The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Friday, April 30, 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

Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Susan Lawrence, Student, University of Nevada at Reno

Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, at Las Vegas

David Hansen, Assistant Vice-President for student development, University of Nevada at Reno

Walter Glass, Program Coordinator, Greek Life, University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Meaghan Miller, President, Sigma Alpha Sorority, University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Eric Nystrom, President, Pi Kappa Alpha, University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Marc Maietta, Lambda Pi Alpha, Greek organization for Mature Management of Alcohol, University of Nevada Las Vegas

Amy Canepa, Student Body Vice-President, University of Nevada at Las Vegas,

Richard Daley, Student, University of Nevada Las Vegas

Gemma Greene, Washoe County deputy district attorney

Judge Norman Robison, Senior District Judge, Dayton, Nevada

Judge Michael Gibbons, District Judge, Ninth Judicial District

Judge Brent Adams, District Judge, Second Judicial District

Sam McMullen, Representative, Retail Association of Nevada

Carl Willcoxson, Resident, Las Vegas

Following roll call, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 297.

Senator Dina Titus, Senate District 7, provided the committee with a packet (Exhibit C) which contained an overview of hazing laws in other states along with press coverage and letters of support for S.B. 297. Senator Titus said S.B. 297 passed in the Senate unanimously with amendments. The aspect of the definition of hazing which included mental stress had been eliminated. It was her belief hazing did indeed cause mental stress, but it was difficult to define in such a way as to make it a crime. The definition was therefore limited to the physical damages of hazing.

Another aspect of S.B. 297 worth noting, continued Senator Titus, was that it specifically referred to hazing at universities and high schools. Harassment could take place in other social settings, but there were criminal statutes already in place to deal with those situations. All organizations on campus were addressed in the bill, but the definition of hazing was narrowed so it did not include activities that were part of standard behavior of those organizations. For example, the basketball coach might make the team run around the gym 20 times, which was not hazing.

Chairman Anderson provided the committee a handout (Exhibit E) which showed highlights of a 1997 national youth gang survey and a guide to school search and seizure.

Angel Robinson, student, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 297 (Exhibit F). Ms. Robinson said there had not been an incidence of hazing in Nevada which had caused permanent injury or death. Despite that, unsubstantiated claims of hazing were continuously raised on university, college, and high school campuses. S.B. 297 would serve as a deterrent to such behavior and create an acceptable method of dealing with hazing should it occur. S.B. 297 would make a person who engaged or conspired to engage in hazing guilty of a misdemeanor, or a gross misdemeanor if substantial bodily harm resulted from the behavior. Such legislation, said Ms. Robinson, was a growing trend around the United States. There were 39 states with laws which prohibited hazing with penalties ranging from misdemeanor to felony charges. Colorado recently passed anti-hazing legislation and Vermont had legislation pending.

Ms. Robinson said S.B. 297 defined hazing as any and all activity for the purpose of initiation into or affiliation with a student organization, academic association, or athletic team which intentionally or recklessly endangered the physical health of the person seeking admittance to such an organization. The definition of hazing included such activities as whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of food, liquor, drugs, or other substances, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity that was likely to adversely affect the physical health of the affected person. The definition of force amended by the Senate into S.B. 297, continued Ms. Robinson, stated an activity was considered force if initiation into or affiliation with a student organization, academic association, or athletic team was directly or indirectly conditioned upon participation in the activity.

Ms. Robinson said since 1970, at least one death had occurred per year from hazing incidents. Countless injuries occurred every year. The number one reason hazing continued year after year was peer pressure. A strong desire to belong caused people to put themselves in the position of hazing and being hazed.

The legislation in S.B. 297, said Ms. Robinson, would go hand-in-hand with new university and college system policies against hazing. That policy made it clear the system would not tolerate any form of hazing on campuses in Nevada. If a situation arose, disciplinary sanctions would result. University punishment, while significant, was not sufficient to stop hazing. Legislation must be passed to reinforce that policy.

During the Senate hearing for S.B. 297, Ms. Robinson continued, an amendment was offered to make the bill effective upon passage and approval. Along with the other proposed changes, the committee accepted the amendment. Unfortunately, that language was inadvertently left out of amendment number 288 which was adopted on the Senate floor. Because many college organizations conducted intake prior to the October 1, 1999, effective date stated in the bill, it was important the committee approve that amendment at the present time. She urged passage of S.B. 297.

Chairman Anderson asked if the documents Ms. Robinson had requested be put into the record were presented to the Senate as well. Ms. Robinson said that was the case.

Chairman Anderson then asked if placing S.B. 297 in Nevada Revised Statute 200 would limit it to only universities, colleges, and high schools. He said there were adult groups which had initiations that might include hazing. Senator Titus said S.B. 297 did not involve that kind of organization, since hazing traditionally was a campus activity.

Assemblyman Gustavson said he noticed many states which had laws on hazing included all schools. He wondered why S.B. 297 did not have that blanket inclusion. Senator Titus responded the colleges and universities seemed to be where the more serious problems were. Other disciplinary options were available to grammar and junior high schools. She did not have a problem with adding junior high or grammar schools to the bill if that was deemed appropriate. Assemblyman Gustavson said his concern arose from other problems such as drug use trends affecting the lower levels. Senator Titus referred to a number of problems which started at younger ages, but the specific definition of hazing applied to older students.

Assemblyman Nolan wished to be assured S.B. 297 did not pertain to such activities as calisthenics for an ice hockey team, or ROTC. Senator Titus said the language was narrowed to be certain the definition made clear any kind of activity which was part of formal activity of an organization would be precluded from the bill.

Assemblyman Brower said he was not sure schools could not deal with hazing without putting new law into statute. Senator Titus responded the universities had been slow in dealing with hazing. Only in recent weeks had the university system adopted a formal policy about the issue. She felt S.B. 297 was a social comment that Nevada along with 39 other states would not tolerate such behavior, and would toughen penalties for that behavior.

Susan Lawrence, student, University of Nevada at Reno, testified in support of S.B. 297 (Exhibit G). Ms. Lawrence said as a first-year University of Nevada at Reno student she was enticed to join a campus Greek organization. She was deterred from joining by stories she heard directly from current and former fraternity members. An active Sigma Alpha Epsilon member gave her an account of hazing practices he had suffered which included excessive nonstop drinking for days at a time. She was also made aware of an incident where another Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledge feared he might be physically harmed during a routine initiation event so he armed himself with a concealed knife for protection. Though she had not heard direct stories of hazing practices in campus sororities, Ms. Lawrence said there were rumors that those practices existed.

Ms. Lawrence told the committee many incidents of hazing went unreported. Students might deplore the activities, but did not speak out for fear of peer retribution and being outcast. The silence regarding hazing was due to the lack of an enforceable statute which would protect students who wished to speak out against the practice. Ms. Lawrence felt S.B. 297 would offer protection to all students from the potential dangers of hazing practices while helping to dispel existing negative reputations of organizations. In addition, S.B. 297 would help enforce forthcoming university policy regarding hazing. The statute would give more meaning to that policy by expressing to students that hazing would not be tolerated at the university or state level.

Chairman Anderson asked if S.B. 297 would cause the university to carry out investigations based on fear or rumors of an event which might or might not have taken place. Ms. Lawrence felt just having a statute in place would help dispel the fear of reporting cases of hazing. Chairman Anderson asked if S.B. 297 would help someone who had heard of an incident of hazing to come forward. Ms. Lawrence agreed such would be the result. Chairman Anderson then said often a concept of what may take place did not always reflect the reality of what did indeed take place. Fraternities often put forth myths about what took place as compared to the reality of an event. Ms. Lawrence repeated she had a negative impression of Greek organizations because of stories she heard directly from members. She felt S.B. 297 would actually help dispel negative impressions such as those.

Assemblyman Collins asked if S.B. 297 would still allow organizations some process of letting one feel one had earned ones right to belong. Ms. Lawrence replied she felt any organization was joined for its own sake and hazing practices were not necessary.

Senator Titus added national fraternities and sororities had anti-hazing policies in place and were still able to instill pride in their members by virtue of good works or grade point averages. There was more pride in an organization which accomplished things without the reputation of hazing.

Rick Bennett, director of government relations, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 297. He said the issue of hazing was first brought to his attention during the 1997 Legislative Session. Mr. Bennett provided a letter (Exhibit D) from Jane Nichols, vice-chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs for the University System of Nevada, and others, which he asked be entered into the record. Mr. Bennett read from the letter of Ms. Nichols at paragraph 2, which stated it was her belief a state statute which recognized hazing as a misdemeanor would be an important additional ingredient for effective action against hazing which resulted in physical harm.

Mr. Bennett said the university system policy was discussed in a board of regents committee. Suggestions were made to amend that policy and action would be taken in the near future. Because the university brought S.B. 297 forward, a decision was made not to impose those concerns on other entities. The Senate had suggested high schools be included in the bill. Certainly all schools merited consideration, and the feeling was to let the committee decide what should be included.

David Hansen, assistant vice-president for student development, University of Nevada at Reno, testified in support of S.B. 297. Mr. Hansen said the bill would reinforce hazing policies already in place for years at University Of Nevada At Reno. The language which did not limit the law only to hazing activities of fraternities and sororities was especially important. He recommended the term "anti-hazing law" be used to identify the bill, as opposed to "hazing law". He recommended further a change in language at line 10 from "…with a student organization" to remove the word "student." Chairman Anderson asked if such a change would broaden the scope of the law to other than schools. Mr. Hansen replied the intent was to keep the law applicable only to educational institutions. Chairman Anderson asked if the scope of the law would be broadened by such an amendment. Risa Lang, committee counsel, responded that she would have to research the question. Chairman Anderson asked what organizations Mr. Hansen wished to address with the language change. Mr. Hansen replied there were clubs on campus beyond student organizations of which both students and nonstudents were members. He wished to include those associated organizations.

Walter Glass, program coordinator, Greek Life, University of Nevada Las Vegas, said he would fax his testimony to the committee and relinquish his time to another speaker (Exhibit D, page 9). His testimony was in support of S.B. 297.

Meaghan Miller, president, Sigma Alpha Sorority, University of Nevada Las Vegas, faxed a copy of her testimony (Exhibit D, page 8) to the committee. Her testimony was in support of S.B. 297.

Chairman Anderson asked for a standing show of support for S.B. 297 from people in Las Vegas who signed up to testify (see Exhibit B).

Eric Nystrom, president, Pi Kappa Alpha, University of Nevada Las Vegas, faxed a copy of his testimony (Exhibit D, page 7) to the committee. His testimony was in support of S.B. 297.

Marc Maietta, Lambda Pi Alpha, Greek organization for Mature Management of Alcohol, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 297. Mr. Maietta said a large part of the college experience included getting involved with various college organizations. He was deterred from wanting to join a Greek organization because of reports of hazing. Unfortunately not everyone held their organizations accountable to their own codes of conduct. S.B. 297 would help dispel the poor image attached to Greek life organizations.

Paul Moradkhan, president, Phi Delta Theta, University of Nevada Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 297. He said his fraternity did not condone any form of physical hazing because it was destructive behavior and had no place in educational settings.

Amy Canepa, student body vice-president, University of Nevada Las Vegas, spoke in support of S.B. 297. Ms. Canepa said she was, however, troubled that college-aged students did not feel they could stand up for what they believed. S.B. 297 might make students re-think their actions. She was pleased to see athletic teams included in the bill.

Richard Daley, student, University of Nevada Las Vegas, said he was in support of S.B. 297. He addressed the comments made by Assemblyman Collins with regard to pride of the university organizations. Mr. Daley explained he was a member of an academic organization at University of Nevada Las Vegas, and there were no hazing practices in that organization. All of the members were quite proud of their actions. An actual state statute might further influence some of the other organizations to police themselves and others.

Assemblyman Manendo asked if Ms. Canepa felt her organization hazed. Ms. Canepa said such was not the case. Students were informed on the first day of class that they were to say no to anything they were told to do with which they felt uncomfortable. Problems were to be addressed to the president of the organization with no fear of retaliation.

Gemma Greene, Washoe County deputy district attorney, spoke in support of S.B. 297. She said the Nevada District Attorneys Association was instrumental in providing the amendment to the bill and was also fully in support of S.B. 297.

Aaron Clemens, president, University of Nevada Las Vegas, said he was a member of six college organizations. He testified against S.B. 297 because, he said, he was concerned that legislative intent should be made clear. The intent was to prevent acts of hazing which all fraternities already addressed as an expulsion offense in their bylaws. Mr. Clemens wanted to be sure the entire organization would not be punished as the result of actions by a single member. He said he agreed that organizations and individuals which broke the laws should be punished, but he did not want to see cases of malicious prosecution from those who might wish to use the law to force others to hire lawyers to protect themselves.

Chairman Anderson said legislative intent did not come from the legislature but from the legislative Legal Division after review of a bill and amendments. He said he appreciated the concerns voiced by Mr. Clemens. Single member actions did reflect on organizations as a whole.

Assemblyman Brower asked if there was concern that S.B. 297 could discourage students from joining fraternities because they might fear being charged with conspiracy if one member violated the law. Mr. Clemens believed that was a possibility. He felt the schools could handle their own problems.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the anti-hazing policy on the University of Nevada Las Vegas campus was working. Mr. Clemens said he felt it was under control. Rumors of hazing and racism were heard.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 297 and opened the hearing on S.B. 514.

Judge Norman Robison, senior district judge, Dayton, said when testimony was taken in the Senate on S.B. 514, the District Judges Association asked for an amendment which was affirmed but which somehow did not happen. There were deletions which were needed because the bill went beyond what the association requested. S.B. 514 stated that judges who retired under option 2 could revoke that option if their spouse predeceased them. That could not be done in the Public Employees Retirement System, and it was not the intent of the association. Judge Robison asked for an amendment to show there would not be a fiscal note to the bill. He also asked that sections 3 and 9 be deleted.

Chairman Anderson asked if the District Judges Association was of the opinion removal of those sections would eliminate the spouse’s ability to make a change in the Public Employees Retirement System of repayment. Judge Robison replied that was not the case. Public Employees Retirement System allowed a retiree who took option 2 to contribute a lesser amount. Currently in the judicial retirement system that option was not there. If a judge retired and died the surviving spouse at age 60 received $2,000 a month if they did not remarry. Public Employees Retirement System did not allow revocation of option 2. Chairman Anderson said it was very difficult for committees to remove fiscal notes, that function was performed by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The drafter of S.B. 514 appeared to be of the impression that in order to participate in Public Employees Retirement System, the judges needed both sections intact. He suggested someone from Public Employees Retirement System should be in attendance. Judge Robison replied the bill had nothing to do with Public Employees Retirement System, but only mirrored what Public Employees Retirement System did. Chairman Anderson said the purpose of having someone from Public Employees Retirement System in the meeting was to assure that legislation drafted for the judicial college mirrored programs and steps of Public Employees Retirement System, not as advisors to their program.

Judge Brent Adams, district judge, Second Judicial District, echoed the support of Judge Robison. He thanked the committee on behalf of his spouse, the courts, and the association for their support of sound policy in matters of justice particularly in the drug courts.

Judge Adams said 10 years ago when he took his position, he had said he would not appear before the legislature to advocate raises in salary or benefits for himself or his colleagues, but as Churchill once said, he had often had occasion to eat his own words and always found it a wholesome diet. The law in most states permitted judges and judicial officers to make the same options state employees could make so the surviving spouse would have retirement income. If the proposed amendments were made to S.B. 514, there would be no fiscal impact.

Judge Robison then told the committee Judge Michael Gibbons, district judge, Ninth Judicial District, had to leave the hearing, but asked that his support of S.B. 514 be entered into the record.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 514 after stating the intent of the chair to have proposed amended sections reviewed by someone at Public Employees Retirement System and a report sent back to committee. Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 421.

Sam McMullen, representative, Retail Association of Nevada, testified in support of S.B. 421. Mr. McMullen said the bill also had the full support of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. S.B. 421 was the retail industry’s attempt to require gaming areas in grocery stores to have sufficient ventilation to substantially remove second-hand smoke and for those areas be placed in alcoves. The technology was already in use in large casinos.

Mr. McMullen said the statute which used to address the issue was addressed on page 1, lines 13 through 15 of S.B. 421. That statute exempted grocery store areas leased for gaming purposes. Page 2, line 37, showed an amendment to meet one of four requirements to have smoking in the same area where it was previously allowed. If a store was currently in existence, built or approved before October 1999, had under 10,000 square feet of space, or a defined alcove, those stores were governed under the old rule. After October 1999, a new facility over 10,000 square feet would have to have an impenetrable alcove with proper ventilation. That alcove would also segregate minors from the gaming area.

Chairman Anderson asked how the public would be protected in older stores. Mr. McMullen replied he hoped the industry could be educated to the issue and motivated to remodel. That might not work for older stores.

Assemblywoman Leslie commented there were older stores in her district. She had recanvassed the district and found remodeled stores still had the same problems. She asked when stores had to comply with the statute in S.B. 421.

Mr. McMullen replied more attention had been paid in the past few years to ventilation issues than when some stores were remodeled. Depending on configuration in individual stores, the timeframe could run from 12 to 15 years. He had spoken to 15 or 20 companies and it was difficult to get a standard timeframe, but it was understood it needed to be done soon.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked to whom people should be referred if they had complaints. Mr. McMullen replied that was a business issue and the law did not address to whom to complain. There were enforcement provisions in all smoking restrictions which he did not have with him.

Assemblywoman Angle voiced the same concerns as Assemblywoman Leslie. She was also concerned about exemptions in lines 42 and 43 on page 2 of S.B. 421. She asked if Mr. McMullen would amend that section. Mr. McMullen said that section was restating current law.

Chairman Anderson suggested a sunset clause be put into S.B. 421 which would require exemptions to last only a certain length of time. That would give older stores fair notice that remodeling must take place within such a timeframe or gaming devises would have to be removed.

Assemblywoman Buckley said page 2 and 3, and paragraph 7, of S.B. 421 were confusing. She felt that language might broaden circumstances where smoking was permitted in stores. Mr. McMullen replied the association requested a certain size store be addressed because stores with less footage would be difficult to alcove. Current law allowed smoking in any store as long as it was done within the leased area. S.B. 421 added new requirements to the law.

Chairman Anderson asked what would happen if S.B. 421 did not pass. Mr. McMullen replied the industry would continue on a voluntary basis, but there would be no consistent state policy. Chairman Anderson thought S.B. 421 might be used as a vehicle to eventually prohibit smoking in any store.

Assemblywoman Angle said the words "substantially removed" on page 3, line 8 of S.B. 421 were ambiguous. Mr. McMullen asked for time to address the issues raised.

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 421 would be held for a work session and suggested certain changes to the timeframe in the bill. Mr. McMullen said 10 years might be appropriate for changes.

Carl Willcoxson, resident, Las Vegas, testified against S.B. 421. He felt the bill was at best a preemptive delaying tactic which would put off smoking controls

in grocery stores. He had spoken to the operations manager for Smith’s Stores and was told tough smoking regulations were only a few years in the future. S.B. 421 did not address the height of walls surrounding smoking areas or remodeling older stores. Mr. Willcoxson felt S.B. 421 was not strong enough in its current form.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 421. There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Lois McDonald,

Transcription Secretary

______________________________

Chris Casey

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: