keeping the children together so they would not lose their brothers or sisters. He expressed excitement over the simplicity of the legislation.

Judge Hardcastle said relative to the disclosure clause to parents, he saw many failed adoptions due to the parents not being informed of preexisting problems a child had. Many children came back into the system due to failed adoptions. Disclosure to parents of problems helped the adoption to stay together and it allowed parents to address the issues from the onset. He felt it was critical to have the policy and statute expressed.

Relative to the fees charged, he remarked it might discourage people from adopting, which was not the case. It gave the division discretion in most cases, where people could afford it, to allow them to pay the customary rate. From his perspective, he believed government ought not to compete at taxpayers expense against private enterprise. As a family court judge, he contended the legislation would speed up the adoption process. Because of the ability of the state to charge a lessor fee and for private individuals to turn to the state, the resources of the state were utilized in doing private adoptions and the adoption of foster children. He told the committee the state was overburdened. One of the biggest delays in the adoption system, Judge Hardcastle went on to say, was getting home studies done. Anything, which could be done to relieve the burden and put it back into private enterprise, would speed up adoptions. He noted adoptions took far too long. It was not uncustomary for a termination of parental rights in an adoption proceeding to take a year. That period of time held the child and parents in limbo and was inherently bad for them both. Judge Hardcastle then asked the committee to support the legislation before them.

Chairman Anderson asked Judge Hardcastle if he perceived in the private sector, if these adoption were turned over to them, study for proper placement of children could be conceivably less, due to monetary factors and did money become the prominent interest to the state rather than the child.

Judge Hardcastle replied the private sector had reputable organizations, which did not poorly place children. He felt the harm was in overburdening the state to the point of where state workers would be putting reports in faster without the diligence needed. He noted when a person was paying a fair price for something; it was expected they do a good job. Difficulty was found in a situation whereby the state was being expected to rush through the reports to undercut private enterprise.

Senator Porter interjected there may be a misunderstanding. There were different types of adoptions. Those that were privately arranged, and adoptions of those in the care and custody of the State of Nevada and local government. He noted the state was currently overloaded with private adoptions. An adoption out-of-state was an example. He informed the committee a great deal of time was being spent on taking care of those adoptions. He then went on to paraphrase a letter from Cynthia Musgrove, a volunteer in Clark County. "Currently the state is overloaded with private adoption studies. Adoption workers have no time to do home studies on the children who are in foster care. If we raise the rates to encourage private adoptions to make use of other agencies who are strictly in the private adoption services, because children are lingering in foster care, and the adoptive stage is longer than 12 to 18 months." He said S.B. 232 was not a radical departure from the current procedures relating to adoptions. The language regarding disclosure was part of existing law under former section 7(b) Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 127.52. Adoptive parents currently received a sociological history of the child. The bill added disclosure requirements for any behavioral, emotional, or psychological problems of the children. The disclosure enabled adoptive parents any necessary and available treatment or counseling for the child. Prior to the adoption disclosure helped prevent failed adoptions, both detrimental to the child and family. He further added, no parent was guaranteed a perfect child. Adoptive parents needed to receive the same information that natural parents had, to provide the best care for the child. If disclosure was not provided, adoptive parents could not get the proper care needed. He stated early intervention was in the best interest of the child (Exhibit C).

Judges, who testified in favor of S.B. 232, emphasized disclosure would only strengthen the adoption process, because the adoptive parents enter the situation fully informed (Exhibit D).

Steve Shaw, administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), thanked Senator Porter for bringing S.B. 232 forward. He stated he was unable to bring the bill forward on his own. It was tried two or three sessions in the past and was viewed as an increase bill. He commented he had learned more about adoption in the past 4 months than he had ever known. He spoke specifically to the fee arrangements and what the bill did not include. He expressed the bill would not increase his budget. The fee statutorily capped for DCFS for an adoption was $2500. The private sector charged $7500 for an adoption. He stated the $8900.00 quote from Senator Porter was what it cost DCFS to do adoptions. He said they were subsidizing adoptions.

Mr. Shaw went on to say there were two types of adoptions. One being private, and the other being children in the custody of DCFS. Ninety-one percent of children in custody, on whom adoptions were done, were known as "special needs" children. They did not charge any fee for adoption of "special needs" children according to statute. He pointed out those children were difficult to adopt, there were large sibling groups, and many had health issues. He pointed out his agency was not trying to get more revenue, but was pushing for the private sector to do their job.

He indicated there was a survey done on private adoptions statewide. Fifty-seven percent of those who applied to adopt and were successful had an income of $75,000 to $1.4 million a year. 30 to 35 percent fell around the $75,000 to $85,000 income range. The remainder of adoptions were over that figure. According to the fee schedule, the agency charged the full $2500 if the applicant’s income was over $75,000. Mr. Shaw indicated to the committee the bill was not intended to "price" people out of the market. If there were people who could not afford to pay, the fee structure was coupled with the private sector in order to make sure those people were served. He pointed out adoptions were not reserved just for the wealthy. He stated it was the intent of the agency to double the amount of adoptions by the year 2002.

Mr. Shaw referred to the Adoption Safe Family Act, which allowed the processing of children more quickly and a permanency plan implemented. He felt the legislation being proposed would not be implemented immediately. He figured it would take 2 biennia to be done. He stressed it had to be done slowly and cautiously.

Mr. Shaw testified the bill was good public policy and DCFS needed it. He pointed out the concern about the private agencies not doing their job adequately was moot, because DCFS had control on a regulatory level over the agencies, and if they saw abuses of discretion or inadequate work, investigations took place.

He then told the committee in the 1960’s there was abuse in private agencies wherein adoptions were done as an economic issue. Nevada then got involved to regulate it. He felt it was a proper time to let the private sector do their job with regulatory oversight. He referred to NRS 127.2805, which said when DCFS got notice of a private adoption; the agency had 60 days in order to complete the home study. DCFS took the private adoptions for special needs children first. He said concentration needed to be done in all areas of adoption and not done as it had in the past.

Chairman Anderson appreciated the candor of DCFS. The reality of the situation was a concern because of the economic factor, and where special needs children were being placed. He was familiar with several families who dealt with both DCFS and the Latter Day Saints program. He felt the legislature was fearful the legislation would become an economic engine rather than something that looked out for the best interest of the child.

Steve Shaw assured the committee his agency would pay attention to everything that happened. Regulatory oversight was to be maintained.

Steve Shaw told the committee a survey was done throughout the United States to see what the practices were. He found only six or seven states where state government was involved in private adoptions.

Chairman Anderson asked if the bill would conflict with the work in A.B. 158, or was it a complementary piece of legislation necessary for the full implementation to A.B. 158 over time.

Steve Shaw replied the bills were intricate parts in a strategy. Both were needed and went together.

Chairman Anderson then asked the committee for questions.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie stated she saw the legislation as a good example of a program that could be privatized and supported the concept. She had concerns the budget office would "rerate" workers and workers would not be available to work on the special needs adoptions to be brought in conformance with the federal law. She asked if there was any guarantee the adoption workers would remain to concentrate on the special needs children.

Steve Shaw replied there was no absolute assurance. He felt the employees were needed and would not be taken without a fight. He pointed out the DCFS had 8.5 employees devoted full-time plus a number of part-time employees. They needed to direct those employees to work with those children being adopted.

Mr. Anderson translated to the committee; Mr. Shaw would give his lifeblood to make sure the program stayed in place.

Assemblywoman Leslie wanted it perfectly clear for the record that the adoption workers were to remain. She felt the budget office would eliminate the workers due to privatization. Ms. Leslie then went to a separate section of the bill, section 2, page two. She discussed an article from the New York Times, wherein a private adoption agency from the east had not disclosed to adoptive parents a history of mental illness from the biological mother. A child was adopted and when in his early twenties, he developed signs of mental illness, and eventually committed suicide. The couple, who had adopted, sued the private agency for nondisclosure of the information. Her follow-up question was what was the procedure for disclosure and would the bill affect the procedure and would information such as described be disclosed to adoptive parents.

Steve Shaw referred the question to Wanda Scott.

Chairman Anderson interjected to say the question would be held until Ms. Scott was there to testify. He then asked Assemblywoman Angle for her question.

Assemblywoman Angle stated her concern regarding the legislation was it allowed processing for other states, and adoptions would go into the private sector more than in Nevada. Her next concern was that adoptions were being sent to the private sector, and why couldn’t the adoptions be referred rather than a monetary impetuous being used. She felt a concern regarding the cost and said children should be placed in homes regardless of the fees. She wanted to know why those issues weren’t being addressed.

Steve Shaw addressed the concerns of Ms. Angle. He stated his agency had no statutory authority to refer cases to the private sector. His department was set by statute to charge a maximum of $2,500. The current fee structure of $7,500 for private and $2,500 for the state created an economic incentive to go through the state. They did not have the ability to deny anybody service nor to refer him or her to the private sector. He said the department did out-of- state adoptions, and if a couple had the ability to pay, they belonged in the private sector. The current fee structure would be coupled with the private sector, so if people did not have the ability to pay, they would come to the state agency and be put on a fee schedule. The fee structure was liberal on the lower economic end. If someone was making a large income, the fee structure would be stiff.

Assemblywoman Angle quoted Mr. Shaw to say referrals were prohibited by statute. She said since the statute was presently being addressed, couldn’t that be added.

Steve Shaw replied there could possibly be a way to do that. He felt the legislation before the committee was the simplest way to accomplish the public policy needed. The legislation allowed the private sector and DCFS to devote resources to special needs children.

Chairman Anderson clarified to Ms. Angle that Mr. Shaw perceived that to be part of the legislation that would have to come forward over the next couple of years. Measured steps were best taken to get the results needed.

Mr. Shaw agreed with the Chairman.

Assemblyman Carpenter remarked the law stated the division shall not discriminate between adoptions made through an agency and specific adoptions in setting its fees. The law also stated a fee must not be charged for services related to the adoption of a child with special needs. A division may waive or reduce any fee charged if a parent was unable to pay. He stated any concerns he had regarding fees were covered.

Wanda Scott, Department of Child and Family Services, testified the bill inclusively allowed the department to pay attention to the children within the foster care system. The longer the children stayed in the system, the more frequently they were moved place to place. When children came to DCFS and had not been evaluated or suffered from multiple placements, the adoption process became difficult. If the bill allowed DCFS to get the children through the system in a systematic way where permanency was achieved in a timely manner, DCFS supported it wholeheartedly.

Wanda Scott, provided to the committee the policy and procedure on providing information to prospective parents. The current policy required a written social summary to adoptive parents. DCFS made every effort to interview birth parents, former foster parents, and anyone else who previously cared for the child. The information collected was about the child’s medical, developmental, behavioral, and any history regarding treatment. The agency took that information and summarized it. It was then reviewed, prior to placement with the perspective adoptive parents. If questions arose, they were answered or addressed up front. It helped the parents identify any treatment issues they may face. It also determined, for special needs children, whether or not the division continued to be involved in terms of providing Medicaid to pay for treatment and or financial assistance. Along with the written summary DCFS was required to provide copies of birth records, if available. Any other treatment records wherein the child had been evaluated were also provided. She pointed out there were times when children were abandoned in the system. The agency did not always have contact with birth parents or other relatives. Collecting history information on those children was not possible. Current practice stated the information, if available, needed to be provided to the perspective parents.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if a birth parent had a history of mental illness and it was known by the agency, would it be routinely disclosed to the adoptive parents.

Wanda Scott replied in the affirmative. The agency was acutely aware of the growing populations who were involved in wrongful adoption lawsuits, and the example of mental illness was a classic example. DCFS received approximately two to three inquiries from people a year, who had previously adopted children from years past. The DCFS still relied upon adoption records and any information they had, to provide to those families if treatment was needed.

Assemblywoman Leslie said she was confused about the need for the new language in the bill. She asked for an explanation to what was added in the bill that was not routinely done.

Steve Shaw from DCFS replied the new language codified current practice. It clarified statutory requirements. It gave the agency immunity to release specific information. He speculated at one time there was placement of children in homes where the truth was not told. He said the bill allowed the agency to provide prospective parents with everything they needed to know.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if the disclosure would be written and was it used to seek services on when children began showing symptoms of illness. She then gave an example of a circumstance wherein an adopted child was denied special services.

Steve Shaw deferred the question to Wanda Scott.

Wanda Scott replied the agency relied on the information they collected on the children when they came into foster care. Most of the special needs children were foster children prior to being referred for adoption. They maintained for the life of the child the information in the adoption record. They were in the position to provide information when available. It also was referred to treatment providers. They also attempted to provide families with a post adoption subsidy support. If information regarding a critical treatment issue was not found, they made an effort to provide funding assistance. She said the agency was making every effort to help where they could.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked what was the difference between information given to prospective adoptive parents as opposed to prospective foster parents about a child’s medical history.

Wanda Scott replied she did not work in the foster care program and could not speak to that area of information provided. She said the premise was that either a foster parent or adoptive parent was in a better position to identify a child’s treatment needs and made sure they were involved in treatment and addressed the needs if they had adequate information. She thought the information provided to an adoptive parent would apply to a foster parent as well. Issues related to a child who was in foster care, relative to treatment, had usually been identified and resolved prior to adoption. They relied upon those reports from the foster care system to help in the adoption arena.

Steve Shaw added that A.B. 158 coupled up with S.B. 232. He said foster parents knew the children better than the agency. He said the agency needed all the help they could get.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall informed the committee she had numerous phone calls from foster parents who complained they were not given full background information on a child placed in their care. She also claimed there were complaints about prior incidents that had happened in placement either in a state institution or with other foster parents.

Nancy Saitta, district judge, Clark County, testified before the committee to say she supported S.B. 232. She said her assignment before the committee was to enlighten them on what a special needs child really was. A special needs child was always identified as being in a separate category, as if they were unusual or different from other children. It was her hope that at some point in time the children would be identified as "special" children, because the children in most cases needed the stability of a loving and permanent home. A child became "special" for state standards merely because he/she was a sibling group, if over a certain age, and if there were mental problems in their background. She said the key to the bill was knowledge equaled power. The more known about the children, the more likely they were to have care and treatment. In southern Nevada an adoption fair was held yearly, and the purpose was to bring awareness to the community about children whom were available for adoption and whom only needed the simple care and love of a family. She said the south was having the third annual adoption fair in November and encouraged everyone to attend. As a result of the first fair, 10 percent of the children available for adoption were placed in permanent homes. She did not have the figures for the second fair. She had every indication they were moving in the same direction. She asked the committee to embrace and pass the legislation before them. She also noted the children were likely to grow up to be legislators, teachers, and in many instances became judges. She was proud to tell the committee she was adopted. It was because of the care and concern of her parents that she was able to go into a family where education was important, where love and support was there, and that was what she desired for all children.

Linda J. Maisel, director, Adoption Services, Catholic Community Services of Northern Nevada provided testimony from Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada (Exhibit E) and Jewish Family Services (Exhibit F), supporting the language in S.B. 232. She felt the increase of fees for private agencies to be equitable with the state would give the ability to serve the additional caseloads transferred over to them. Manpower would be available if the legislation passed. She said it would allow her agency to provide fees on a sliding scale, for families who could not afford it. Waiver availability could be achieved through her agency program if the fees were not affordable. She also noted her agency allowed time payments for families to pay for their adoptions, if needed. She said the state needed to focus on the special needs children.

Lucille Lusk, representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated they supported S.B. 232. She stated the bill had been refined while on the Senate side. She said additional actions could be taken but stated they supported the area of the placement of siblings where at all possible. The stability it provided for a child was invaluable if it was done. Disclosure also provided a measure of stability due to the response people had when provided with pertinent information. She said the only reservation to the language was to be sure middle-class families were not "priced out" of the ability to adopt a child.

Jo McLaughlin, director of New Hope and Family, testified in support of S.B. 232. She disclosed New Hope Child and Family Agency was a private agency licensed in Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Within their practice, disclosure of medical history and the placing of siblings were already practiced. Her concern dealt with the fees. She stated the bill allowed the DCFS to be competitive in the private sector. She said many private adoptions were pulled from the state. The private agencies were capable of taking care of those adoptions and would like the opportunity to do so. When the fee structure was examined, many families could afford the fees. She commented the language allowed the state to focus on special needs adoptions. For the families who could not afford the fees she asked why should it be subsidized.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if New Hope Child and Family Agency charged per child, or if there were sibling groups, how was it charged.

Jo McLaughlin replied it was on a case-by-case basis. It depended on the type of adoption. Her agency worked on a sliding scale and had the ability to waive fees and do payment plans.

May Shelton, director, Washoe County Social Services testified in support of S.B. 232.

Chairman Anderson asked if there was anyone who wished to testify in opposition to S.B. 232. He then closed the hearing on S.B. 232.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 232.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO PLACE ON CONSENT CALENDAR.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO.

MOTION CARRIED.

Senator Valerie Wiener, District 3, Clark County read from written testimony attached hereto as Exhibit G. She said members of the Silver Haired Forum endorsed the bill. She provided copies of letters in support of S.B. 347 (Exhibits H, I, J).

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked what was meant by habitual use of alcohol, was it defined as something more than social use, and how did she quantify it.

Senator Wiener said there were ways to determine habitual use by professionals. She presumed a judge would have to talk to the experts as to what habitual use would be.

Assemblywoman asked if there was a table or something they used to make it easy to quantify.

Senator Wiener replied based on what she had done in the therapeutic community as well as with fetal alcohol syndrome, each individual could have been a habitual user in different degrees with different doses. She could not provide an exact answer and deferred it to the experts.

Nancy Saitta, district judge, Clark County, testified in support of S.B. 347 and stated it allowed the children of the state to be treated fairly within the system. She said it set forth criteria that were not findings, but were otherwise suggestive and appropriate in a way to resolve decisions regarding guardianship.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked for examples of when a parent sought guardianship over their own child. She asked if it was in situations where custody was an issue and how was the best interest of the child determined in parental preference.

Nancy Saitta said she was not testifying in a professional capacity but in a personal capacity. She said there were several situations where a child was in need of a guardian or where a parent requested a guardianship, and also where the state removed a child due to the lack of care or for whatever reason. She said the legislation would go together in respect the Guardian ad Litem, although they were not the same.

Assemblywoman Buckley followed up to ask if a parent signed custody over to another parent, what circumstances were needed in order for that to happen.

Nancy Saitta replied it would be in a situation wherein the parents did not agree for whatever reason and presumptions existed still wherein custody should be placed with the mother. Certain situations arose where a parent needed other care and treatment provided for the child, and that was how they became in need of placement of a guardian.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if that applied only in sociological situations where the ability of the parent to "parent" was examined or did it apply in strict legal economic situations wherein a rich relative dies in testate and the child was in the line of succession and the custodial parent may need guardianship in order to push the child’s right to be the testator’s succession. Would those factors also be included.

Nancy Saitta said it was her understanding the bill in no way limited the need, it was simple and straightforward. If there was a situation where a child needed a guardian appointed, that was the criterion at which the courts would look in order to make the decision.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked to follow up with a question. She asked if there would be any such thing as a simple performa appointment of a guardian ad litem strictly for a guardian ad litem situation such as an inheritance.

Nancy Saitta replied the bill did not address that issue. The guardian ad litem was something very different from a straight guardian.

Assemblyman Collins stated he had a question regarding the determination of "prospering" and medical care. The working parent provided medical care, and he asked if it was the case in custody situations.

Chairman Anderson interrupted to say technical questions needed to be addressed to either Senator Wiener or May Shelton.

Assemblyman Collins directed his previous question to Senator Wiener.

Senator Wiener replied initially there was language something like "provides a suitable environment," and there was hesitation over the definition of "suitable". She stated collaboration was done on definitive language such as "basic needs." She said the decision was not a limiting factor, but as a consideration for the courts to use in their discretion in the placement of the child.

May Shelton, director, Washoe County Social Services, supported Senator Wiener’s S.B. 347. She noted she had the privilege of working on the amendments, which satisfied all parties. With the adoption of A.B. 158 , which embodied the Adoptions and Safe Families Act, she thought more relatives would be sought to take guardianship of children which were considered to be permanent plans. She said her agency wanted those children to be in safe places where care could be given without the child having to be moved from one foster home to another. She stated she had talked with Judge Jordan and Kirby Burgess, director, of Clark County Family and Youth, who supported the bill. As far as legal questions, she promised not to misrepresent facts and also not to practice law.

Lucille Lusk, representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of S.B. 347. She said her agency considered the bill as guidelines to be examined at carefully by the courts. She said there were concerns with the initial wording of the bill. She said the amendments took care of that concern.

Chairman Anderson asked for testimony in opposition to S.B. 347.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS S.B. 347 AND PLACE ON CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 347.

Assemblyman Nolan commented to Senator Wiener there was an article in the Nevada Appeal giving her "kudos" for the bill which she brought forth in the 1997 session dealing with the willing inmate program. He pointed out the program mentioned, graduated inmates from their first class from the Warm Springs Correctional Center.

Chairman Anderson provided to the committee a substitute amendment to A.B. 304 which was given to him by Assemblywoman McClain (Exhibit K). He stated the substitute amendment did not modify the intent of the bill and then asked Ms. McClain to explain the amendment.

Assemblywoman McClain stated the new amendment left in the provisions for filing a false complaint as a misdemeanor, but it narrowly defined it to make it clear that the complaint must be a formal written complaint against a police officer for conduct "in the course and scope of his job." That meant it would not include anything done outside the course of his/her job, or personal life. She went on to say it retained the language that each police agency in the state was required to establish written procedures investigating complaints and that copies were to be provided to the public. She said the police and highway patrol were satisfied with the new change.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if an agency could amend the complaint.

Chairman Anderson deferred the question to Ms. McClain.

Assemblywoman McClain replied she would hope the agencies would have good sense in mandating the forms of which they served.

Assemblywoman Buckley suggested the law enforcement agencies that did not favor the bill in the first place would not amend the statement if it was not set forth in statute.

Chairman Anderson revealed to the committee there were two pieces of major legislation coming before the committee. He said they were looking for a solution to the laser pointer bill and hoped there was something found relative to that question.

There being nothing else to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Kelly Liston,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: