The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, March 12, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Silvia Motta, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Foster Mullen, President, QM Resorts Corporation

Chairman James opened meeting on S.B. 321.

Ed Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, said this bill will standardize the training program within the corrections department, to amend and update some of the categories and address the badge issue. He referred to the preface on page iii, and page 2 of a Nevada Corrections Association training manual (Exhibit C. (Original is on file in the Research Library), which outlines the total training consisting of an 8-week program. He explained the program is divided into five phases; namely, orientation, search and escort, general population, special housing and quasi-solo training evaluation.

John Scott Mays, Correctional Training Officer, Northern Nevada Correctional Center, Department of Prisons, spoke about a 180-hour officers’ training program. He referred to phase I, II, III, IV and V of a summary of the officers training program (Exhibit D). He emphasized his major concern would be public safety. He indicated that within the Department of Prisons there are new officers walking through the correctional yards without proper training or badges; some officers have never been inside a prison prior to this job. He insisted more training is needed in the event of a riot or a hostage situation.

Mr. Mays stated that any given position cannot be unattended, and that no new employee can be sent to the training academy right away. Mr. Mays also stated that during the training period there is no reduction of guards in the yard nor is overtime paid. Mr. Flagg introduced a 20-minute videotape (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) describing in further detail the performance of a correctional officer.

Steve Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, provided the committee with a training comparison list (Exhibit F), which outlined Categories I, II and III, and some upgraded sections for S.B. 321. He pointed out that in Category II (Exhibit F) the items highlighted are the categories considered most important; however, the officers do not receive any training under such a category.

Mr. Barr also pointed out there are dangerous situations that occur on a weekly or monthly basis that must be dealt with and are presently handled with minimal training. He added, a correctional officer today is not able to use probable cause for arresting anyone inside the facility; instead the suspect is held until the local police appear to make the arrest.

Mr. Barr emphasized the lack of survival skills in the event of an assault on an officer while on duty. He agreed the class of training in Category III may have been enough in the past, but the duties have increased; therefore the training must be improved. Mr. Barr suggested a complete training to include first aid, the preservation of evidence in a criminal case, courtroom procedure, criminal process, child abuse, domestic violence and narcotic laws.

Mr. Barr offered an example of an inmate who tried to escape and how an officer stopped him with the "no-shoot" policy, based on the training the officer had received. Chairman James questioned if the correctional officer should be excluded from Category III (Exhibit F) since said category only applies to jail workers. Mr. Flagg pointed out the distinction between a county jail officer who works strictly with misdemeanor inmates, in comparison with state correctional officers who deal with convicted felons.

Senator Care asked at what point the new officers acquire the necessary training to become commissioned officers, and if there is an equivalent training to the Las Vegas Metro Police Academy available in this area. Mr. Mays responded that currently the only training received by new officers is through the police service training. New employees are hired according to budget and personnel needs; they are sent to training or some kind of academy only if there are enough officers for the class.

Senator Care inquired if a riot or hostage situation was to occur, could it be handled. Mr. Mays assured the committee he had no doubt that his officers would do an excellent job, but he insisted proper training is needed to ensure the safety of the officers and the public. Mr. Mays mentioned that officers gather together and do their own practice drills, but sometimes this is not possible due to personnel shortages.

Senator Care asked if the director or warden scheduled practice drills periodically. Mr. Mays answered no, and explained that usually he insists until he is allowed to perform some type of drill. He added, recent attempts to schedule drills were made, but due to insufficient personnel it becomes difficult to stay on schedule.

George W. Scott, Institution Investigator, Department of Prisons, spoke about his 20-years experience with the facility and the training program. He recognized the facility has increased productivity, especially the handling of evidence, and he urged for training to be improved.

John Slansky, Assistant Director/Operations, Department of Prisons, described that training was the most important program for the Nevada corrections institutions, and any training that would benefit officers and the department would be favorable. He asked for an increase in resources to implement more training, and at least 80 hours of tutoring in assisting supervisors with facility management.

Mr. Slansky pointed out the bill requires enhancement and clarification concerning the structure of the organization and operation of the correctional facility. He added, while Category II of the bill offers some unnecessary training, Category III provides for 160 hours of training; namely, offenders’ civil rights, institution laws, use of force and several other classifications. Mr. Slansky requested extra time to add a fiscal note regarding badges.

John Pearcy, Employment Development Manager, Personnel Division, Nevada Department of Prisons, explained the department provides basic training which is the minimum required in Category III (Exhibit F). He expressed his support for any fiscal resources to convert the training. Referring to the field practice program, he mentioned the same type of training program is currently being introduced at the Lovelock and Warm Springs Correctional Centers.

Mr. Pearcy told the committee that, in addition to the 160-hour basic training, the new officers in his facility receive 20 hours of class assignment, so they graduate with 180 hours of total instruction; unlike the Ely maximum facility prison which provides 220 hours of training.

Mr. Pearcy expressed his concern about the additional resources to comply. He said there are currently 1456 peace officers which fall under Categories I, II, and III, and the purpose of these categories is to ensure that the citizens of Nevada receive qualified law enforcement service when required. He explained the difference between categories: for example, the Category I officer is basically a street officer; Category II is a specialty officer for specific need of the citizens of the state; and Category III is for detention and prisons.

Mr. Pearcy added, if a correctional officer is converted from Category III to Category II as the bill suggests, the requirements at the police academy would not qualify, since the constitutional law defers in Category III. In Category III a police officer deals with pre-post sentence type of individuals; there are specific constitutional rights the police officer must be trained in to ensure that the department complies with inmate rights.

Senator Wiener inquired about the annual budget for training. Mr. Pearcy responded there were currently 2,400 employees under a $56,000 training budget, and it would triple the cost if training was to be converted.

Steve Barr mentioned that for the first 6 months of his employment, he was assigned to a unit of 160 inmates with an officer who had no formal training nor had he attended the academy. Mr. Barr voiced disagreement with prior testimony regarding the cost of badges, and offered Exhibit G, a quotation to reveal the wholesale cost for badges. He explained the purpose of S.B. 321 is to provide control badges for existing officers and the potential 900 more officers to be hired in the next 2 years.

Seeing no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 321 and opened the hearing on S.B. 322.

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, testified he had been working as a real estate consultant for a time-share development in Las Vegas. During his participation with the Nevada Real Estate Division and the American Resort Development Association (ARDA), he learned that the State of Nevada did not regulate the resale of time-share property. He mentioned the Las Vegas area has the potential of becoming the number one "hot spot" in the world selling time-shares, within the next couple of years. Senator Schneider explained his only concern and objective with this bill would be to set regulations to protect the consumer.

Shirley Penzel, Projects Chief, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, presented Exhibit H, a letter addressed to the committee with proposals to amend the Nevada time-share law. She said the division has received several complaints from owners of time-shares, who have been solicited by persons wanting to market and sell their time-shares. She declared there is much concern about the existing law, which does not address the current problems experienced by the resale market.

Ms. Penzel added, the problem is not only in Nevada; several other states are addressing this issue. She said, ironically the most affected by the improper activities of some resale business are the time-share developers, who have taken considerable time and effort to comply with chapter 119A of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the "time-share" provisions. She stated that S.B. 322 proposes to provide disclosure and protection to both the seller and the purchaser of time-shares.

Senator Care questioned section 5, subsection 3, of S.B. 322, regarding telephone soliciting. Ms. Penzel replied that any telephone soliciting should be documented in a written agreement by a time-share resale broker within 10 days of a telephone conversation. Chairman James referred to section 5, subsection 1, of S.B. 322, and concurred the bill needs clarification.

Stephen J. Cloobeck, President, Polo Resorts Inc., testified in favor of S.B. 322. He suggested line 9 on page 1 of the bill be removed or changed from "12 or more time shares" to "any number", and make the law more strict. He stated any one purchaser who is taken advantage of could destroy the entire industry’s reputation in the state. Chairman James questioned the basis of the "12 or more time shares" language in the bill. Karen D. Dennison, Attorney, Nevada American Resort Development Association, remarked that every bill needs a "cutoff" number and the number 12 was used in NRS chapter 116, the "Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Act." She stated the Real Estate Division may have no interest in regulating matters under 12.

Chairman James agreed with Mr. Cloobeck that the bill is to ensure no one is disadvantaged. He stressed whether it is 5 or 12 people the law should apply to any resale transaction. Ms. Penzel indicated her only concern would be to cause a financial burden on small resale companies that do comply with regulations.

Mr. Cloobeck asked Ms. Penzel to clarify the $500 initiation fee collected by solicitors. Ms. Penzel replied, an initiation fee would be legitimate pursuant to NRS chapter 645, "Real Estate Broker and Salesmen Licensing Act," where the broker would have to place the money in a trust account.

Foster Mullen, President, QM Resorts Corporation, briefly expressed his support for the bill.

Joan Buchanan, Administrator, Real Estate Commission, Real Estate Division, Department of Business and Industry, said her office did not anticipate more than four resale businesses to register. She pointed out the cost effect of the measure would be minimal or would have a minor fiscal note. She declared the resale problem is happening throughout the United States, and the State of Nevada could lead throughout the country if this measure is adopted.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 322 and opened the work session introducing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1-839 and BDR 14-1533.

Chairman James requested a motion to do pass Senate Bill (S.B.) 242 and place it on the consent calendar.

* * * * *

Chairman James referred to the work session document Exhibit I and requested a motion to amend the bill and re-refer it to the finance committee.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR CARE VOTED NO.)

* * * * *

Senator Care voiced his opinion about S.B. 264, indicating he was not totally convinced there is a need for this proposed statute.

Chairman James referred to Exhibit I. Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noted this bill would be a clarification of the law.

* * * * *

Chairman James requested a motion to amend and re-refer Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 19 to legislative affairs and operations.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, stated the provisions in this bill would be consistent with NRS 205.132, since a debit card operates just like a checking account.

* * * * *

Senator Care spoke about a provision regarding shoplifting, which indicates that concealing while in a store constitutes shoplifting. Mr. Wilkinson explained that under this measure, presumption would be some kind of material element of the crime, and the presumption is made on the benefit of the merchant to avoid civil liability for false arrest.

* * * * *

Chairman James again referred to Exhibit I and requested a motion to amend and do pass.

* * * * *

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Silvia Motta,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: