The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, April 29, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Senate Bill 157.

Jim Weston, representing the sentencing commission, gave a brief overview of S.B. 157. He explained it was the responsibility of the sentencing commission to assess the impact of any changes in legislation or new legislation, and report to the legislature any suggested adjustments in sentencing structures. He noted one of the difficulties the commission faced was trying to find timely, accurate information from which it could judge the impact of legislation through, for example, the court system. The sentencing commission found approximately 60 percent of the courts in the state reported dispositions of cases to the state records repository in Carson City. Mr. Weston commented there, they could obtain information in regard to the impact of existing statutes, the actions judges had taken, and the impact of new legislation. In order for the job to be done more effectively, the commission had proposed legislation mandating the courts to report certain offenses, mostly felonies, to the repository in a manner prescribed by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV), so it would be standardized.

The benefit would be a reduction in redundancy because each court reported in different methods. Mr. Weston was sensitive to the fact that the process of automating some of the courts in the state and reporting the information could be expensive and he did not want to mandate or charge the different counties and courts with the expense. The proposed legislation therefore stated if the legislature could provide money to automate court systems and allow the district and justice courts in the state to report to the criminal repository, they had to do that in a manner prescribed by the DMV. He noted other pieces of legislation existed which addressed the same type of requirement and further analysis might be needed to either combine or eliminate one of the pieces of legislation.

The Honorable David Gamble, from the Ninth Judicial District Court and also representing the Nevada Sentencing Commission, proceeded to review the different sections of the bill. He emphasized the only reporting requirements in the bill were related to dispositions of criminal cases, which meant all crimes excluding traffic crimes except those traffic offenses which caused death, driving under the influence offense, or a traffic offense declared to be a felony. In those cases, the dispositions would be reported to the repository in a common fashion statewide so the statistics could be appropriately used by whomever needed them.

Judge Gamble stated section 1 described the requirements for the district court and assigned the responsibility to the clerk of the court because he or she would have the best access to the disposition. Currently, different agencies in different counties were responsible for reporting and there was no common fashion by which that happened. Section 2 addressed justice courts and required the justice of the peace to do the reporting. Section 3 was focused on municipal courts and required the clerk to report. He reiterated S.B. 157 would have a fiscal impact on the local agencies that had to report, and because the sentencing commission did not want to request that the legislature create unfunded mandates, it would be left to the extent of legislative appropriation. Section 4 of the bill required the director of the DMV to consult with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Between the two of them, they would produce and adopt regulations related to the reporting requirement. He commented the participation of the AOC was particularly important. Judge Gamble noted the legislation would be helpful to the sentencing commission as well as various agencies to have good statistics in order to study the impact of changes in legislation, such as the truth-in-sentencing legislation passed in 1995.

Judge Gamble noted A.B. 621 was the other similar piece of legislation, which would need resolution with S.B. 157 in order to get the desired task accomplished. He remarked certain provisions in each bill were important.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee A.B. 621 was now in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. He noted time would be a factor in regard to further study of the necessary provisions in each of the bills.

Dennis DeBacco, Manager of the Nevada Criminal History Records Repository, testified in support of S.B. 157. He reminded the committee A.B. 621 dealt with a number of issues necessary to the repository program including disposition reporting. He did not believe the two bills were in conflict but recognized some provisions might be redundant. He pointed out the difference between the two as they related to disposition reporting was S.B. 157 provided greater specificity of disposition reporting as it related to courts than did A.B. 621. He further pointed out A.B. 621 said the responsibility of sending the record rested with the agency where the record originated. Mr. DeBacco reiterated S.B. 157 addressed disposition reports only and would not negate A.B. 621 because there were many other things accomplished in that bill. He informed the committee he had worked closely with the sentencing commission and wholeheartedly supported S.B. 157.

Chairman Anderson pointed out a fiscal note was created by A.B. 621, whereas there was no fiscal impact with S.B. 157.

Mr. DeBacco stated initially A.B. 621 carried a fiscal note, but it was eliminated by the amendments made to the bill. He also drew attention to the fact that while there was no fiscal note, S.B. 157 would have a fiscal consequence for local jurisdictions who needed to forward the information to the repository. A.B. 621 did not include that fiscal concern.

Brian Doran, Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, testified in support of S.B. 157. He supported the provision which made the originator of the record responsible for forwarding the information to the repository, eliminating as many exchanges of records as possible. He noted in the past, law enforcement was responsible for forwarding the dispositions from the courts to the repository, and he believed the more exchanges that happened only increased the risk of something happening to the records. A second concern he had was the fiscal impact to the courts. He noted currently, some courts reported the disposition but others did not and would have to establish a procedure. In conclusion, Mr. Doran pointed out the effective date of S.B. 157 was July 1. He stated that did not allow enough time for the director of the DMV and the state court administrator to develop an appropriate procedure. He asked for some leeway in order to work with the local courts. He noted there was a model in place and it would be used for every court in order to determine what type of cases they would keep and how to transfer the information.

Chairman Anderson commented when A.B. 621 was considered, one of the documents provided the committee was a model that the court would prefer to follow in collecting statistical information from the various bodies and how that would be reported back. He pointed out the bill was amended to conform somewhat to that model.

Mr. Doran emphasized a model was developed so each court would know what type of information they should keep, and there would be consistency throughout the state. Then, each court could develop whatever case management system best fit their needs while meeting the minimum requirements.

Chairman Anderson questioned what effective date Mr. Doran desired. Mr. Doran offered the director of DMV and the state court administrator should be able to meet by October. He reiterated they had already agreed on the type of information to be retained. "It is how it will be transmitted that we really need to work out."

Chairman Anderson asked the committee’s legal counsel for clarification about when the law went into effect and when the court would be required to perform. Ms. Lang replied the effective date on the bill was July 1, 1999 but after review of the provisions, none of them would be required to happen by July 1. It would put them in place on that date and then section 4 would require the parties to get together and adopt regulations. Once the regulations were in place and if there were legislative appropriations, then the other three sections would become effective.

Mr. Doran expressed satisfaction with that explanation.

There being no further people who wished to testify, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 157. He asked Ms. Lang to prepare a comparison of S.B. 157 and A.B. 621.

The hearing on Senate Bill 484 was opened.

Dennis DeBacco came forward again to testify on S.B. 484. He explained the bill was actually the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact that had been signed by the President of the United States and forwarded to all states for their legislatures to ratify. "The compact would provide a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative federal state system for the interstate and federal state exchange of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes, as they related to occupational licensing, employment screening and regulatory uses by authorized governmental agencies within Nevada." He emphasized the compact only related to criminal history records that over the years had been passed from our state to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) national system. It did not relate to information that fell outside the scope of criminal history record information such as records of public safety. He pointed out Nevada’s definition of criminal history record information coincided with the federal definition. He submitted for the record a letter from the FBI indicating the distinction between a record of public safety and a record of criminal history, pointing out that question had also been asked on the Senate side when A.B. 621 was considered. The letter was attached as Exhibit C.

Mr. DeBacco continued his presentation pointing out S.B. 484 provided for the elimination of duplication between state repositories and the FBI by eliminating the need to pass redundant information to the FBI once a state record was established. The national files were being decentralized back to the states. For that reason, the FBI had to work with the states to establish a compact that ensured certain standardization of dissemination and submission criteria to the national system. Ratification of the compact would expand the state’s ability to use long standing systems that had been in place and used by law enforcement agencies. Previously the states had been precluded from using the system because it required them to forward fingerprints to the FBI. Under the compact, if a person’s identity was established at the state level, it would no longer be necessary to forward the fingerprints to the FBI for them to duplicate that confirmation of identity process. Mr. DeBacco explained the state would be able to turn records around within days rather than months and the $24 additional fee charged to the FBI would be eliminated because they would not be processing the fingerprint cards.

He noted under the compact, the system could also be used for regulatory functions within the state that would be important for making informed licensing and employment decisions. He indicated he had documented support from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, the Reno Police Department, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, the Clark County School District, the Division of Child and Family Services, the repository as a whole, and various national organizations. Mr. DeBacco noted if the compact was not ratified, it would be "business as usual" but the compact would bring more efficiency at a lower cost, particularly by exchanging information electronically.

Chairman Anderson asked if there was any down side to ratifying the compact. Mr. DeBacco replied he did not see any negative consequences of getting into the compact. He pointed out there was nothing in the compact that lessened the obligations, responsibilities, and authorities of any state whether it was a party to the compact or not.

Chairman Anderson stated Nevada would not be surrendering anything to the national government that they did not already possess, but it would enhance Nevada’s position in dealing with other states in terms of having access to their system. Mr. DeBacco said he was correct and explained decentralizing the national files back to the states gave the states more control and input over their records processes.

Assemblywoman Leslie recognized a party to the compact could get out of it by giving written notice within 6 months. She inquired about the process of withdrawing from the compact. Mr. DeBacco replied the decision to withdraw would have to be approved by the legislature.

Larry Spitler, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, expressed support for S.B. 484. He explained the district hired 2,000 teachers each year, and part of the employment process was a background check. He opined ratification of the compact would expedite those returns rather than having to wait 3 to 4 months.

May Shelton, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County Social Services, Captain Jim Nadeau representing the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, and Deborah Williams, Records Manager of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, all urged the committee to pass S.B. 484.

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, also expressed support for the legislation.

Janine Hansen, President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, stated she was concerned about whether or not the compact would include records of public safety, particularly records regarding concealed weapons permits, because she did not want those records transferred to the Federal Government. She noted Mr. DeBacco indicated that would not occur and therefore, her concern had been addressed.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Nolan to present S.B. 484 on the assembly floor. He then opened the hearing on S.B. 515.

Carlos Concha, Chief of the Division of Parole and Probation, reviewed the history of the sex offender and community notification process. He noted in 1995, the legislature passed Senate Bill 192 which required parolees, after being released from the Nevada state prison, to participate in the community notification process. The Attorney General’s Office developed guidelines for that process and the Division of Parole and Probation, with cooperation from the Department of Prisons, carried out the program. In 1997, the legislature passed Senate Bill 325 which expanded the scope to include all other sex offenders throughout the state as well as those entering the state and required them to register as a record of registration and for community notification. Mr. Concha explained S.B. 515 was a "cleanup bill" to fix some of the issues that were not addressed in those prior pieces of legislation. A main component of the proposed legislation was amending Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 179D to require nonresident students and workers to register with the division as sex offenders. Mr. Concha proceeded with a thorough examination of S.B. 515. His prepared written comments were attached as Exhibit D.

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification in regard to the usage of the psychosexual panel. Mr. Concha described the makeup of the "psyche panel" but explained that panel had nothing to do with sex offender registration and community notification. He clarified the psychosexual evaluation to which he referred in the bill was a psychologist on staff that did an evaluation of offenders in custody prior to sentencing.

In response to another question from the Chair, Mr. Concha explained the intent of the bill was to cleanup the statutes in order to comply with federal mandates.

Mariah Sugden, representing the Attorney General’s Office, elaborated on the issue of federal legislation. She explained the two pieces of legislation to which Mr. Concha referred as well as S.B. 515 were in response to three pieces of federal legislation which addressed programs of registration and notification of sex offenders. S.B. 515 responded to issues raised by federal mandates as well as addressed some issues that had come before the Attorney General’s Office. Specifically, those were registration of offenders that committed certain crimes against children of a nonsexual nature and offenders who had been convicted of a sex offense outside the State of Nevada. She pointed out in reviewing current Nevada law, deficiencies were found which caused the state to be in noncompliance with federal mandates. She noted under current Nevada law, sexually violent predators and recidivists were not required to register for a lifetime but only for 15 years. After 15 years, the individual could petition the court for an exemption of further requirement. The bill would now require sexually violent predators and recidivists to register for a lifetime. The other section that was deficient under the federal mandate was requiring the nonresident worker and student to register when coming into the State of Nevada. The bill would require that as well as require a nonresident sex offender, worker, and student to be subject to community notification.

Mr. Concha added the project was much bigger than the division had originally anticipated. He noted there were approximately 2500 sex offenders registered throughout the State of Nevada and approximately 1,000 of those were registered in Las Vegas.

Assemblyman Carpenter noted in some sections, it specifically stated an individual must register within 48 hours and yet in other sections that reference to time was absent. He questioned why that would not be uniform throughout the bill. Ms. Sugden acknowledged it was confusing but explained the 48-hour requirement referred to individuals who were not yet in the system and just entering the state. They would have to report to local law enforcement within 48 hours for registration. Subsequently, upon getting the address of the nearest office of parole and probation, the individual would complete a more formal record with that division. That differed in respect to the individual who was being placed on parole or probation. In that instance, the court would order the division of parole and probation to become involved with obtaining a record of registration.

Mr. Carpenter expressed his desire to see the provisions more clearly address the required time limit. He also expressed concern with the primary address required for students and workers to give. He opined their residential address should also be required, rather than their school or work address.

Mr. Concha pointed out a convicted sex offender from Truckee, California, working in Reno would have to be registered in California as well as Nevada. Nevada law enforcement would have access to that address through the other state’s records.

Mr. Carpenter also asked for clarification of waivers in section 42. Mr. Concha stated there were a number of sex offenders who came to the state and registered within the timeframe; however, they only stayed in the state for a few days. The division would keep their name on record and when they returned, the division would attempt to contact them. Although they did not establish a permanent record of address, the division still wanted to provide law enforcement with a community notification notice. The proposal to waive the assessment was because those individuals were no longer in the State of Nevada. If they were here as tourists for 5 days, they were required to register within the 48 hours but the waiver would allow the division not to have to set up a record of registration.

In regard to a previous question from Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Sugden pointed out section 21 set forth what information was required in the record of registration and included the address at which the offender resided. In reading that conjunctively with the new provisions dealing with the nonresident worker or student, that information would be collected at the time a registration record was created. Also, in regard to his question about the 48 hours, she reiterated the 48 hours would apply to an individual who had either served out his or her sentence and had not been paroled, had not been granted probation, or was convicted outside the state.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, noted pages 3, 4, and 5 included the provisions in which the association was interested and wished the committee would support. He remarked in 1997, psychosexual evaluations were mandated for everyone charged with a sexual offense whether convicted or not. It was believed the evaluation would be beneficial in order for a judge to have some information prior to sentencing. If the person was definitely going to prison, a psychosexual evaluation would not benefit the judge in determining whether or not to send him to prison. He expressed his desire to see the psychosexual evaluation done only if probation was allowable or at such time the individual was ready for parole. He recognized that would also have a positive fiscal impact.

Captain Jim Nadeau, representing the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, told the committee he had been stationed at the Incline Village substation and it was not uncommon for college students and workers to cross state lines on a regular basis. He expressed support for the changes in statute.

Pat Hines, representing Nevada Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (NV CURE), testified in opposition to the bill. Her main point of contention rested with section 9 on page 7, which dealt with allowing the public access to records by electronic means. She recognized agencies and employers needed that kind of access but she opined the general public did not. Ms. Hines noted people could obtain personal information about a sex offender while remaining anonymous and that the recipient of the information was not required to acknowledge receipt. Also, the recipient was not informed of specific consequences of misuse of the information. She believed the access would lead to vigilantism against the sex offender. She noted NV CURE was also disappointed with the removal of the psychosexual evaluation required on all sex offenders. She believed there was a misconception by many people that the evaluation was done when individuals entered the prison system, and yet that was not the case. She also expressed concern that the makeup of the psyche panel was not composed of people who were trained in the psychosexual field. She concluded that the sex offender who had paid his dues and who had been released on parole deserved a chance for success. Making registration for a lifetime and the 48-hour requirement were just other discriminations against the sex offender. She pointed out no other criminal had to stay on lifetime supervision nor were they required to register within 48 hours when entering the state. Ms. Hines noted she had testified before the Senate Committee on Judiciary at which time further information was requested. She drew attention to a follow-up letter she had written, which was attached as Exhibit E. She stated NV CURE would like to see the bill pass as they were not opposed to the remaining sections, but wanted section 9 removed.

Jean Lind, a member of NV CURE, accompanied Ms. Hines at the witness table but did not testify.

Assemblyman Manendo assumed the position of Chairman because Chairman Anderson needed to step out of the room. Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on S.B. 515. He asked Mr. DeBacco to come forward in order to address Ms. Hine’s concerns with section 9.

Mr. DeBacco stated currently, existing statute provided for public access to the sex offender registry. He noted records could not be requested anonymously and in fact, statute was very specific about what the requester was required to provide to the repository in making the request via telephone. Specific information about the individual on whom they were requesting information was also required. Section 9 would amend that statute, so the same mechanism used for requesting records over the telephone could be used through a web site. Mr. DeBacco emphasized the tight controls contained in current statute would also be used with requests through a web site.

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired what the rate of recidivism was for sex offenders. Mr. DeBacco could not recall those figures but offered to forward the information to Mr. Gustavson.

Mr. Anderson returned to the room and retained his position as the Chair. He stated the committee would not take action on the bill so that information requested could be reviewed. He opened the hearing on Senate Bill 327.

Helen Foley, Legislative Representative for World Gaming Network (WGN), introduced Julie Hackman, General Manager of WGN. She explained currently employers were allowed to request information from the criminal history repository about prospective employees, noting the information was restricted to convictions and whether someone was currently in the criminal justice system, including parole and probation. Many employers were now utilizing the services of employment screeners or others to research the backgrounds of potential employees, including employment and criminal history. One of the reasons employers were using those services was because they had been faced with liability issues. She noted one example was called "respondeat superior" which was when employers were held responsible for the acts of their employees when tasks were performed on behalf of that employer. Ms. Foley also made reference to a situation called "negligent referral". She explained there was a case where a schoolteacher from Michigan performed sexual acts on a child and was dismissed, but no criminal proceedings were filed. After the teacher moved to California and engaged in similar behavior, it was discovered the teacher had done that in Michigan as well. Michigan was held liable because they had not disclosed what the teacher had done. Ms. Foley stated when the bill was heard by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, they had expressed concern the information be disseminated no further than the prospective employer. Therefore, language was added to the original bill to address that concern. She reiterated the authorized agent had to be authorized by the employer to obtain the information, and that information could only be disseminated to that employer.

Chairman Anderson expressed concern with Ms. Foley’s example of "negligent referral". He asked how it was determined that the teacher was discharged for performing sexual acts with a child, if no charges were filed. Ms. Foley explained the case had been used merely as an example of the importance of employment screening and she did not have anymore information. She offered to provide the committee with the cite of the case.

Ms. Foley noted another concern the Senate had with the original bill was they wanted to make sure the authorized agent was subject to compliance with the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She noted the act dealt not only with credit reporting, but also consumer reporting. Ms. Foley said just last October, the United States Senate passed the Consumer Reporting Employment Clarification Act of 1998. That act mandated more information be supplied to the consumer. People who fell under the Fair Crediting Reporting Act would also be required to do the same, so if an individual disputed items on their report, he or she would have the opportunity to review it. The Senate committee felt it would be a safeguard for the employee. The other issue, which was presented by Mr. DeBacco, had to do with the maintenance of a log documenting the dissemination of the information. She said that was not opposed and therefore, section 5 was amended to provide a log be kept.

Chairman Anderson expressed concern with the reference to "authorized agent" and asked for clarification of its definition. Ms. Foley explained it meant someone who was authorized by the employer to acquire the information. She added anyone who acquired that information must follow and be in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Chairman Anderson pondered if an authorized agent would become a "storehouse of information" because they might have acquired information for a number of employers. Ms. Foley replied under S.B. 327, the answer would be no. The only people an authorized agent could disseminate information to would be the employer who requested it. Every time an authorized agent received a request to obtain information, it would have to be obtained anew for each and every request. She referred to NRS 179A.110.

In response to further questioning by the Chair about complying with the act, Julie Hackman, General Manager of WGN, explained the Fair Credit Reporting Act, required that if criminal information included arrest information it could only be disseminated up to 7 years. If it was about conviction information, her business could obtain and disseminate as much information as was available from any state or county agency.

Ms. Foley reiterated under the provisions of the bill, only convictions were allowed. She emphasized the central repository would not supply any employer or its authorized agent anything but conviction records or if someone was on parole or probation. That provision was existing language. She added currently, an employer could obtain information about a prospective employee and decide not to hire him or her based on that information. The employer was not required to reveal that information to the prospective employee. In order to be in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the employer must provide a copy of the information to the consumer or prospective employee. She repeated the safeguards existed for the employee.

In regard to the log, Ms. Foley pointed out currently, the criminal repository requested all criminal justice agencies to keep a log and now, they were simply asking the authorized agent to do the same.

Assemblyman Brower stated he saw the bill as a relatively simple piece of legislation that sought to change only one thing and that was to allow an authorized agent to do what employers already could do. Ms. Foley agreed with his summary. She repeated no new information would be supplied. It would only ease the operation of the employer by using an authorized agent and help the consumer or prospective employee.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed with Mr. Brower’s comments. She asked Ms. Foley if there had been any opposition to the bill. Ms. Foley replied Mr. DeBacco had raised some concerns, but there had been no opposition. She noted the bill had been amended to address Mr. DeBacco’s concerns.

Mr. DeBacco came forward to clarify some issues for the Chair. Mr. DeBacco admitted the use of an authorized agent would be a departure from long-standing practice and policy. He indicated he had actively participated in the hearing on the Senate side. Initially, the bill was a very simple piece of legislation, and he recognized he might have made it more complicated. At that time, he believed an authorized agent needed to be defined. A definition was offered and it satisfied him. Since then, the reference to complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act had been added. After further review, he realized there was a limitation of 7 years as to what a consumer-reporting agency could provide to an employer. He opined an employer would be giving up a lot. Currently, if the repository processed the request, the employer would receive criminal history record information going back much further than 7 years. Mr. DeBacco also acknowledged there could be a fiscal consequence of having that 7-year restriction which he had not thought of before. He explained his system would have to be technically modified in order to release information to the authorized agent that fit their reporting criteria to their client. Mr. DeBacco concluded his comments by pointing out he also had a concern in regard to training, specifically having to bring his staff up to a certain level of familiarity with the consumer reporting act, which he noted, was very complicated.

Mr. Brower opined the 7-year provision in the act pertained to the dissemination of credit information which the bill did not address and should not complicate it.

Gina Crown, Owner of Crown, Stanley and Silverman and also Vice President of the Nevada Investigators Association, testified about the concerns she had with the bill. She acknowledged it would be beneficial for investigators to have access to criminal history repository information. However, she questioned the definition of authorized agent and wondered if it was needed in the bill. She believed a more appropriate definition could be found. She also stated there were many issues of the Fair Credit Reporting Act which were subject to interpretation and it might be easier to remove that reference. Ms. Crown stated the other definitions in the bill, which clarified what an authorized agent was, would be sufficient to meet the purposes of what was trying to be accomplished. Her last concern was that the employers of Nevada had the best information available. She noted if an employer obtained information through the repository, it would include information from four different states. If an authorized agent accessed the information on behalf of an employer, they would only receive Nevada’s criminal history information. It would be good for agents because they would have more accounts, but it would be bad for employers because they would not have access to the best information. She said to fix that, an agent would have to be treated as the employer and not just an agent of the employer.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Crown to put her concerns in writing, if possible by Monday. Ms. Crown replied she would be happy to do so.

Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, agreed with the questions and concerns brought forward in the hearing. She urged the committee to get answers to those questions. She noted one concern that had not been raised was the potential for abuse or inaccuracy when a secondary agent was involved in providing information from the repository.

Ms. Foley commented she had been asked to inform the committee that the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada Retail Association also supported the bill.

There being no else who wished to testify, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: