The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Tuesday, May 4, 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:

Chairman Anderson explained the agenda for the committee and witnesses. The committee would hear two similar bills to be followed with the work session document. The committee would be taking a recess for pictures after which, it would meet until the work session was completed or 12:30 p.m.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 410.

Lisa Gianoli, Senior Administrative Analyst, Office of the County Manager, Finance Division, Washoe County, testified for S.B. 410. The bill basically clarified existing language in the public guardian statute. On page 2, line 4 referred to page 2, lines 15 through 19 which clarified the language for Washoe and Clark Counties. The public administrator in Washoe County could be designated as an ex-officio public guardian. Clark County had separated the office of public administrator and the office of public guardian. On page 2, line 8 removed language that would place the public guardian in compliance with the 1997 public administrator statute. She had contacted the Clark County Public Administrator and the Clark County Public Guardian who supported the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked if she had a letter from Clark County indicating their support. Ms. Gianoli read a letter from Rhonda Stevens, Management Analyst II Public Administrator/Public Guardian, "The Public Administrator and Public Guardian both support S.B. 410 and S.B. 472. These bills simply improve the efficiency and effectiveness of performing the duties of both offices."

Chairman Anderson was curious to know since he was not 60 years of age, could he have a public guardian. Donald L. Cavallo, Public Administrator/Public Guardian, Washoe County testified for S.B. 410. Currently, the public guardians had been limited to being guardians for persons 60 years of age or older. In Clark and Washoe Counties there had been public guardians for persons 18 years of age up to death. Occasionally there would be a public guardianship for a minor, but his office did not usually become involved with a minor.

Chairman Anderson asked if the bill would be in conflict with family or juvenile courts. Mr. Cavallo responded the bill would not be in conflict. In fact the bill would open the door for the public guardian to have more guardianship. With alzheimer’s disease striking people of all ages, his office had a number of guardianships for people under 60 years of age.

Chairman Anderson asked if anyone was interested in combining the two bills, S.B. 410 and S.B. 472. Ms. Gianoli answered S.B. 410 was requested by the county manager, and S.B. 472 was requested by the public administrator. In hindsight the county could have combined the two bills.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 410, and opened the hearing on S.B. 472.

Mr. Cavallo stated the 1997 legislature had changed the probate code. The changes increased the limits of summary proceedings, set aside proceedings, and full administration proceedings. The bill would bring statutes in line with probate proceedings. On page 2, line 6 increased the amount from $2,500 to $5,000 allowed for a public administrator to file an affidavit in district court. That would assist the public guardian since a number of estates processed were $5,000 or less. Currently a $3,000 estate required retaining a lawyer to complete a full summary proceeding in the probate court.

Mr. Cavallo pointed out changes in the language on page 3, line 18, asking the public administrator to secure the property of the deceased at all levels of probate proceedings immediately after the death of an individual and to secure their property until a relative could take over.

Mr. Cavallo stated page 3, line 27, new language asking for the ability to dispose of contaminated property. Many times a person had passed away, and the body was not found for a long period of time. Usually the public administrator and staff dressed in masks, gloves, and protective clothing to clean up the contaminated area. Outside agencies would be brought in for severe contamination problems.

Chairman Anderson stated that had been was requested in the past. He agreed a dead body would not be a pleasant experience to be around. He wanted to know who would make the determination to dispose of the deceased’s property. Mr. Cavallo responded the bill’s purpose was to expedite the cleanup of contaminates. If family members were involved, the conditions would be explained to the family for the sake of expediency. He mentioned he could live with amendments.

Assemblyman Collins was concerned personal items of the deceased would be extremely important to family members. Mr. Cavallo responded the most valuable items were photos and memorabilia. Those were the most difficult items to divide among the relatives. His major concern would be the direct area of contamination. If a person had been dead in their bed for a period of time, the bed would have to be destroyed. The decision would have to be made by the person on the scene. If there were an item of sizeable value, the hazardous materials team would be consulted.

Chairman Anderson was concerned. He referred to page 4, lines 5 and 6, "The value of the property is less than $250." An item could be priceless to a family member and worthless to another person. He stated there was a difference between the price of an item and the value of the same item.

Assemblyman Carpenter had a concern with page 4, line 6. He thought the sentence gave a lot of authority to a health officer who was not cognizant of the total situation. He stated, "One man’s trash is another man’s treasure."

Assemblywoman Buckley commented on page 4, line 4, the word "and" made her feel more comfortable with the bill because the administrator would have to meet all of the tests of contamination before an item worth under $250 could be thrown away. She was concerned about a photo album being discarded out even if the album was not contaminated. She stated a cardboard Christmas decoration worth a penny could be extremely valuable to a family member.

Assemblyman Nolan asked when an older person had died and was in a decomposed state, who would be assessed the cost for cleaning up the personal items. Mr. Cavallo responded the decedent’s estate would pay. Usually there was no estate, and the public administrator would do the clean up. When a person had been dead for 2 weeks, the bed and bedding needed to be destroyed. Assemblyman Nolan was concerned about jewelry or rings worn by the deceased. Those items would be contaminated, but the relatives would want them for personal reasons.

Chairman Anderson agreed with Mr. Nolan and did not know how the committee could fix section 4 of the bill.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall stated contaminated photo albums could be salvaged and recorded on digital masters. She felt contamination alone should not be the deciding factor concerning family mementos. Mr. Cavallo suggested the limits in section 4 could be lower. Watches and jewelry would be removed from a deceased person and bagged into hazardous material containers until the family claimed the items. Many of the deceased were indigent. Mr. Cavallo mentioned he had a storage room with 14 years worth of unclaimed photo albums.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked Mr. Cavallo what items did he want to destroy. Mr. Cavallo responded usually the bed, bedding, carpet, and clothing. In other words the exact scene where the person had been dead for a period of time. Assemblywoman Buckley felt comfortable with Mr. Cavallo’s answer. Her concern was the destruction of family mementos.

Chairman Anderson had heard the stories for the past three or four legislative sessions of the huge storage expense to the county for storage of unclaimed articles from small estates.

Assemblyman Collins stated most of the people Mr. Cavallo served were low-income people who rented in the low-rent district of the city. He was concerned with the owner of the low-rent housing throwing away all of the deceased person’s belongings so the apartment could be rented as soon as possible. He felt economics was the driving force to dispose of the decedent’s belongings.

Mr. Cavallo continued to walk the committee through the bill. On page 4, line 12 allowed a public administrator to investigate the financial status of a ward when the public administrator was required to be the person’s guardian. The ability to determine a deceased ward’s estate was important to determine which probate level the estate would be processed, a summary or a set aside. Page 4, lines 30 through 40 brought the language in line with the 1997 legislation. Page 5, lines 7 and 8, and page 5, line 42 also brought the language in line with the 1997 legislation. Page 6, line 4, asked for the ability to do an affidavit if a decedent’s property did not exceed $5,000. Page 6, lines 12 through 23, would give a public administrator the ability to contact public utilities and request information regarding next of kin. Mr. Cavallo had a good working relationship with the utilities and could make a phone call for information. The bill would give public administrators the legal ability to obtain information about next of kin.

Assemblywoman Buckley commented the language in section 8 seemed a little broad to her. A public administrator could ask for the name and address of anyone as opposed to the name and address of next of kin to settle an estate or to notify the death of their relative. She stated her concern was with privacy issues. Mr. Cavallo responded narrowing the language in section 8 was agreeable with him.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang regarding page 6, section 8, line 13, if the reference to chapter 253 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) was sufficient to answer Ms. Buckley’s privacy concerns. Ms. Lang referred to lines 15 and 16 to place an amendment "Public administrators or a deputy can request information for those people under their jurisdiction."

Chairman Anderson brought the discussion back to section 4. Assemblywoman Buckley suggested allowing the destruction of property in which the property was contaminated. She suggested listing items such as clothing, bedding, or mattress. Mr. Cavallo agreed with Ms. Buckley. In a typical probated estate, a public administrator would petition the court for the destruction of property. Estates valued at $5,000 or less would be handled with an affidavit. The destruction orders were never to be issued by the court.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if there was a standard for contamination to cause the destruction of property. Mr. Cavallo responded a home being dirty was not a contamination problem. Contamination was a biohazard problem, bodily fluid or blood contamination. Assemblywoman Leslie agreed.

Chairman Anderson stated he and Mr. Collins, Mr. Carpenter, Ms. Ohrenschall, and Mr. Gustavson were not comfortable with the language contained in the bill.

Assemblyman Nolan stated the members of the committee agreed with the intent of the bill. He suggested that page 3, line 40 read, "The administrator determines that the property has been contaminated by vermin or biological or chemical agents; and the expenses related to the decontamination of the property caused salvage to be impractical." On page 4, line 1, insert "The contaminated property." He suggested removing section (d) and (e).

Assemblywoman Buckley suggested an amendment; "The Public Administrator may authorize the immediate destruction of the mattress, bedding, articles worn by the decedent if said property was contaminated such that salvage was impractical."

Mr. Cavallo agreed with the listing of the immediate scene items. The financial limitations were placed in the bill to place valuable items aside for the family to claim at a later time.

Chairman Anderson stated there could be broader health hazards involved at the death scene. He felt a determination by the health department would have the committee more comfortable with section 4 of the bill.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed with Ms. Buckley on limiting the discretion of the public administrator. Chairman Anderson said if there was a health hazard, the public administrator would need the ability to take drastic action. There may be a health hazard at the death scene. He did not want to endanger the public administrator, and some personal items may have to be destroyed.

Assemblyman Gustavson agreed with the statements made by the committee members, but some people had died in their living room. He suggested changing bed to furniture would include a sofa or lounge chair.

Mr. Cavallo suggested using the term, "the immediate death scene." He gave the example of a person who lived in an Air Stream trailer had created a biohazard situation. Mr. Cavallo’s staff had to receive biohazard training, hepatitis shots, and purchase of additional equipment. He and his staff were able to salvage the trailer and sell it.

Assemblyman Brower suggested the committee should be prudent concerning the limiting language in the bill. He wanted a show of confidence in the public administrator to have some leeway. Mr. Brower wanted a balance in the bill between the concerns of the family and the public good. He was in favor of the public administrator being able to make intelligent decisions concerning the death scene.

Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Mr. Brower. She asked Mr. Cavallo if the ward of a public guardian could create a biohazard situation. Mr. Cavallo agreed with Ms. McClain. A ward of a public guardian created the biohazard problem in the Air Stream trailer he had described earlier.

Chairman Anderson said the committee was processing the legislation for all public administrators who were elected officials. Some public administrators performed admirably, and some public administrators physically occupied space. There was a need to make sure the public administrator would have clear guidelines.

Assemblywoman Angle noted there was a time limit on page 3, line 36, to notify the next of kin. She asked Mr. Cavallo why there was no time limit in lines 37 through 43. Mr. Cavallo responded the time limit was immediate after the death when the public administrator was called.

Chairman Anderson offered some additional clarification. He said the 15 days referred to the current language of the law. The bill drafters wrote that section of the law in cases where there was not an immediate contamination problem to allow 15 days to notify the next of kin.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang regarding page 4, line 5, "A state or local health officer has endorsed the destruction of the property if there would be no dollar value on the property in section (e), lines 5 and 6.

Assemblyman Collins commented he would like to see all of section 4 deleted, but Mr. Anderson had narrowed down the wording. He said, "We need to trust the public administrators. If we can’t trust them, then we’ll come back."

Mr. Cavallo had no problems with the Washoe County Health Department. Usually the coroner’s office contacted the health department along with the public administrator’s office. They had an agreeable working relationship.

Assemblywoman McClain stated she did not have a problem with the bill’s language. She had problems with the slow response of the Clark County Health Department.

Chairman Anderson asked if someone had a suggestion to ease the comfort level of the committee. Mr. Cavallo suggested on page 4, lines 5 and 6, change the dollar amount to $100 from $250. Chairman Anderson reiterated the dollar amount of an article did not dictate the sentimental value to a family member for the same article.

Assemblywoman Angle noted her grandmother died wrapped in an afghan her grandmother had made. Bodily fluids got on the afghan. Ms. Angle rescued the afghan and was able to remove the bodily fluids from it. Mr. Cavallo answered the length of time involved would determine if the afghan could be rescued. Usually there were no family members involved when a public administrator was handling the estate of a person. The articles would remain in storage for a next of kin to claim. The problem was the expense of the storage of the articles. He said each death scene was different. Each probate was different and the public administrator made "a judgement call".

Chairman Anderson shared he was advised by Ms. Lang the property to be destroyed was only contaminated property constituting an immediate threat to the public health and safety. Mr. Anderson asked if the committee could combine S.B. 410 and S.B. 472. S.B. 472 needed to be amended, and the two bills could be amended into one piece of legislation.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 472.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Collins if he was comfortable with the amendment in section 8 to restrict the investigation of names and addresses to only those of the decedent’s next of kin and in section 4 change to the amount to $100. Mr. Collins was comfortable with the amendments. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall if she was comfortable with the amendments. Ms. Ohrenschall responded she was comfortable with the $100 amendment. Assemblyman Gustavson also was comfortable with the amendments.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 472 WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO AMEND SECTION 4 TO $100, LIMIT THE INVESTIGATION IN SECTION 8, AND TO COMBINE S.B. 410 INTO THE BILL.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblyman Nolan to defend on the floor of the assembly.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 242.

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst, opened the work session on S.B. 242. The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities requested the bill. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary on February 23, 1999. The committee reported the bill to the floor on March 12, 1999, with a recommendation of do pass and placement on the Consent Calendar. On March 17, 1999, the Senate passed it on the Consent Calendar (Yeas: 21; Nays: None). The bill was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on April 22, 1999, and no action was taken.

According to the testimony presented in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Senate Bill 242 was requested to protect individuals who were the subjects of divorce decrees or child support orders from identity theft. Current law required the court to place the social security numbers in a court order, which was a public document. S.B. 242 required the court to maintain the social security numbers confidentially in its records.

Federal law required the collection of social security numbers to facilitate the collection of child support (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), and the state adopted the required provisions in 1997. S.B. 242 did not affect Nevada’s existing compliance with federal law.

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resource testified for the bill and submitted amendments to the bill.

• Amend section 1, NRS 125.130, line 12, (b) "Filed in the records relating to the matter."
• Amend section 2, NRS 125.230, lines 7-12, 2. "Prior to a court entering an order pursuant to subsection 1 for the support of any minor child or children the court shall ensure that the information required to be provided pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 654a are: (a) Provided to the welfare division of the department of human resources. (b) Filed in the records relating to the matter and, except as otherwise required to carry out a specific statute, maintained in a confidential manner."
• Amendment 3 for section 3, NRS 125.055, lines 31-42, (b) "Ensure that the information required in subsection (a) is filed in the records relating to the matter and, except as otherwise required to carry out a specific statute, maintained in a confidential manner. 2. Required each party to the cause of action shall file with the court prior to the court entering the order the following information on a form approved by the welfare division… (f) Other such information as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may require."
• Amendment 4 for section 5, NRS 125B.140, page 4, lines 16-20, "(d) The court shall ensure that the information required to be provided pursuant to provisions of 42 U.S.C. 654 a are: (2) Filed in the records…"
• Amendment 5 for section 6, NRS 425.3828, page 5, lines 16-19, "(b) Ensure that the information required to be provided pursuant to provisions of 42 U.S.C. 654a are: (2) Filed in the records…"
• Amendment 6 for section 7, NRS 425.3844, page 7, lines 8-12, "A district court that approves a recommendation pursuant to this section shall ensure that, before the recommendation is filed pursuant to subsection 7, the information required to be provided pursuant to provisions of 42 U.S.C. 654a are: (b) Filed in the records…."
• Amendment 7 for section 8, NRS 425.3855, page 7, lines 25-28, "shall ensure that the information required to be provided pursuant to provisions of 42 U.S.C. 654a are: Filed in the records."
• Amendment 8 for section 9, NRS 432B.560, page 8, lines 19-23, "that information required to be provided pursuant to provisions of 42 U.S.C. 654a of the parent or guardian who is the subject of the order is: (b) Filed in the records."

On April 28, 1999, Chairman Anderson received a conflict notice. S.B. 242 was in direct conflict with S.B. 352. S.B. 352 had passed the Senate and Assembly and had been sent to the governor. Both bills would affect NRS 425.38855, "Court orders: Inclusion of social security numbers of parents or legal guardians of child."

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if there were difficult choices to be made on the language concerning the conflict notice. Ms. Lang responded the conflict was simple. There was not substantive conflict with S.B. 352.

Assemblywoman Buckley read the bill and the personal responsibility act. She was in favor of not having social security numbers available to the public.

Chairman Anderson noted for committee members who were not in the committee in 1997, the same bill originated in the Assembly 2 years ago and the Senate had not dealt with the bill. He felt the committee was comfortable with the amended bill to accept a motion.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 242.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 242.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. McClain to defend on the assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 297.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous hearing on S.B. 297. Senator Titus requested S.B. 297. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 3. The Senate committee reported the bill to the floor on April 2, 1999, with a recommendation of amend and do pass as amended. On April 7, the Senate passed the bill as amended (Yeas: 19; Nays: 1[Coffin]; Not Voting: 1 [Neal]. The Assembly Committee on Judiciary heard the bill on April 30, and no action was taken.

The testimony presented to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, S.B. 297 defined hazing as an activity in which a person intentionally or recklessly endangered the physical health of another person for the purpose of initiation or affiliation with a student organization, academic association, or athletic team. The bill excluded activities sponsored or approved by the school from the definition of hazing.

Senator Titus proposed amending the bill to make it effective upon passage and approval.

A second amendment was on page 1, section 1, subsection 3, line 10 was to remove the word "student" before organization to amend the bill to make it apply to any organization associated with a high school, college, or university.

Chairman Anderson noted the proponents of the bill requested to be the first heard on April 30, 1999, and would take only 45 minutes. The testimony for the bill had taken longer than 45 minutes. Mr. Anderson was a member of a fraternity when he was a college student in the 1960’s. There had been a growing concern with the national fraternities and sororities, and the purpose of those social organizations. The bill may not accomplish everything everyone wanted, but it did send a message Nevada was opposed to hazing. There needed to be a strong statement concerning the detrimental practice of hazing.

Assemblyman Collins felt there was conflicting language in the bill. He wanted to see hazing controlled by the fraternities, sororities, high schools, colleges, and universities. He would not support the bill.

Assemblyman Nolan stated he was a member of a fraternity and he felt most colleges and universities had strong anti-hazing policies. He had two concerns: First, on line 3 of the bill "or conspires to engage," he wanted "or conspires" removed. The negative act of one or two individuals could involve the whole fraternity. Second, on page 2, line 1, he wanted the phrase "or forced calisthenics" removed because part of the fraternity experience was sports competitions between fraternities.

Chairman Anderson stated some people had serious resentments concerning calisthenics.

Assemblyman Gustavson agreed with the intent of the bill but had some concerns. He felt passing a law was not going to stop people from hazing. There were too many laws on the books and those fraternities had discouraged hazing.

Assemblywoman Buckley agreed with Mr. Gustavson concerning too many laws on the books. She felt it was the legislature’s mission to set public policy. Hazing was defined in the bill as "as an activity in which a person intentionally or recklessly endangers the health of another individual." The definition was a criminal standard. There was criminal intent. Either the perpetrator wanted a person hurt or the perpetrator ignored the conditions to a criminal level which was different from making someone do calisthenics. She supported the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Buckley to comment on the phrase "to conspire." Assemblywoman Buckley responded criminal conspiracy laws involved intent. The perpetrator had to plan the act and had to take a significant step to further the action.

Assemblywoman McClain asked if telling another person about a plan to hurt someone covered the definition of intent.

Chairman Anderson gave an example of intent. "If I asked Mr. Carpenter, let’s take Mr. Brower for a ride as an initiation. We’ll blindfold him and leave him in the middle of the Black Rock Desert to find his way home. If Mr. Carpenter agreed, Mr. Carpenter and I have entered into a conspiracy."

Assemblyman Collins commented about subsection 1, "a person who engages," could be the whole organization. In subsection 2, the consent of the victim was not a valid defense. Page 2 dealt with exposure to the elements.

Chairman Anderson interrupted Mr. Collins and said, "Mr. Collins, you don’t like the bill." Mr. Collins responded, "thank you."

Assemblyman Nolan stated the criminal element concerning intent was already on the books. He felt there was language on the books for battery or attempted battery.

Assemblywoman Buckley agreed battery and conspiracy were on the books. There was conspiracy to commit murder, to commit robbery, but without a hazing law on the books, the district attorney could not charge a person with conspiracy to commit hazing. She stated battery required a person touching another person. If there was no touching, there was no battery.

Assemblywoman McClain agreed the bill was a good public policy against hazing. She would like to see the conspiracy language removed. She agreed with the chairman that calisthenics should not be mentioned in the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley suggested getting a legal opinion on the elements of conspiracy or ask the sponsor of the bill to delete the section on conspiracy.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the bill was needed. There was substantial testimony detailing the universities’ commitment to solving the problem on campus. There was a public awareness concerning hazing.

Chairman Anderson agreed the public policy was important. Hazing would not be tolerated. He was concerned with conspiracy as part of the bill.

Assemblywoman Leslie felt the bill had value as a deterrent. There was some compelling testimony for the bill. There were college students who had died as a result of hazing. She recalled the Sundowners incident of the young man who died from the University of Nevada, Reno.

Chairman Anderson stated there would always be an element of people who wished to compete in an area endangering themselves or others.

Assemblywoman Angle supported the bill. The bill opened the opportunity for family members who lost a relative as the result of hazing. Those families felt powerless to seek justice at the time.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the Sundowners would be included in the bill. Chairman Anderson responded the Sundowners were not a recognized organization on campus. He was not sure if the Sundowners would be included in the bill.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 297.

Chairman Anderson suggested the previously discussed amendment, on line 3, remove "or conspiracy" and inserting "on passage and approval."

ASSEMBLYWOMAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 297.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Brower was a fraternity member in college in the 1980’s. His fraternity chapter was dry (no alcohol) because of an unfortunate incident after Mr. Brower graduated. He felt the bill was another example of "big government." There were some unfortunate incidents around the United States but not a problem in Nevada. Hazing was a matter for colleges, universities, and fraternities. The senior members of the fraternity were responsible to ensure there were no negative hazing incidents. He would be voting against the bill.

THE MOTION PASSED, 8 YEAS AND 6 NAYS. ASSEMBLYMEN ANGLE, BUCKLEY, KOIVISTO, LESLIE, MCCLAIN, OHRENSCHALL, MANENDO, AND ANDERSON VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, CARPENTER, CLABORN, COLLINS, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN VOTED NO.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 314.

Mr. Williams reviewed the history of S.B. 314. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 4, 1999, and the senate committee reported it to the floor on March 19, 1999, with a recommendation of pass as amended. On March 24, 1999, the Senate passed it as amended (Yeas: 21; Nays: None). The Assembly Committee on Judiciary heard the bill on April 23, 1999, and no action was taken. The bill revised and clarified certain provisions governing municipal judges. According to the testimony presented in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Senate Bill 314 eliminated the 1-year term limitation for municipal judges and authorized cities to establish the terms of office of the judges by ordinance or under the city charter. In addition, the bill clarified judges may be appointed in cities incorporated by general law. The bill addressed an internal statutory conflict between the statutes governing the election and appointment of municipal judges. Chapter 266, which governed cities incorporated by general law, authorized those cities to either appoint or elect their judges. NRS 5.020 required the election of municipal judges. S.B. 314 addressed the internal conflict but did not affect the way any of the cities in Nevada were currently electing or appointing their judges. Six cities in Nevada were incorporated by general law: Ely, Fallon, Lovelock, Mesquite, West Wendover, and Winnemucca.

On April 13, 1999, Chairman Anderson received a notice S.B. 314 (first reprint) was in direct conflict with A.B. 20, which had passed both the Senate and Assembly and had been sent to the governor. Both bills affected NRS 5.020, "Municipal judges: Election; term; oath; qualifications; justice of the peace as ex officio municipal judge."

Chairman Anderson had held the bill because West Wendover had concerns regarding the bill. Due to air travel difficulties West Wendover representatives were not able to testify before the committee. Mr. Anderson had received a notification from West Wendover stating they had no problems with the bill.

Thomas J. Grady, representing Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities stated Chairman Anderson accurately described the concerns of West Wendover. West Wendover was in agreement with the bill as drafted.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang about the conflict notice with A.B. 20. Ms. Lang responded both bills amended NRS 5.020. There was not a substantive conflict with S.B. 314. She needed to show all the changes in one place.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 314.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 314.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblyman Carpenter to defend on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 315

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous hearing on S.B. 315. S.B. 315 was requested by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 4, 1999. The Senate Committee on Judiciary reported the bill to the floor on March 22, 1999, with a recommendation of amend and do pass as amended. On March 26, 1999, the Senate passed the bill as amended (Yeas: 18; Nays: None; Excused: 2 [Schneider and Townsend]; Not Voting: 1 [Porter]). The bill was heard in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on April 27, 1999, and no action was taken. The bill required an arbitrator in nonbinding arbitration cases to make written findings regarding his determination of which party prevailed in the case. The findings must include the amount awarded to the prevailing party. If one of the parties to the arbitration requested a trial de novo before a jury, the measure required the arbitrator’s written findings be admitted at trial for the jury’s consideration. No other evidence concerning the arbitration, including testimony or depositions of the arbitrator, would be admitted at trial. The bill set forth the jury instructions the court must give concerning the use of the arbitrator’s findings during jury deliberations.

First District Court Judges Fondi and Griffin had indicated they would withdraw their opposition if the bill was amended to apply only to the Eighth Judicial District Court.

Chairman Anderson stated he had conversations with Judge Adams and Judge Robison who had recognized there was a special set of circumstances in the Eighth Judicial District regarding caseloads.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 315.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 315.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated S.B. 315 was a difficult bill. Recognizing various parts of the state were different, she believed one part of the state could not be carved out to solve the problem. She had a conversation with one of the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court and two district court judges. She had heard a wide variety of opinions concerning the bill. From her experience rarely had she observed judges agree on anything but a pay raise. The Eighth Judicial District judges wanted to either see the arbitration system abolished or give the bill a chance. She did not

believe the bill would solve all the problems in Clark County. She felt the committee would be visiting the issue next session, but she believed the bill would assist the caseload problem. She felt a short trial would lessen the caseload. Ms. Buckley wanted to help make justice better in Clark County.

Assemblyman Brower was opposed to the bill. He felt a majority of lawyers and judges were against the bill. He did not see a problem with litigants exercising their right to a jury trial, but he felt strongly about "tinkering with the jury system." Mr. Brower suggested "beefing up" the rules already in the system. First, if a judge believed one party did not participate in arbitration in good faith and asked for a de novo trial, the judge could say no. He wanted the $3,000 limit for court expenses raised for the party who asked for the trial to pay court expenses if the party who asked for the trial lost. Second, he opposed the bill on principal. An arbitrator’s award was not evidence. The arbitrator’s decision would prejudice the jury’s view. The bill was against a fair jury trial. No other state had a similar law. Some states had passed legislation prohibiting the admission of arbitration decisions into evidence.

Assemblyman Nolan stated Mr. Brower expressed some of his own thoughts. At first he thought it was a good bill, attempting to settle claims as quickly as possible. Judges in Clark County had stated their dockets were overloaded. The bill would discourage people from their right to a jury trial. The real problem was the courts were not able to keep up with the trials. There was a problem, but S.B. 315 was not the answer.

Assemblyman Gustavson opposed the bill for the previously stated reasons.

Assemblyman Collins was concerned about the constitutional right to a jury trial. From his experience, binding arbitration created problems. He quoted from the bill, "the findings may be given the same weight or may be disregarded." There was a delay before arbitration and a further delay waiting for a trial date. He felt the bill was better than nothing, and he would support the bill.

Assemblywoman Leslie had read the bill. She had been trying to confirm the rumor the Second Judicial District, Washoe County, had dropped its opposition to the bill. She had a personal issue with the bill tainting a jury and believed Clark County had problems. She was going to vote in favor of the bill with the reservation to vote against the bill on the Assembly floor. The bill was an important piece of legislation and deserved to be considered by the entire Assembly.

Assemblyman Carpenter had concerns with the bill. He warned the people who were clogging the courts in Clark County; they may not like the next solution to the problem. He would be voting no on the motion and reserved the right to vote yes on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson agreed with Mr. Brower about the jury trial process. The south had a problem with the number of people living in Clark County. The Eighth Judicial District had assured him they would work to correct the problem if the bill created a hardship to the other judicial districts. Chairman Anderson announced he would vote yes for the bill because of the testimony of Judge Robinson in Clark County about alleviating the court docket problems. He felt to allow the Eighth Judicial District to do one thing and the rest of the state something else, was not the solution to the problem. He quoted the phrase, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

THE MOTION CARRIED, 9 YEAS AND 5 NAYS. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY, CLABORN, COLLINS, KOIVISTO, LESLIE, MCCLAIN, OHRENSCHALL, MANENDO, AND ANDERSON VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYMAN ANGLE, BROWER, CARPENTER, GUSTAVSON, AND NOLAN VOTED NO.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblywoman Buckley to defend on the assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 412.

Mr. Williams apologized for not having the bill on the work session document. He did not think the committee would process all the bills in the work session document. Chairman Anderson and he believed the committee could process the next two bills today. S.B. 412 was heard on April 22, 1999. The proponents included District Judge Janet J. Berry from the Second Judicial District, Captain Jim Nadeau, and letters of support from the Attorney General’s Office and the Committee to Aid Abused Women. There was no opposition to the bill. There were no proposed amendments. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang to compare S.B. 412 with A.B. 456.

Ms. Lang said both bills dealt with the same topic in substantively different ways. A.B. 456 dealt with child custody when one parent murdered the other parent. S.B. 412 dealt with a child in need of protection. Both bills could be passed without a conflict. Exhibit C had more detail comparing the two bills.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 412.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 412.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. Ohrenschall.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 515.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous hearing on S.B. 515. The committee heard the bill on April 29, 1999. The proponents of the bill were Carlos Concha, Chief of Parole and Probations, Ben Graham representing Nevada District Attorneys Association, and Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. Pat Hines, representing, Nevada Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) opposed section 9 of the bill. She requested the removal of section 9. Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned with the requirements for nonresident students or workers to give their residence address. He was concerned about the 48-hour requirement of the bill.

Assemblyman Carpenter said he met with Carlos Concha and Ms. Lang. He agreed with the 48-hour requirement in the bill. There were places in the bill where the 48-hour requirement was not included. Ms. Lang told him there would not be a problem adding 48 hours into the bill. He did not have a problem with a sex offender giving their address after conversations with Mr. Concha and Ms. Lang. He was concerned with the language on page 30, "for an extended period of time." He wanted 30 days added to the bill on page 30. After the sex offender bill was passed in 1997, the Attorney General’s Office was flooded with phone calls asking how soon a sex offender would have to register with the police after moving to Nevada. When the caller was told 48 hours, hopefully the caller would be looking for another state to relocate.

Chairman Anderson pointed out on page 9, section 15, lines 33 and 34, named 14 days and 30 days requirements.

Assemblyman Carpenter responded on page 30, section 43, subsection 5, lines 9 to 23 was where he wanted to see 30 consecutive days inserted. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Lang to handle the details.

Ms. Lang stated on page 30, line 12, to insert 30 consecutive days. The Attorney General’s Office would determine the level of assessment.

Chairman Anderson asked about the 48-hour requirement.

Ms. Lang would have to go through the bill to locate every place in which 48 hours would be inserted. Section 1, lines 10 and 11 and section 2, lines 34 and 35, for example.

Chairman Anderson stated a sex offender would have 48 hours to notify the appropriate office, and the Attorney General’s Office would do the 30-day assessment of the sex offender.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 515.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Ms. Angle to defend on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson informed the committee there was a straightforward schedule for processing bills for the remainder of the session. There were three or four bills coming out of the Senate Committee on Finance to the committee. There would be a joint hearing on a bill with the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor. There should be a work session on Monday, May 10, 1999, and a work session on Tuesday, May 11, 1999. The committee could be finished by May 13, 1999.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:51 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: