The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:45 a.m., on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 1, testified that S.B. 232 was driven by a series of meetings he held during the interim. He said the meetings were with concerned parents, child advocacy groups, and professionals in the area of child advocacy, in which he asked them for direction and advice on areas needing attention from the Legislature. Senator Porter advised that approximately four bills came out of that series of meetings, the first of which is S.B. 232. He remarked one of the largest challenges he discovered is that as a state, Nevada spends a lot of time on private adoptions. The fees are greater and, as a result, private adoptions have become a higher priority than adoption of children who are in state custody. Senator Porter stated hopefully S.B. 232 will discourage private adoptions being handled by the state and encourage them to go to the private sector.

Senator Porter noted currently children in state custody wait 12 to 18 months to be adopted. Additional revenue provided by S.B. 232 would add funding to adequately staff and promote permanency for these children much sooner than at present. According to Senator Porter, comparable agencies charge between $7,500 and $12,000 to handle adoptions. The State of Nevada charges up to $2,500, giving an incentive to many families that can afford outside counsel to use the state system. Senator Porter advised the second part of the bill regards disclosure to adoptive parents. He said many of the issues are already being addressed administratively by different agencies, but he would like to codify that all social, behavioral and medical information on child and birth parents be made available to the adoptive parents. Continuing, Senator Porter remarked the state does provide additional help, as do local agencies, for parents that want to help high-risk children. He pointed out a big change is adding the language "birth parents."

The third area addressed by Senator Porter is an amendment to S.B. 232 to encourage the placing of siblings together. He mentioned that nationwide there are 35,000 brothers and sisters who are sent to different foster homes yearly. Experts in family law say there is a move to change the focus in custody disputes to what is in the best interest of the child.

Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources (DHR), introduced Wanda L. Scott, Adoption Specialist, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, who was with Mr. Shaw to testify in support of S.B. 232. Mr. Shaw stated this is not a revenue-generation bill. His hope is that in a 2-year period the state will be out of the private adoption business entirely. He read from his prepared testimony (Exhibit C). In summary, Mr. Shaw’s testimony pointed out that S.B. 232 requires the division and other licensed child-placing agencies to provide information regarding a child’s emotional, behavioral and mental health background to adoptive parents. The bill would codify existing practices and permit the division to increase the fee it currently charges for private and non-special-needs adoptions. Mr. Shaw explained that codifying existing practices does not mean it does not do anything. He said the existing statute is much broader, whereas S.B. 232 is quite specific, giving a statutory mandate to disclose health background information to adoptive parents.

Mr. Shaw continued reading, noting that increasing the adoption fee currently charged is part of a long-range strategy designed to slowly transition services in private and non-special-needs adoptions to the private sector. He pointed out the maximum fee of $2,500 currently charged by the state is one-third of the fee which can be charged by a private agency. Therefore, it is less expensive for families to utilize state services regardless of the family’s ability to pay a higher fee. Mr. Shaw stated that if the division develops a competitive fee schedule consistent with the private sector, more adoptive parents would utilize private adoption agencies because private adoptions are much faster. Additionally, 91 percent of children in state custody are "special-needs" children who suffer if the state is involved in placing non-special-needs children for a lower fee than the private sector. He added the private sector supports this transitional plan.

Mr. Shaw testified that when Senator Porter approached him about this bill, he wanted to make sure that it was done thoughtfully and not "dumped" on the private sector. He mentioned the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, a major piece of federal legislation that binds Nevada to a different way of doing business. Mr. Shaw advised that Nevada will be rated in terms of how fast it moves children through the system and in terms of how many children are permanently placed. In his opinion, this is a necessary piece of federal legislation that has mandates on the state. In conclusion, Mr. Shaw commented that oftentimes in private adoptions, children are adopted by people of means who hire large law firms to aid in the process. He said when the division handles interstate adoptions, it receives an incredible amount of pressure to speed up the private adoptions. However, nobody represents the children in the state’s custody, who, in Mr. Shaw’s opinion, take a second seat. Mr. Shaw asserted S.B. 232 is a "win-win" situation if it can be done intelligently, transferring private adoptions to the private sector over two biennia.

Mr. Shaw mentioned a friendly amendment (page 2 of Exhibit C). He proposes inserting into section 2, subsection 2, "or in a comparative geographical area" between the words "provided" and "would charge." Mr. Shaw advised that this amendment would clean up the bill and would not alter the intent of S.B. 232.

Senator Porter stated he is in support of Mr. Shaw’s amendment. He requested Mr. Shaw describe how adoption fees are charged currently. Mr. Shaw said he could speak to the division bills, and Mrs. Scott could speak to the private agencies. Mr. Shaw explained the division charges a maximum of $2,500 by statute. He stated the division subsidizes private adoptions; it costs the division approximately $8,900 to perform an adoption that is public and private combined. The private sector charges $7,500 currently. He added there is no charge in the division for special-needs children, which comprise the largest number of state adoptees. Therefore, the division generates revenue by doing private adoptions. In Mr. Shaw’s opinion the private sector could handle private adoptions better, more quickly, and free up state employees. Currently the division has 8.5 full-time equivalent positions to handle private adoptions. Mr. Shaw remarked the division would like to direct those 8.5 positions to special-needs adoptions, to speed up the placement process.

Senator Wiener inquired what amount of revenue is being generated and what the payroll budget is for those 8.5 positions. Mr. Shaw reported that in fiscal year 1998, $93,000 was deposited into one budget, and $123,000 was deposited into another budget. He said the combination of the two currently pays for two full-time equivalent positions. The combined budget also pays for studies the division contracts out and overtime, when needed, to complete summaries. Mr. Shaw was unaware of the total budget for the 8.5 positions, but told Senator Wiener he will get that information to her. He also mentioned another source of revenue that will make up any money the division loses in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; the federal government will pay the State of Nevada $4,000 for every child it places above a baseline and an additional $2,000 if it is a special-needs child.

Gerald Hardcastle, District Court Judge, Family Division, Department D, Eighth Judicial District, stated he has been one of the family court judges for Clark County for 7 years, and for 4 of those years, he was the juvenile court judge for Clark County. He concurred with Mr. Shaw’s comments and remarked hopefully passage of this bill will resolve delays in completion of adoption studies by shifting some of the burden to the private sector. Judge Hardcastle also commented on Senator Porter’s amendment regarding the placement of siblings. He explained when siblings are brought into foster care, because there are not enough placements to put them together, they end up being placed apart. When they go through the adoption process, they end up being adopted apart. In Judge Hardcastle’s opinion this priority is long overdue, both from the standpoint of foster care and adoptions.

The third part of the bill, disclosure, is practiced on the state level according to Judge Hardcastle. In his opinion, to the degree that private agencies will be brought into this, they should be. He noted the difficulty of going back after the fact and requesting records be unsealed, to discover the basis of a child’s mental or physical problems. He said losing the history of that part of a child’s life might have real relevance later on. Judge Hardcastle remarked the concept of failed adoptions is becoming "frightening" to him. He said when people adopt a child with no knowledge the child has fetal alcohol or drug syndromes or other psychological issues, and they bring the child back because they cannot care for him or her, that child becomes a further obligation to the state. A failed adoption is devastating to the child who has been twice removed and twice rejected in his or her mind. With full disclosure, a potential adoptive parent will understand exactly what the problems are and can anticipate problems the child may have.

Judge Hardcastle concluded by saying for all the reasons he mentioned, S.B. 232 is an excellent bill that he strongly supports.

Senator Wiener referred to Judge Hardcastle’s concern about keeping siblings together for both foster care and adoption. She asked if that also would include guardianship cases. Judge Hardcastle replied it could; however, the problem is not as pervasive in guardianships. He mentioned that often in guardianships, the potential guardian does not pick and choose, but takes all of the children in together.

Nancy M. Saitta, Municipal Court Judge, Department 3, City of Las Vegas, testified she was appearing to support S.B. 232 and to express the importance of the bill to special-needs children. She stated Mr. Shaw asked her to comment on imposing a duty to disclose and whether or not there should be a remedy for failure to comply with that duty. Judge Saitta remarked DCFS licenses adoption agencies and could be the agency to look toward that remedy. Regarding Senator Wiener’s inquiry about guardianships, Judge Saitta stated the majority of children placed in guardianships are placed with a family member and therefore in sibling groups. She noted that speaks to a philosophy of giving these children a permanent, appropriate, together place to be. Judge Saitta cautioned with respect to an amendment that would place sibling groups together, it should be a preference rather than mandatory in order to avoid precluding permanent placement of children simply by virtue of the fact they are a large sibling group. She also pointed out that being a part of a large sibling group labels a child as a special-needs child.

Judge Saitta concurred with Judge Hardcastle’s observations regarding failed adoptions. She added the children who become special-needs children have already been removed from their home and generally separated from their siblings. Judge Saitta asserted Nevada needs to ensure its adoption laws deal properly with placement. That includes providing information so that care and treatment can be provided, if necessary, precluding children from once again being brought back into the system to feel like a "leftover lunch bag." Judge Saitta mentioned an annual adoption fair in Las Vegas which "markets" special-needs children. She urged everyone’s support by spreading the word about the adoption fair. She concluded by saying the best interest of the children is and always has been the standard in dealing with any issues dealing with children. Judge Saitta encouraged the committee to adopt the amendment by Senator Porter.

Senator McGinness inquired what a failed adoption is and whether they ever occur. Judge Saitta replied they can happen; however, they are unusual. She remarked they are more detrimental to the child because it is yet another rejection. Judge Saitta explained that some of the children who come from homes where there has been prenatal exposure to fetal alcohol syndrome, and so forth, are not identified and cared for properly in terms of treatment and education. If the family does not understand the type of child they are adopting and the special needs of that child, oftentimes the child is returned to the system. She emphasized just because a child has special needs does not mean that he or she is a returnable child, will have lifelong problems, or is destined to always be at the center of controversy.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified that S.B. 232 appears to be a way of speeding up the adoption process which is important, especially for special-needs children. Ms. Hansen mentioned that nationally there is a waiting list for Down’s syndrome children. She stated special-needs children are being marketed nationally which is helping more of them to find homes. Continuing, Ms. Hansen remarked she is supportive of parents knowing about potential problems, because, in her opinion, it will help them be better parents. She concluded by stating she also supports keeping siblings together, but not if it will keep them from being placed. Ms. Hansen advised there are over 2 million families nationally waiting to adopt a child. She encouraged better marketing and speeding up the adoption process.

Frank McCoy, Children’s Advocacy Alliance, testified from Las Vegas. He pointed out that if talking about their own children, parents already have a medical background and a good idea of what to expect when a child becomes ill. Parents know their children’s behavior and emotional problems and how to deal with them. Mr. McCoy asked why it should be a guessing game with an adopted child’s health. He asserted S.B. 232 would help avoid costly medical or psychological testing. He strongly supports sections 1, 2, and the proposed amendment to S.B. 232.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 232 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 25.

Joel F. Glover, Lobbyist, Nevada Dental Association, testified that he is a general dentist. He introduced Jade A. Miller, Lobbyist, Nevada Dental Association, saying he is a pediatric dentist and native Nevadan that practices in both Reno and the Minden-Gardnerville areas. Dr. Glover stated Dr. Miller and he are in support of A.B. 25. He said they had seen over the past 4 years a good track record of the Dental Legal Screening Panel (panel) in being able to meet the needs of the general public in weeding out frivolous lawsuits and allowing legitimate malpractice lawsuits to be heard and settled. Dr. Glover mentioned his industry is proud of its peer-review system functioning in northern Nevada, Clark County and in a statewide peer-review system. His industry is of the opinion removal of the "sunset clause" is appropriate, and this legislation should remain due to its success in the 4 years since its inception.

Dr. Miller, as current president of the Nevada Dental Association, echoed Dr. Glover’s comments in support of A.B. 25. He commented the bill addresses consumer needs as well as keeping frivolous lawsuits out of the judicial system.

Chairman James asked if there are statistics to show the bill’s success. Dr. Glover answered he did not have statistics with him, but could supply them to Chairman James. Dr. Glover did say the panel has not exceeded eight cases per year being reviewed. He continued, saying two or three cases per year have gone on to the court system.

Dr. Glover mentioned at the A.B. 25 hearing in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, there was concern from the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, who had contacted the director of the Dental Legal Screening Panel Association in Las Vegas. He explained they have had a number of directors of that program, and the current director is concerned that the panel was being approached by a number of frivolous lawsuits that, in his opinion, should not have gotten as far as the panel. He said the cases were from small claims courts and districts that did not want to handle them. Dr. Glover stated there were eight to ten cases over the last 2 years that had not been settled in peer review, because some of the dentists involved are not members of the dental association. He advised that peer review is a voluntary result of membership in the Nevada dental association. Dr. Glover remarked that after discussion among members of the dental association, Senator Rawson proposed S.B. 181. Section 8 of that bill gives the Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada the right to reimburse patients, correct peer-review problems, and prevent overloading of the panel with the frivolous problems they were having.

Victoria D. Riley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated she would not characterize the cases mentioned by Dr. Glover as frivolous. She is concerned about cases too small to be processed officially through the panel, and remarked that many dental malpractice cases are under $10,000 or even $5,000. The peer-review system has traditionally handled these cases by ensuring the dental work is redone or reimbursed and redone with another practitioner.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 25 and opened the hearing on A.B. 79.

Carlos C. Concha, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMVPS), testified A.B. 79 proposes legislation that specifically identifies and provides for discharge from parole as either "honorable" or "dishonorable" at the expiration of a term of parole. He stated presently there are no statutory provisions set forth for any type of regular discharge at the expiration of parole term, unless the parolee has received a new conviction with incarceration of more than 1 year. The division has historically issued discharges upon termination of a parole term. Mr. Concha advised that the provisions to cover that function are defined only by internal policies and procedures. He said the division is requesting that language be added to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) similar to the language provided for in chapter 176 of NRS for probationers.

Mr. Concha read section 1 of A.B. 79. He noted that subsection 3 provides language that would create an automatic civil liability for any unpaid restitution regardless of the type of discharge. Mr. Concha explained this provision allows victims to pursue restitution as a civil liability similar to the victims of probationers. Continuing, Mr. Concha stated section 3 of A.B. 79 revises NRS to add that restoration of civil rights by the parole board is conditioned upon the parolee receiving an honorable discharge. Historically, Mr. Concha advised the division has not recommended restoration of civil rights unless the individual has received an honorable discharge. This revision adopts the division’s standard policy and practice. Should any parolee not be granted restoration by the parole board, that parolee has the right to request an appearance before the pardons board or petition the court of the original sentencing to provide restoration of civil rights.

Senator Care called attention to the fact that an "honorable" or "dishonorable" discharge in A.B. 79 sounds like the military. He asked if there is a certificate the parolee would receive and, if so, what he or she would do with it. Mr. Concha replied there is a certificate that is a petition. For a probationer, the petition is signed by the court stating that he or she received an honorable or dishonorable discharge. For a parolee, the petition would be signed by the parole board. Mr. Concha explained the information on the certificate is used in the case of future convictions or involvement with the criminal justice system. He stated this is a practice that has been followed in the past but only through internal policies and procedures, and he is asking that this language, which is similar to a probation discharge, be applied to parolees as well.

In the case of the dishonorably discharged parolee, Senator Care inquired whether there are any provisions allowing a bench warrant be issued if the parolee violates his or her parole. Mr. Concha remarked if the parolee’s whereabouts are unknown, initially a violation report will be written requesting a retake warrant signed by the parole board. After a period of 2 or 3 years, if the parolee is not located and if his or her crime was not a violent crime or one requiring restitution, the case may be withdrawn as a warrant and a dishonorable discharge will be provided for that individual.

Responding to a question by Chairman James, Mr. Concha replied A.B. 79 will not change existing policy on restoration of civil rights. In response to a question by Senator Wiener, Mr. Concha replied, historically, the majority of parolees that finish their term of parole have been honorable. Dishonorable discharges that have been received have usually been due to new convictions, violations, prior incidents, or failure to pay restitution where they had the means to pay.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 79 and opened the hearing on A.B. 80.

David M. Smith, Management Analyst, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, introduced Donald L. Denison, Chairman, State Board of Parole Commissioners, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, testifying from Las Vegas, and Joe Ward, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General, testifying from Carson City.

Mr. Denison stated A.B. 80 is a joint effort between the parole board and the attorney general’s office to equalize the way parolees are treated when they commit a new felony crime regardless of their location at the time. He referred to a letter from him addressed to Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, dated March 2, 1999 (Exhibit D), and noted it mentions three scenarios. Scenario No. 1 regards a Nevada parolee paroled to the State of Nevada who commits a crime. Mr. Denison advised the punishment for that crime must be served consecutive to the crime for which he is on parole. Scenario No. 2 describes a parolee who is paroled through the interstate compact to another state and in that state violates his parole by committing another felony. Mr. Denison stated that inmate would not receive the same punishment. Because he is where he belongs, under existing law, his parole would continue on, and he would be serving the time concurrently.

Scenario No. 3 described by Mr. Denison would include parolees paroled to the State of Nevada or another state who, without permission, go to a different state and commit a felony. Under that circumstance, the parolee’s time freezes and stays frozen until such time as that sentence ends, and the parolee would then be brought back to Nevada. The purpose of this bill, according to Mr. Denison, is to make all inmates fit as closely as possible into Scenario No. 1, which is the way Nevada inmates are treated.

Responding to a question by Chairman James, Mr. Smith remarked A.B. 80 addresses the parolee that leaves the state without permission in section 3, subsection 4 with the language, "Except as otherwise provided in section 1 of this act, the time a person is an escaped prisoner is not time served on his term of imprisonment." Mr. Smith stated that applies to parolees that leave the state without permission. Chairman James inquired how paragraphs (a) and (c) under section 1, subsection 2, differ. Mr. Smith remarked one would be a reinstatement on parole; the other would be a revocation on parole. Mr. Smith stated the difference has to do with who has custody of the parolee at the time. If a parolee is revoked in another state, he becomes an inmate of the Nevada Department of Prisons serving his sentence outside the State of Nevada. If the parole is continued, the parolee remains under the jurisdiction of the Division of Parole and Probation on parole.

Chairman James inquired whether NRS 176.035 was being eliminated. Mr. Smith replied that it will remain the same. He explained it has to do with the commission of crimes for probationers and parolees, and it provides that if a parolee commits a crime while on parole, the sentence imposed is consecutive. Parolees typically serve concurrent sentences.

Senator Wiener mentioned people who are paroled to foreign jurisdictions. She asked if under that circumstance, the parolee is no longer under Nevada’s jurisdiction. Mr. Smith informed Senator Wiener the board might parole a person to another state or jurisdiction if the person has time pending in another state. He stated A.B. 80 relates strictly to a person who is paroled and either leaves Nevada without permission or is compacted to another state and is being supervised by that state as a courtesy to Nevada. If the parolee commits a new crime in that state and is incarcerated in that jurisdiction, it allows the board to take action on the Nevada parole.

Senator Wiener asked who has jurisdiction when a person is paroled to another state. She inquired whether that is part of the interstate compact. Mr. Smith confirmed the other state monitors the parole when a person is paroled to another state.

Mr. Concha further addressed Senator Wiener’s question by explaining the interstate compact agreement. He gave the example of an individual being paroled to the State of Washington. Mr. Concha advised he would be sent through interstate compact. The State of Washington would supervise him; however, Nevada would not lose authority over the parolee. The State of Nevada would stay in contact with Washington, and if the parolee was arrested, the State of Nevada would monitor the activities of the arrest.

Responding to a question by Senator Care, Mr. Smith stated language in A.B. 80 states the time served in a foreign jurisdiction is not time served under the Nevada parole. He said currently that is not the way it happens. If the parolee has permission to be in California, for example, and he is picked up for a new crime, because this language is not provided and even though NRS 176.035 states it should be consecutive, the parole will run concurrent to the time incarcerated in the other state.

Chairman James remarked he has questions about A.B. 80. For one thing, he does not understand Mr. Smith’s reference to NRS 176.035, because it has nothing to do with a crime committed outside Nevada. He referred to section 3, subsection 4 of the bill that states, "Except as otherwise provided in section 1 of this act, the time a person is an escaped prisoner is not time served on his term of imprisonment." Chairman James noted section 1, subsection 1, states except as provided in subsection 2, " . . . a prisoner who is paroled by this state . . . " is not time served. He continued subsection 2 states, "the board may . . . ," and the board can do anything it wants. In Chairman James’ opinion, there is not a consistent rule being adopted in A.B. 80. Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), stated the purpose of the bill is to provide the board flexibility to make whatever decision it thinks appropriate.

The Chairman inquired why the bill drafters amended out the section that said, "If you waive your right to a parole revocation hearing, you could then do these things." Mr. Ward replied the hinging question on the decision to remove that language was whether or not due process rights attached to a liberty interest would trigger a waiver or a full-blown revocation hearing. He advised the authority found by Mr. Denison supports the conclusion that the prisoner’s due process rights in another jurisdiction were honored during the trial process leading up to the conviction in that other jurisdiction. This state is going to give full faith and credit to the conviction in that other jurisdiction, and that person has no liberty interest while he is duly incarcerated in prison in that other jurisdiction. Therefore, the requirement to get a waiver from the prisoner in the other jurisdiction is not necessary.

Chairman James asked what if the crime is committed in another country? He asked if Nevada would have to give full faith and credit to that country’s due process. Mr. Ward stated international law would have to be reviewed to see if the United States has any treaties with the country involved on a case-by-case basis.

Senator Care queried whether the language of A.B. 80 could be amended to incorporate the language in Scenario No. 2 of Exhibit D. He stated he is also confused by the bill language, but the language of Scenario No. 2 is clear and acceptable to him. Chairman James concurred.

Mr. Wilkinson commented he is aware that the bill is complex; however, it is the opinion of the drafters that it does address the scenarios in Exhibit D. He explained the gist of the bill is that there are parolees who go to other states, either legally or illegally, as escaped prisoners. Section 3 of the bill allows the board flexibility to decide what is appropriate under the circumstances. Mr. Wilkinson remarked usually the case where that power would be exercised is when a person is near the end of his parole supervision, and it may not be appropriate to bring him back to Nevada. Mr. Smith affirmed that is where the conception of the bill came from, in dealing with revocation hearings when parolees were brought back to Nevada, and in some cases there was not enough time remaining in the parole term for a revocation hearing. He explained the state would pay the expense to bring the parolee back to Nevada and release him in Nevada. He pointed out that is not always in the best interest of Nevada. In his opinion, the parolee is better off in his home state where his support system is located.

Mr. Ward reported that his understanding is that section 3, subsection 4 gives the parole board the ability to treat an absconded or escaped prisoner the same as a prisoner who is paroled to another jurisdiction, where both the escaped or absconded prisoner and the paroled prisoner to another jurisdiction commit a crime in that other jurisdiction and not force the parole board to bring back the absconded or escaped prisoner when they have flexibility with the prisoner who has been paroled to that other jurisdiction.

Chairman James remarked that A.B. 80 does not give a standard in the statute. His concern is that it sets up an ad hoc case-by-case determination without statutory standards.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 80. There being no further business to come before the committee, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:26 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: