The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 4:15 p.m. on
May 29, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chair (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Stevens explained S.B. 551 was the General Authorizations Act and was the companion bill to the General Appropriations Act, which passed out of the Assembly the previous day. The General Authorizations Act provided expenditure authority for the non-General Fund, non-Highway Fund revenues by budget account. The revenues included federal funds, fees, and fines that were budgeted for receipt and expenditure for each budget account during the upcoming biennium. The Gaming Control Board, referenced in Section 2, was not appropriated in the General Appropriations Act, but was traditionally included in the Authorizations Act as an appropriation from the General Fund. The back language of the bill was not as substantive as the back language of the General Appropriations Act.

Mrs. Chowning asked if the amount of money that had been set aside for the Supreme Court and law library was contained in the act. Mr. Stevens said that would be included in the General Appropriations Act. Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Stevens to provide her with a breakdown of those figures and Mr. Stevens said he would do so.

Mr. Stevens said the bill had been introduced on May 26, 1999 in the Joint Committee Meeting of Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means.

Ms. Giunchigliani thanked staff for providing that the class-size reduction program would be accounted for in a separate line-item (Section 3) in the Distributive School Account (DSA).

Senator William Raggio explained he had been concerned for a long time about the issue of parental discipline and the concern the public had with respect for authority. His opinion was based on his experience as a former prosecutor, a parent, and a legislator. Over the years he had seen a continual decrease in the level of respect for authority in young people, and the recent school shootings were tragic examples of that. S.B. 553 addressed what he felt was the root cause of where children went wrong. At one point teachers were given the right of corporal punishment, which he thought was a good idea. The bill came about as a result of action that had taken place in the Oklahoma State Legislature. S.B. 553 was patterned after the law enacted in Oklahoma and would send a message to parents that there was still parental responsibility and authority. S.B. 553 was purposely placed in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 432B because it concerned the issue of child abuse. Obviously, no one condoned any punishment that rose to the level of child abuse. The bill did not change the existing laws preventing child abuse. It addressed the situations where parents had been fearful of spanking or paddling a child because the child threatened to call the police. There may be parents who would never paddle or spank a child, which was fine, and there were sociologists who would argue it was better to reason with a child. He noted there was biblical reference to "sparing the rod and spoiling the child."

The bill clearly stated if a report was submitted that child abuse had occurred, and an agency, such as a child protection or law enforcement agency, determined that the alleged abuse or neglect was the result of a reasonable exercise of discipline by a parent or guardian involving the use of corporal punishment, including, without limitation, spanking or paddling, and that it was not so excessive as to constitute abuse (as defined in NRS 432B.150), then all references to the matter would be expunged from the person’s record. The bill would send a message to parents that they would not be penalized for spanking a child. The bill sounded like it should not have to be put in the law, but in talking with parents, it was necessary.

Senator Raggio stated Mrs. Shelton had proposed amendments to the bill because there were some situations where it was necessary to meet federal statistical reporting and auditing requirements. He did not object to amendments necessary for that purpose, but objected to keeping records after it had been determined there was no abuse or neglect.

Chairman Arberry asked since records would not be able to kept when there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, how would agencies be able to determine when a situation escalated into abuse. Senator Raggio said until a situation was found to be abusive, there should be no record. He stated there should be no records kept of cases of reasonable parental discipline.

Chairman Arberry posed a hypothetical situation where a woman’s boyfriend moved in with her and her child. The boyfriend spanked the child and the authorities were notified. The next time the authorities were notified, the child had been spanked several more times, but at some point the child was abused. In such a case an agency could have visited the home numerous times and found each incident to be more severe, but there would be no record unless the situations were found to be abusive.

Senator Raggio clarified, first, the bill pertained to the exercise of discipline by a parent or guardian. He supposed if the boyfriend had been told by the mother to spank the child, that could be included. He said if the hypothetical situation involved such constant action that the situation rose to the level of child abuse, the parent would not be protected under S.B. 553, which pertained to spanking, paddling, or the use of corporal punishment. He agreed a child could be spanked to the point of child abuse, but certainly, any time a child was spanked, it did not constitute child abuse and records should not be kept as such.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted the bill stated "…use of corporal punishment, including, without limitation, spanking or paddling," and asked if there had been any discussion of what else would be considered proper punishment. Senator Raggio said he did not know what else would be included, other than a form of physical punishment. Ms. Giunchigliani said the statute did not clearly specify what constituted corporal punishment. Senator Raggio said if a parent drew blood or damaged the child, that would be excessive.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if "without limitation" was necessary in the bill because as she understood, the intent of the bill was to allow spanking and paddling that was not excessive. Senator Raggio referenced NRS 432B.090, which defined abuse as physical injury, which certainly the bill did not advocate. The problem with children was that there was an increasing lack of respect for authority and it was too late to instill that respect after a child entered school. The respect had to be developed in the home at a young age. He did not think a child should be spanked in every case of discipline or that every parent should use spanking as a method of discipline. However, parents needed to know they still had a right to spank their children if it was done in a reasonable manner.

Ms. Giunchigliani said her concern was to determine what "without limitation" was intended to imply. Senator Raggio said there might be other forms of discipline included in corporal punishment and reiterated the bill had been modeled after the Oklahoma legislation. Ms. Giunchigliani said she understood Senator Raggio’s intent but expressed concern about the potential broadness of the terminology. Senator Raggio said he thought it was clear that the bill concerned what had been good parenting for many years, and for whatever reason, parents now thought they had no right to spank their children.

Mr. Price said as a student in Catholic school, it had been very common to be hit on the hands by teachers with rulers, and questioned whether that would be allowed under the bill. Senator Raggio replied no, as the bill applied only to parents or legal guardians, but added he thought that corporal punishment ought to be allowed by teachers.

Ms. Leslie said she shared Senator Raggio’s concern that parents did not have sufficient control over their children and agreed there was a need for discipline. However, she did not think the message should be sent that parents should spank their children more. She did not think respect could be beaten into children. She agreed the bill did change the definition of child abuse that existed in NRS 432B, so that portion of the bill was not necessary. Research clearly indicated that corporal punishment was one of the least effective methods of discipline. In addition, she was concerned about not keeping records of suspected abuse, and noted her difference was philosophical.

Senator Raggio said he believed that message had been misinterpreted, which was one of the problems with children today. He did not think it was correct to send the message that it was inappropriate to spank a child, and too many "social engineers" had sent that message, with the result of more young people who felt they could get away with anything because they knew their parents were afraid of the repercussions of disciplining their children. He corrected Ms. Leslie that neither he, nor the bill, advocated beating a child. The law was clear that the use of a paddle or hand to spank a child did not constitute child abuse, but too many parents thought it did and were afraid to discipline their children.

Ms. Leslie asked Senator Raggio what evidence he had that too many parents were afraid to spank their children. She argued that too many parents beat their children. Senator Raggio said he based his opinion on the fact that he had lived longer than her. In addition, he had been a prosecutor and had seen many children whose parents did not give them a spanking when they should have, which was the reason children turned out the way they did, though that was not the only reason. He agreed that he and Ms. Leslie had a philosophical difference.

Mr. Beers said regardless of a parent’s personal belief as to whether or not spanking was appropriate for their children, there were many loving parents who felt they needed to occasionally spank their children and were in no way abusive. He supported S.B. 553, not because it advocated spanking children, but because it protected the right of loving parents to spank their children when they felt it necessary.

Mr. Hettrick agreed with Mr. Beers and said the language clearly concerned alleged abuse or neglect as the result of a reasonable exercise of discipline. A parent could be accused of abuse by someone who saw them swat their child. The incident went on a person’s record, if reported, and could even be reported by a child. If the incident was proven to be reasonable discipline, it should not be on a person’s record.

May Shelton, Director of Washoe County Social Services, suggested four amendments to make the bill more workable. She did not have a problem with the concept of the bill, because that was Washoe County Social Services’ current practice. First, she suggested adding to Line 21 on Page 2, after NRS 432B.150 "and NRS 432B.090" for the purpose of clarification. Second, she suggested adding to Line 38 on Page 2, "except such records as are necessary to meet any federal statistical reporting and auditing requirements." Those changes would also apply to Lines 27 and 30 on Page 3, also for the purpose of clarification. If the proposed amendments were not added, federal dollars could be lost.

Chairman Arberry asked why those amendments had not been made before the bill passed out of the Senate. Ms. Shelton replied there had not been time, but she had made several suggestions in the Senate hearing of the bill. She would prefer to have the section regarding the expunging of records removed from the bill, but in the spirit of keeping with Senator Raggio’s intent, it was agreed to just add the amendments.

Mr. Marvel asked if there were any similar statutes that protected teachers and Ms. Shelton replied she was not in a position to answer that question.

Ms. Chowning said she believed NRS 432B.090 was much more useful for clarification purposes, because NRS 432B.150 simply stated that corporal punishment may constitute abuse or neglect, which she felt was not a definition. She asked where spanking or paddling was statutorily defined, and said she thought paddling was much stronger terminology than spanking. She questioned whether it would be better to remove "or paddling" from the bill.

Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County Assistant District Attorney, said there was no statutory definition of paddling, but 432B.090 called for a temporary disfigurement in order to be defined as a "physical injury." Her original concern with the bill was that it would prohibit keeping records on a child that came in with inappropriate markings on the body, but no abrasion or actual injury, but thought the amendment would address the issue. The bill, if passed, may result in Washoe County being more conservative in various cases and removing more children, which was not the intent of the bill. However, keeping records often helped what action was appropriate to take on a particular case.

Mrs. Chowning said paddling meant taking something other than one’s hand, usually a piece of wood, to some part of someone else’s body. She asked Ms. Shipman if she was comfortable leaving that language in the bill.

Mr. Beers said corporal punishment was excessive and constituted abuse or neglect if it fell under the definitions included in NRS 432B.150 or NRS 432B.090. The law clearly stated that if a spanking or paddling left a mark, it constituted child abuse. He asked Ms. Shelton whether the Federal Government would take away funding if the state did not keep records of parents who exercised reasonable discipline. Ms. Shelton said she would supply copies of those federal rules and explained in order to be eligible to receive reimbursement from the Federal Government under programs such as Title IV-B, Title IV-E, and Medicaid, there were certain reporting requirements for frequency and demographics of children in families served by Social Services. Names did not have to be reported.

Ms. Shipman said, for example, the annual estate data report provided to the Federal Government for the funds utilized for Title IV-B (typically foster care reimbursements) required the inclusion of the number of children reported to the state during the year as abused or neglected. Of those it had to be determined how many cases were substantiated, how many were unsubstantiated, and how many were determined to be false. Something had to be maintained for audit purposes to show there was a response and determination for each case, but certainly records including names did not have to kept.

Mr. Beers suggested adding language to state "except account such incident as an unsubstantiated or false allegation of child abuse for statistical purposes." Ms. Shipman stated the legislature could determine that and said she thought all the Federal Government required was knowing that all cases were accounted for. By statute, if the case was determined not to be appropriate discipline under the law, the case would be placed into the false category.

Ronald Rentoner, representing the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Nevada, said there was no biblical reference to the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child." Rather, it was a proverb. He was concerned about the definitions included in the bill. He stated he was the executive director of a major non-profit organization in California that treated between 400 and 500 young women annually who had been subjected to physical and sexual abuse in their families. He was bothered by "sending the message" to people that spanking or paddling their children without limitation constituted good parenting. He did not think it was appropriate to equate spanking with good parenting and respect for authority, because spanking taught children to respond with violence. Finally, he thought it was difficult to find incidents where parents had been prosecuted wrongly or abused by the system for applying reasonable corporal punishment.

Mr. Hettrick said he appreciated Mr. Rentoner’s position, and stated he had been accused of abuse, but the accusation had been found to be false. The bill would protect people from maliciously filed false claims.

Ms. Giunchigliani said as a teacher, she used to think that a swat did not hurt a child, but she had taught children that had been abused through just spanking or swatting. She thought that through respect, "timeouts," and proper uses of discipline, behavior could be controlled just as easily as with corporal punishment, and the child would still respect the disciplinarian. She thought a great deal of the problem was that parents were now more concerned with being liked by their children than with being their parents. She appreciated Senator Raggio’s intent, because parents needed to be in power. She had not seen or heard of abuse of the system, such as false accusations by children, in quite some time.

Assemblyman Don Gustavson stated he was in strong support of S.B. 553 and said there was a huge difference between spanking and child abuse. He agreed that parents were afraid to discipline their children and stated nothing had the effect of the scare of a paddling. Just the threat of a spanking could be an effective method of discipline.

Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she was in support of S.B. 553 and agreed there was tremendous concern by parents about the ability to discipline children properly without being misinterpreted as abuse. That caused an undermining of the authority of the parent and the ability to teach responsible behavior.

Janine Hansen, President of Nevada Eagle Forum, stated she was also in support of S.B. 553. She said her daughter had threatened to turn her in to the school for disciplining her. There had been information provided at her daughter’s school that essentially undermined her authority as a parent. She did not condone any kind of abuse, but thought there may by proper opportunities for corporal punishment. If parents were to be held accountable, they needed to be given tools to perform their duties.

There being no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on S.B. 553 closed.

Mr. Ghiggeri explained A.B. 699 was the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) legislation for the 1999 Legislative Session. Section 1 contained the authorization to issue approximately $158 million in general obligation bonds for those projects. Section 2 authorized the issuance of approximately $407,000 in general obligation bonds for completion of the Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort project. Section 3 provided for a reversion of the proceeds of those bonds to the bond interest redemption account by June 30, 2003. Section 4 allowed the State Controller to advance funds from the General Fund to start the projects pending the sale of the bonds. Section 7 provided an appropriation of $11.8 million from the Highway Fund for those projects funded from the Highway Fund. Section 8 required the State Public Works Board to obtain approval from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) for siting of the highway patrol building in Las Vegas.

Sections 12 through 17 provided for the transfer of remaining funds in previously-approved CIPs to projects identified in Section 18. Approximately $4 million would be transferred to the 1999 CIPs. Section 20 provided for the authorized expenditures for projects that were not funded via the general obligation bonds, Highway Fund authorizations or appropriations, or funding from prior projects. Section 21 authorized the Director of the Department of Administration to advance funding from the General Fund, pending the receipt of federal funds for Cold Creek State Prison. Section 24 continued the ad valorem tax of 15 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation to redeem the bonds issued. Section 27 provided for the payment from the consolidated bond interest and redemption fund in the amount of $69.3 million in FY 2000 and $75.3 million in FY 2001.

Section 29, Mr. Ghiggeri continued, provided for the issuance of a single contract for Cold Creek State Prison. Section 30 allowed the UCCSN to expend approximately $5 million of projects funded from the special higher education capital construction fund. Sections 32 through 36 changed the reversion date for previously-authorized projects that were reallocated in Section 18. Section 37 provided for the effective date of the bill upon passage and approval.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she worked with Mrs. de Braga and had come up with an alternative amendment that would address rural concerns. The trustees would not do the enacting. Rather, it would be done statutorily and would make it part of the list they would have to look at to qualify for the grant. The amendment had been requested, but the bill would need to be amended on the floor and followed with the subsequent amendment.

Mrs. de Braga explained the amendment would provide that as a part of the requirement for accessing funds, the 1/8 percent sales tax would go into place upon approval of the Board of Examiners. The amendment would leave in the provision that the 1/8 percent sales tax would be used for school repair.

Mr. Stevens said the amendment would be a replacement amendment.

David Spitzer, stated he was the attorney assigned to represent clients in the Washoe County drug court and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Nevada Drug Court Professionals Association. He was present to address Amendment 1210 to Senate Bill 184. He expressed concern over Section 10, which amended NRS Chapter 213. The amendment required that the treatment program used by the local drug court be certified by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA). That had been a requirement in other treatment programs that came out of a statute, but had never been a requirement for a treatment utilized by judges who conducted drug court. The most immediate effect would be monetary. In consulting with the current treatment provider, a BADA certification would increase the court’s cost from approximately $1,500 per client, per year to $2,500 to $3,000 per client, per year. The reason for the increase would be the meeting schedule and reporting requirements imposed by BADA on each individual counselor. If the BADA certification was removed, the program could serve two clients before they went to prison, with the money received from the state for each prisoner served. Hopefully, those clients could address their drug addiction and would not have to be sent to prison.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she had not been aware the drug court treatment program was not BADA-certified. She assumed any treatment program had to be BADA-certified. She asked whether the program was actually a drug treatment program or whether it was simply drug testing. Mr. Spitzer said the program involved drug testing three times per week. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the program provider had been selected. Mr. Spitzer replied the program had initially been bid on in Washoe County. The program was judicially manufactured from the beginning because the drug courts in Nevada and in most other states, did not have statutory authority for treatment programs. The authority for the treatment was based on an agreement among the defendant, the district attorney, and the district court judge. The treatment provider had been selected for the unique aspects of treatment that had been proven in drug courts across the country and because the provider had been able to provide treatment and testing.

Dave Cladney stated he represented the drug court treatment provider for Washoe and Clark Counties. The program used certified BADA counselors and interns who conducted group sessions with the clients on a regular basis. Phase I was detoxification. Phase II was group sessions three times per week for 6 to 9 weeks. Phase III was group sessions twice a week. After 6 months, the clients went to group sessions once per week. Clients were drug tested every time they attended the group session. If the judge deemed a client was not doing well, the judge may require the client to attend five counseling groups per week, or the judge may require five drug tests per week.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the program would accept competitive bidding when the contract was up for renewal. Mr. Cladney said the state had the prerogative to do that, but as the provider, it was not his job to determine whether that should be done. In 1995, when the program was established, his bid had been significantly lower than any other provider. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the initial Request for Proposal (RFP) and the bids returned could be accessed from the courts. Mr. Cladney replied he did not know if that information was still available. He said the RFP had included criteria, including treatment, that had been established with the help of the University of Nevada Reno medical school, treatment providers, and court personnel.

Ms. Leslie said she did not understand why the program did not have to be BADA-certified if it was using BADA-certified counselors and every other treatment program used by the state had to be certified. She asked if cost was the only factor. Mr. Cladney replied yes.

Judge Peter Breen, Second Judicial District Court, said he had been working with the adult drug court program since its inception in Reno. The theory behind not putting the contracts out to bid, though it had been done in Washoe County, was that drug court was much like probation. Drug court clients did not come in for voluntary treatment. The program was based on the power of the court to order people to do anything reasonable as a condition of probation. A drug court judge could order the defendant to participate in just about any program, including BADA-certified treatment, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Most defendants were required to regularly attend AA or NA. In a sense, the contracts did not have to put to a competitive bidding process because the program operated on a case-by-case system. The chosen provider’s bid had been 30 to 40 percent lower than any other bids. The information requested by Ms. Giunchigliani was still available and was kept in Reno. He would not have a problem putting the contracts out to bid, but it had not been practical to do so in the past.

Rick Loop, Assistant Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District Court, said the Washoe County and Clark County drug court programs were similar. Both programs had judicial supervision, which was the distinction between the drug court program and a BADA-certified program. A BADA-certified program was voluntary, while the drug court program was not. He added he was in support of the language changes to the bill.

Ms. Leslie said the juvenile family court in Washoe County used a BADA-certified program.

Mr. Price stated he was bothered that the program was publicly funded but did not have to be certified. In addition, he was not satisfied with the reason for the lack of certification.

Judge Breen said in the criminal court, BADA was often used to determine whether a person was an alcoholic or an addict. When a person was charged with a felony drug offence, the court tended to presume the person was an addict. Therefore, the determination and the expense was not needed. The program was simple, streamlined, and it worked.

Mr. Dini asked Judge Breen if he was satisfied with the results of the current treatment program. Judge said he had absolute control over the program, which had been working with phenomenal success for 7 years in Clark County. Ninety percent of people who went through the treatment program were not re-arrested, while prior to the use of the program, 80 percent were re-arrested.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson said the program came about as a result of an interim study on the recidivism rate in Nevada. It had been discovered that drug and alcohol treatment programs in various drug court jurisdictions, such as Miami, Portland, Alameda, and Las Vegas, were very successful and the statewide program was modeled after those programs. By allowing judicial discretion to pick successful programs, such as acupuncture, whether the program was BADA-certified or not, 90 percent of people charged with drug offenses had not been re-arrested. The program saved a lot of money for the state and making the treatment BADA-certified would be detrimental to the program.

Mr. Stevens said the bill would be amended to remove the BADA-certification requirement.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained A.B. 598 concerned compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The amendment was written by local governments and the State Public Works Board. The bill had been narrowed down to apply to only buildings owned. It would have ADA on the state records as referenced for the local planning officials to review when they considered stamping a plan ADA-compliant. Currently, only the UBC was used, which was not in compliance. There was no additional cost.

Chairman Arberry asked the committee to review the draft of A.B. 597 and asked if there were any comments. Mr. Hettrick referenced Page 3, Subsection 2a, and asked whether the word "whether" applied to Sections 1 and 2. He added it was a technical question that could be addressed by drafting. Also, he suggested Section 6, Line 1 read "within the" instead of "within each" because later the bill used the language "the county."

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Arberry recessed the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: