The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:44 a.m., on Thursday, March 18, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, 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:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman James opened the meeting with the introduction of bill draft requests (BDRs).

*****

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 297.

Senator Alice Constandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, spoke on behalf of S.B. 297. She said this bill relates to the practice of hazing, which should have long since passed on. She emphasized the bill has been tracked, followed, researched, and this hearing orchestrated by her intern, Angel Robinson, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) political science major. She said Ms. Robinson will testify on the bill, followed by university administrators and students from different campuses.

Angel Robinson, Legislative Intern, said she was testifying in favor of S.B. 297 which prohibits hazing at colleges and universities in Nevada. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit C) she sited several newspaper headlines that have appeared around the United States on the results of severe hazing, including permanent physical disfigurement and handicap, mental and emotional trauma, and even death. Ms. Robinson emphasized that incidents of hazing have become more prevalent and more violent to the point that 39 states have enacted laws prohibiting hazing, and she provided a listing of the states (Exhibit D).

Ms. Robinson pointed out the power people gain over others through hazing perverts situations into trials of physical brutality and reckless mental and emotional abuse. She stressed the victim is subdued into submission to hazing predominately by peer pressure and a strong desire to belong. She conveyed that threats and intimidation by those doing the hazing keep most subjects from telling anyone. Ms. Robinson testified the new University and College System of Nevada’s (UCCSN) policy against hazing makes it clear that the system will not tolerate any form of hazing on campuses in Nevada. She said it is not enough to initiate disciplinary sanctions, the discipline must be supported by legislation.

Ms. Robinson said she is proposing an amendment be added to the bill to clarify the language of the student organization to specifically include athletic teams. The amendment does not apply to activities that take place during required practices and drills for these teams; however, it does address the illegal activities that can occur as initiation rituals for rookies on athletic teams. She continued that hazing has been proven to produce short-term and long-term psychological and physical effects on its victims. Sometimes these injuries will heal; other times they will last for life. When the victim is not allowed to express the feelings of hatred and resentment toward the abusers, the feelings are buried and a cycle of abuse is perpetuated. Ms. Robinson concluded that she is submitting for the record letters of support for S.B. 297 (Exhibit E) from UNLV student organizations and Western Nevada Community College (WNCC), along with a copy of the proposed university system policy against hazing (Exhibit F).

Jane L. Nichols, Ed.D., Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs, Chancellor’s Office, University and Community College System of Nevada, said she is testifying in behalf of S.B. 297, a bill that would prohibit hazing at the colleges and universities in this state. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit G) she iterated that in the fall of 1998, the Board of Regents directed the campuses to engage students and student affairs officers to draft a policy on hazing. She said that policy would be taken to the Board of Regents for approval in April 1999. Dr. Nichols said a state statute that recognizes hazing as a misdemeanor would be an important additional ingredient for effective action against hazing. She noted in section 1, subsection 3, lines 10-11, the limitation of the definition to student organizations and members of student organizations would preclude the possibility that a student who engages in hazing others without benefit of formal membership would not fall under this statute; and suggested removal of the phrase, "… by a member of the student organization …" and replace it with "… by an individual …." Dr. Nichols emphasized that S.B. 297 would communicate the unacceptability of abusive and harmful actions of hazing taken under the guise of normal student behavior.

Chairman James inquired if he understood that the university system did not now have a policy on hazing. Dr. Nichols responded that the system does not have a specific policy on hazing. She asserted there are numerous policies that set up a process for students who may come to the attention of the university or community college for unacceptable behavior. She stated those policies are clearly not sufficient to address the issue or to bring to students’ attention the unacceptability of a practice that is deeply ingrained in traditions of many of the student organizations.

Chairman James wanted to know after the Sundowners incident, that occurred a long time ago and was one of the worst cases of hazing in Nevada; why after all those years, only now is legislation being requested, and in the meantime the university system still has no policy on hazing. Dr. Nichols surmised that looking at the history of higher education in this country, it has been encrypted that certain types of student behavior are accepted or expected. She said it has only been in the last 2 years that both as institutions and a culture we have begun to recognize stronger action needs to be taken specifically against hazing. She explained to be perfectly honest for many years institutions looked the other way with fraternities and sororities and other activities. It is only in recent years that as a culture and as higher education we have begun to understand and take serious action against the practice of hazing.

Dr. Nichols asserted there have been many actions taken over the years by the universities and community colleges to address hazing incidents. She pointed out that the Sundowners were an underground organization, never a recognized campus organization. She stressed that was one of the reasons to change the language to "individual" rather than "member of student organization." She expounded that what is being seen is a public trend to take a stand and very clearly communicate that this specific type of behavior is no longer acceptable. She said the system can continue to deal with hazing, but the system thinks they can deal with it more effectively with the support of a public voice through the Legislature and with the support of the Board of Regents with an internal policy.

David A. Hansen, Ed.D., Assistant Vice President, Student Development, Office of Student Services, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), stated, from his outline (Exhibit H), that for many years the two universities have had and do have similar hazing policies in place. The policy has been a driving force for UNR to do the investigation and appropriate adjudication for cases. Dr. Hansen remarked the difference is this is a system policy. This is the first time the UCCSN has joined forces to develop one standard collective policy that not only focuses on fraternities and sororities, but also on higher education, all campuses, all clubs and organizations, and individuals in those clubs and organizations. He said that is the major change, a system policy, but each university has had a hazing policy for quite some time.

Chairman James requested copies of the policies for the committee. Chairman James noted that physical brutality, whipping and beating are all existing crimes under present Nevada law. He stated that those actions were most like felonies under the law rather than misdemeanors. Dr. Nichols said it is her understanding the campuses work closely with law enforcement in each community, and where charges can be brought under current legislation, that has been done. She expounded that often there is a gray line. Often there is ambiguity as to whether the offenses rise to the level of physical brutality. She urged that by establishing an offense called hazing, it provides a more solid ground by which to prosecute. Dr. Nichols persisted that the system policies would have more strength with the communities and courts behind them to more clearly get the message to students that hazing is serious, it is not just an internal student offense, and that is the prime value in S.B. 297.

Chairman James said he was wondering about the word "forced." He surmised that could be difficult to prove. He inquired as to what forces people to accept hazing. Dr. Nichols speculated the environment the students enter on campus contains the force of peer acceptability, and of acceptance into activities or groups. It is the force in our society that individuals feel their future opportunities or future happiness is dependent upon their complying with another individual in the workplace or anywhere. She said there are other examples under the law where force is used and is explicit, and this certainly falls within those laws.

Chairman James commented that the judiciary committee usually hears about threats to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of someone close to them. He emphasized he could not disagree with what the bill is trying to do, but there are issues that must be fleshed out. He said for example, the wording about adversely affecting the dignity of someone would become a crime. He emphasized the committee has to use caution in not making criminals out of most people, even though a few do serious things that are wrong. He noted the language regarding conspiracy as to force someone into activity that would adversely affect their dignity. He said that could mean a lot of things such as, just talking to friends in the fraternity about having someone dress in a funny costume, that could adversely affect that person’s dignity; that could be a crime, and we all need to be careful with legislation. He noted another thing about the way the bill is written is it focuses on making it a crime to do something if that person belongs to one organization. What this bill would do is say hazing is a crime, but only if you do it to someone who is part of a college or university. He noted that according to the bill, high school level hazing would not be a crime.

Senator Titus responded there was talk about having this include K-12. It has always been on the table. She said she understood the language in the bill is different from what we often think of as a crime, but the situation is different and this is based on language used in other state’s statutes.

Rick C. Bennett, Lobbyist, Director, Governmental Relations, Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said he wanted to clarify the point that he was the one to provide copies of statutes from several states relating to hazing to the bill drafters. Some of the language suggested indicated that this was related to all educational institutions and not just universities and community colleges. This is the result of all the material provided to the bill drafters, so the bill before the committee is copulative and the judgment of the bill drafter.

Chairman James acknowledged that he wanted to understand what the effects would be. He said it appears no one is disagreeing with the intent of the bill, but we have to be careful in writing laws trying to get at the bad cases; that we do not give up liberties, freedoms or discourage associations that should be legal. He stressed he wanted to make sure it is written narrowly enough that it just affects those limited cases where existing laws do not handle it, and this additional law is needed.

Dr. Nichols added that from the system’s perspective they would welcome the committee’s input and changes to make S.B. 297 work. She thought it was because of the ambiguity of trying to transfer it to other situations, limited to university and community colleges campuses around the state, or if extended into high schools. But hazing is a different kind of situation than the general public might encounter, and the bill should be constructed in a narrow way simply to address those issues.

Senator Porter said it was mentioned that these behaviors were accepted or expected. He also gathered from the testimony this initiative is being driven by universities but, in fact, it is not; it is driven by Senator Titus and a number of students. He said it troubles him that as an institution of higher learning and education it has taken so long, and he is disappointed that it has taken legislation to bring hazing to the forefront.

Dr. Nichols responded again that the university is an institution of higher education, and is always looking for ways to do things better. Along with other states the universities simply have arrived at a point where we could use a public voice to assist in dealing with hazing, and to communicate to our children; to our young people that hazing is unacceptable behavior. Dr. Nichols speculated that maybe today we are in a climate where we are creating more policies and laws to be quite explicit about the expectations.

Senator Porter stated it sounded as though prior to today hazing was accepted and expected. Dr. Nichols replied that it would be naive to think that in the history of higher education in this country, they did not develop a tradition of hazing, and that is just a fact. The very word itself was indicative of the fact that this evolved. Now we are trying to find more effective ways to be sure that our young people and our students understand that hazing can be quite destructive and understand that this is not acceptable behavior. She said when she was in college there was hazing. It was not terribly destructive, but it was always on the edge of being destructive.

Senator Titus commented in the defense of the college and university system, she did not drag them to the table with this legislation. They are in the process of developing a policy and this bill has gone hand in hand with the policy. She said students came to her saying they were working on it as something in which they were interested, and she fully expects their policy to be adopted at the April meeting. This legislation works with the policy developed.

Senator Porter noted the provision would take effect on October 1, 1999. He observed that colleges open for the fall semester around mid-August; therefore, should the legislation pass, there would be provision for one large hazing in September 1999, so he would like to see the legislation effective upon passage and approval.

Mr. Bennett stated he would like to follow up on one of Senator Porter’s questions. As Chairman James mentioned there was a rather notorious instance of hazing in Nevada but that was several years ago. He said in recent years there have not been any serious incidents of hazing in Nevada; but over the past 2 or 3 years, there have been hazing instances in other states that have gained national attention. Because of the national attention students and administrators who work with student organizations contacted him during the 1997 Legislative Session, and discussed the possibility of drafting a bill with Chairman James, but it was mid-session and there was not enough time remaining. Mr. Bennett said since that time he has been working with administrators and students towards a system policy and towards this legislation.

Senator Care stated he understood that the proposed policy was a system-wide policy, and that a couple of campuses already have policies in effect.

Dr. Nichols responded that UNR and UNLV already have policies in place that are very similar. The community colleges have not yet addressed hazing because it has not been as serious an issue on that level; however, the community colleges are most anxious to be a part of the policy, so this proposed policy would be extended to all university and community college campuses.

Senator Care wanted to know how effective the existing policies have been on those campuses, and what the penalty is for violation of the hazing policy.

Michele Taylor, Director, Campus Community Development, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said the universities do have language, but she does not think it has been very effective. She pointed that in the UNLV Student Conduct Code it states in section VI. Student Responsibilities, section A, subsection 2, "Hazing, or creating a situtation, whether on or off university-owned or controlled property, which produces mental or physical discomfort, injury or stress, or embarrassment, or ridicule." She said any one of those acts would be prohibited and may result in expulsion from the university or any lesser disciplinary sanction.

Ms. Taylor said there have been several cases of hazing at UNLV in the past couple of years. In spring 1997 the Kappa Sigma Fraternity lost its charter as a result of an internal investigation involving hazing. In fall 1998 the volleyball team was also found guilty of hazing; they committed what was a very embarrassing ritual for the young ladies in the center of the Donald C. Moyer Student Union building, which resulted in women reduced to tears. She averred other unsubstantiated claims are continuously raised, and yet from her point of view there does not seem to be any meat behind the policy.

Ms. Taylor pointed out the reason the Campus Community Development formed a committee to look at the hazing problem was because it was student generated. She remarked that in 1997 groups of students from different arenas had asked why there is no policy regarding hazing as other states have. She said a committee was formed, comprised of students from the various groups on campus and the administration, in an attempt to generate anti-hazing policy language for UNLV and for UCCSN. In conjunction with colleagues at UNR, the committee drafted a document that was endorsed by the UCCSN Student Affairs Council on November 18, 1998. She said the hope is to put some language behind these policies that give it some meat. What they want the people in Nevada to know is that there is zero tolerance for hazing activities. Not only within the university and community college systems, but also within the Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) schools.

Ms. Taylor continued they see the effects in many aspects of individuals’ lives. They believe that by focusing attention on anti-hazing it will serve as a deterrent to future activity. That there is accountability for those involved in hazing. It is not just something that goes before the judicial board and gets sanctioned. Hazing just gets repeated again and is reinforced behind closed doors. This activity needs to be brought to the forefront. What is important is there is an unwritten understanding that hazing only occurs in the Greek system and that certainly is not true; it is seen in every aspect of university and college life. It is in honorary societies, and in all kinds of groups and organizations on and around campus; and the language needs to address that.

Senator Care stated that under this bill, for example, a student could be convicted of a misdemeanor. In theory that could mean 6 months in jail and a fine of up to a $1,000; that would be pretty serious. He said his hope is that UNLV and UNR make it a practice to, at a minimum, expel students for hazing.

Dr. Hansen responded that currently cases are handled through the student discipline system. Both campuses have a director of student affairs or something comparable in title for a person that investigates and adjudicates sanctions against students. The range of sanctions for someone accountable for hazing would be anything from a warning to suspension and expulsion. That is a system UNR has used, and he believes that is the system UNLV has used for several years. He said the issue of hazing is not a simple one by any means, because as has already been stated in testimony, there is a tremendous amount of peer pressure involved in students interacting with other students. The likelihood of students providing damaging testimony against other students, especially in a situation like this, makes hazing one of the most difficult problems to solve.

Dr. Hansen noted both campuses have dealt with hazing incidents because of the communication between each other. He said personally and institutionally they have dealt with several cases where hazing has occurred, but were unable to prove it because the victim would not come forward or people would not provide the needed testimony. He said the system uses formal and informal methods to rectify or eliminate hazing. The issue of hazing is one that puts people at risk and that is very serious.

Dr. Hansen stated that with the adoption and approval of this law, of which he is very much in support, it would be an additional deterrent to rely on in dealing with hazing because the law would provide another level. In cases where they have not had the law, but it has become a legal matter, the university and local police are utilized in investigations for criminal activity. In some cases it may not come out as a resolution in terms of hazing, but it could be some other type of physical force or assault that has teeth.

Senator Care inquired if in the last 3 years anyone has been expelled from UNR or UNLV for hazing. Mr. Bennett responded that over that last 3-4 years he has been involved in the investigation of several hazing cases. No individual has been held accountable because people would not come forth, even though it was known that hazing had occurred.

Dr. Nichols said she could not speak to any statistics in regard to UNLV, but she knows that students have left the institution because of the embarrassment, ridicule, and retaliation received from other students for testifying against them.

Senator Washington said his concern is with athletic organizations and he would like the bill to narrowly define activities outside the scope of the practice field, because some language in the bill could lead to a player or players filing charges against a coach, the organization, or even the university. So if the language could be more narrowly defined, he thinks that would be a lot better as opposed to just making it a blanket coverage.

Ms. Robinson clarified that it is definitely not going to apply to those types of activities that are included in practice or regular drills for the teams. As Ms. Taylor stated, last semester there was an incident with the volleyball team where they were embarrassed in the student union area by being paraded through the buildings during lunchtime. It is plain that these types of activities also occur with athletic teams. Because of the way the language is worded, "student organizations," it may be misinterpreted that athletics are not included. It needs to be made clear that athletic teams are included.

Senator Washington expressed his concern that the bill be narrowly defined for any activities outside the scope of the practice field. In that way it is not opened up to any athlete that thinks he is extremely abused, under mental stress, or unable to compete with the physical activity; and then revert back to some kind of reparation against the university.

Chairman James inquired what if nobody was involved in a student organization and some guys got some of their friends to parade somebody through the cafeteria. Ms. Robinson surmised that Dr. Nichols addressed that when she asked for the change in language from member to individual, and would certainly agree with that change.

Chairman James wondered if Ms. Robinson was referring to taking out the part on lines 9-10, subsection 3, section 1, "… method of initiation into a student organization …." He said if the wording is changed to "individual," then it would have nothing to do with colleges and universities. If that wording were taken out, then it would be a crime to embarrass anybody.

Ms. Robinson responded she thinks it was worded that way because hazing is generally associated with organizations.

Chairman James wanted to know if that person would be entitled to any less protection than somebody who is getting initiated into an organization. He said he was pointing out what the university could do; the policy the university could write is different from what is written as a state law. We cannot make it a crime in Nevada to embarrass somebody or to expose him or her to mental stress. University policy can go beyond and lay out exactly what it will tolerate in the university, and it should enforce that. But this law has to be based upon traditional criminal activity.

Mr. Hansen acknowledged the point is well taken, and he understood that. The language was intended for organizations and groups associated and individuals within those particular groups. He said if an individual was harassed, coerced, forced or whatever by other individuals not associated with an organization, they would have avenues through the campus discipline system or criminal or possibly civil law, and that is how they are being handled. He said he would offer language as an addition to section 3, and that is to not only put the qualification into athletics, but also add academic programs. He offered the example of Army ROTC on campuses, which is referred to as military science; an academic department. People could perceive calisthenics and training for Army ROTC as a form of hazing. We need to have inclusion for academic programs so hazing would not be tolerated within certain programs or associated with certain programs.

Senator McGinness requested copies of the draft of the university’s regulations, and of the policy by the student affairs council. Dr. Nichols emphasized the policies she will send the committee are, again, proposed policies.

Ms. Robinson commented she realized the definition of hazing is broad as written in the bill; but as Senator Titus referred to earlier, this bill was based on existing statutes throughout the country. It is a bit difficult to understand the problem with prosecuting embarrassment, but hazing is much more than physical. There are mental stresses that are involved in this type of activity. Fraternities are more prone to physical abuse, and sororities are more prone to mental stress or anguish. She stressed there has to be a line drawn to say that these various forms of hazing activity are also not going to be tolerated.

Chairman James said it is the distinction of the criminal law that is so critical; that is dealt with all the time in the committee. The depravation of freedom is the ultimate sanction of government, to take away liberty. We have to reserve that sanction for the most deserving kind of negative activity. He said he knows there are situations of mental torture that are terrible and heinous acts done to another person. But he wants to make sure the law is reserved for just that kind of activity. A student policy, expulsion from university, all of those things are bad, but nothing equates to the loss of freedom, a criminal record, and all of the things that go with it. The fact that other states have enacted hazing laws does lend some weight, but Nevada needs to be sure it is a well-written law.

Senator Washington stated that in line 12 the word, "intentionally" strikes a cord with him. It says, "… intentionally or recklessly endangers the mental or physical health of another …." He said someone might define an accident as intentional.

Chairman James commented that the word "intentionally" is the most narrowing thing. He appreciated Senator Washington’s thought because level of intent is to intend the results. The "recklessly" word is the one that is the knowing standard; it is a little broader.

Senator Titus interjected that Ben Graham from the Clark County District Attorney’s Office offered to help define the language in such a way that would be more acceptable to the committee.

Nicholas G. Vaskov, Student, President, Inter-Fraternity Council, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said he thinks part of the anti-hazing movement in the fraternal world began in the early 1990s. It is imperative the state take an equally large stance. He said the anti-hazing policy in the student code of conduct has been effective. Since the volleyball team incident there have been policy changes within the athletic department, and at some educational seminars. The Inter-fraternity Council by-laws currently define hazing and prohibition and also define the consequences. The Panhellenic Association rules forbid hazing by its sororities, and the National Panhellenic Council has long had an anti-hazing statement. The fraternity insurance purchasing group, which covers the liability statements contains an anti-hazing statement. He said UNLV has been active over the last several years in putting on educational seminars and bringing in national speakers to help combat hazing. All new Greek members must attend a training seminar where they are taught about hazing, how to recognize it, what are its consequences, and why it needs to be eliminated. Each semester the leadership of each Greek chapter signs an anti-hazing document, and legislation is a wrap up of a comprehensive battle against hazing. He said the fraternal world has been doing battle for the last 10 years when hazing became a major issue, and has tried to eliminate it. In some of the other student organizations on campus, hazing is not as well recognized as a problem, or that it should be prohibited. He said one of the things this legislation does is send a clear message to all student organizations that hazing should not be allowed on campuses. Often they have to rely on the inter-fraternity council or the national governing bodies of fraternities to prosecute the offenders of hazing. There are limits as to what they can do, such as expel members from the organizations; but they cannot take it to the next level, especially if major damage has resulted or serious pain has been inflicted. He encouraged the committee to enact some kind of legislation, whatever the legalities of the language are, he believes it is important that there is something to point to as a law against hazing, which can be prosecuted if broken.

Jill Dayne, Student, President, Panhellenic Association, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said she is in favor of the anti-hazing legislation. She said members of different sororities have approached her about active hazing that does go on, and how they feel nothing is being done about it. Although there are programs, policies, and forms students are signing, there is nothing to back them up. She asked the committee to put the force in action through S.B. 297 to support what the universities have already begun.

David C. O’Mara, Lobbyist, Student, President, Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, University of Nevada, Reno, said when he first looked at the bill, he thought it was a slam-dunk decision to protect the university students. However, upon further study he saw some things that could be changed to make the legislation more solid and a better law. He said he is in support of the concept of the legislation, but not necessarily the bill itself. He believes in the concept to regulate and punish groups, or individuals, for intentionally or recklessly endangering the mental or physical health of another person. However, hazing as specific to Nevada universities and community colleges should be controlled at the university level, which is the lowest level. He said it is his recollection that when UNLV was faced with an actual hazing incident, the student organization was disbanded and the university’s actions were appropriate and proper. Now if that same act was also a criminal act, then it should have been prosecuted as a criminal offense. He said the bill is vague and inconsistent. He agrees with the introduction of athletic teams and campus military organizations. Another problem is section 1, line 18, is inconsistent with section 1, lines 12-13. For example, "… likely to adversely affect the physical health of the person …" is a different burden than the meaning of "… intentionally or recklessly endangers …." The word "force" is used as an adjective to describe various actions of so-called hazing; there are 35 different definitions of force in the dictionary; to which meaning is the bill referring. What does forced activity mean. The difference is whether you are using intentional and reckless endangerment or using the likely to adversely affect concept. He continued that as for consumption, if the football team has a spaghetti feed and wants to see who can eat the most or the fastest, would that be considered hazing. Forced exclusion from social contact; does this mean that if a perspective member conducts himself or herself in a unacceptable social manner, would he not be allowed to restrict him or her from future parties.

Mr. O’Mara pointed out before the late 1980s the university allowed students 3-4 weeks to prepare for homecoming celebrations. The activities entailed working on the floats and preparing for the frolics. In the 1990s, the time limitations were severely decreased so the students would be more involved in their studies. Now there is only 1 week to prepare for and participate in homecoming. He wondered if the participating members have to stay up all night in order to finish the float and still go to school; would the float decorators be subject to criminal prosecution for sleep deprivation. He indicated forced conduct that is likely to result in extreme embarrassment. For example, if a perspective member comes from a wealthy family and has never done dishes, scrubbed floors, or done laundry, that person might consider participation in housecleaning embarrassing and forced conduct. Mr. O’Mara asked if he would be restricting that person by forcing them to get on their knees and scrub the floor.

Mr. O’Mara wondered if the mental health of a student meant that if a professor gives a student an assigned paper on Tuesday that is due on Thursday; would the professor be guilty of hazing because the assignment will affect the student’s mental health as well as cause sleep deprivation. In honor societies the member must manage a certain grade point average (GPA). If the member does not meet a certain GPA; he/she would no longer be a member. As for athletics and practice time, Mr. O’Mara wondered if that meant he could set up a practice time where he could haze, because there is no difference between having practice time to haze and for him to have a set time to do things within the fraternity that should not be incorporated in the law. He agreed his observations are negative, but he strongly suggests this bill be tabled and to encourage the Legislature to allow the universities and community colleges administrators to work out the meaning and punishments appropriate to the occasion.

Joshua Martinez, Student, Member, Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in support of the legislation, he believes it is an important step to stopping hazing incidents on the university and college campuses of Nevada. There have been incidents recently at UNLV that resulted in a chapter losing its charter, because they made pledges to eat an unknown substance. This is only punishable by the student conduct code. Legislation would make something like this a misdemeanor. Hopefully it will stop negative things from happening to the Greek system, and more people will join the system to learn good leadership skills that will always help them in life.

Mr. Martinez said he witnessed an incident at a UNLV basketball game in which a group of girls came in all painted up, dressed in rags and other things. They said they had their clothing put together by the senior members of the softball team, because as freshmen they had to do this for their initiation. He said if a fraternity or sorority did this on campus or at a game in public, that organization would be suspended immediately and an investigation conducted into the practices by the fraternity or sorority. He said passing this legislation will hopefully stop all hazing incidences from occurring, because one incident of hazing is one too many, and one death a year from hazing is one death too many.

Senator Titus said some issues are so important they need to be dealt with at both levels. She reminded the committee that in the past they enacted legislation making it illegal for a person who is in a position of power to have sexual relations with another person, such as a professor and a student, and there are policies covering that on the campuses. She said at the time the committee thought that was important enough to pass legislation, and hazing is a similar kind of situation.

Damita Halcromb, Lobbyist, Student, President, United Students Association, Western Nevada Community College, noted there was one thing no one touched on and that was high schools and middle schools. She said there is also a need to include these schools. She said she has a 16-year-old daughter who brought hazing at her school to her attention as she wrote her letter to the committee. She stressed it is her hope the lower grade classes in the schools get included in the legislation.

James Richardson, Lobbyist, Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), noted that hazing was a difficult issue with which to deal, and difficulties with the language have been pointed out, particularly in the last section on page 2. He said NFA is in support of the concept and that a bill can be worked out. He noted that professional administrators from the system and the campuses have said this bill is needed and would help them to deal with the problem of hazing. He said rules of the state and community colleges sometimes conflict with state laws. He assumed there would be discussions between the district attorney’s office and administrative officials on the campuses about who should move on a particular hazing incident. As several people have said in terms of the language, it can be problematic.

Senator Care said a lot of universities’ campuses have speech codes, and one reaction is that sometimes students do not say anything when they could for fear of violating the policy. He said using that as an analogy, if this bill is enacted, there might be a fear in some fraternities and sororities not to have that kind of initiation. He wondered if Mr. Richardson could think of any rite of passage that would still be acceptable if this legislation is enacted.

Mr. Richardson responded that in listening to the testimony he was applying a reasonable person’s standard. He said in his opinion the organizations and the teams could, in fact, have initiation rites that would pass muster before reasonable people. He observed it is the extreme situations that are being dealt with; the ones that grab the headlines.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 297, and opened the hearing on S.B. 347.

Senator Valerie Wiener, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, spoke on behalf of S.B. 347. Reading from prepared text (Exhibit I) she stated this legislation affects grandparents who have, or are seeking, guardianship of their grandchildren. It will also help resolve the concerns so many people have about the guardianship of loved ones. Senator Wiener noted the Nevada Supreme Court, in Fisher v. Fisher (1983), rendered a ruling about guardianship cases. An excerpt from that decision reads: "While legislature has clearly inserted a ‘parental preference’ into guardianship determinations, welfare of child is superior to claim of parent, so that right of natural parent must yield where it clearly appears that child’s welfare requires that custody be granted to another." She stressed that it was the "rights, needs, and best interests" of the child that served as the driving force in crafting the bill. She emphasized it is not the intent of the bill to take away a judge’s discretion. Senator Wiener said in support of S.B. 347 she is submitting letters from District Judge William O. Voy, Eighth Judicial District Court (Exhibit J), District Judge Scott T. Jordan, Second Judicial District Court (Exhibit K), and District Judge Charles M. McGee, Second Judicial District Court (Exhibit L).

May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of County Welfare Directors (NACWD), said the bill fits in well with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. This legislation started out as A.B. 315, but it will be combined into A.B. 158, to require child protective services and child welfare agencies to move children through the system faster into permanent placement. NACWD will be looking for relatives and other suitable placement possibilities, and anticipate greater use of the guardianship vehicle.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), said she observed that every member of the judiciary committee signed onto S.B. 347. She stated she supports the concept and most of the contents of the bill. The factors listed on page 1 as paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) are valid criteria and well understood. However, NCC has some concerns with the consequences of paragraphs (b) and (c). She said these items are listed as factors the court "shall" consider. She noted Senator Wiener had stated these were intended as guidelines, but as the bill is written NCC perceives that the court "must" consider each of these factors.

Ms. Lusk expounded on the effect of the 6-months continuous employment in paragraph (c) on the stay-at-home mother dedicated to caring for her children. NCC feels the earner of money in no way assures that person is the best caregiver for the child, and NCC perceives an unintended consequence.

Ms. Lusk drew attention to paragraph (b) and what the meaning of "suitable environment" is. Would it mean a bigger house, the child having his or her own room, or perhaps the religion practiced in the home. She pointed out that on page 2, section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (a) also addresses "suitability of the environment." Page 2, section 2, subsection (f), subparagraph (1) addresses "voluntary financial contributions," which would depend on the financial status of the individual, not their love for the child. Ms. Lusk wondered why page 3, paragraph (g) would only apply to a grandparent. Health problems can apply to anyone at anytime, but may not necessarily make the person a poor caregiver. She noted the handicapped may have to do it differently, but they are quite capable of giving good and loving care. She strongly suggested clarification. She stressed the committee give thoughtful consideration to these factors. Money does not equal love; the breadwinner is not always the best caregiver; and not everyone has the same definition of suitable.

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, Marriage and Family Therapists, said she would like to propose an amendment to S.B. 347 that deals with domestic relations and custody of children. She said she was testifying for herself in that she is dealing with the first divorce in her family. Fortunately both parents live near each other so the children can still participate in their activities and continue in the same school. She stressed her brother does not have primary custody. In order to see his three children more often, he committed to coaching each of their teams.

Ms. Foley stated she has seen a shift over the past 5-6 years of parents being able to move out of state mainly because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Sometimes there are good reasons for moving such as finances or safety issues. But for all intents and purposes one parent is effectively terminating the parental rights of the other parent. She said she has spoken to many people who have had serious problems because of the impossibility of the other parent to remain involved in the child’s life. She said over the past few years there has been an emphasis in trying to bring fathers back into the picture because they also can be loving and nurturing parents. This is not intended to be gender bias, because both parents can be nurturing, and the child needs that from both parents. She emphasized the proposed amendment is intended to focus on the noncustodial parent and not just judge economics, the home or other things, but to also consider the type of relationship the noncustodial parent has with the child. Ms. Foley stated that family judges are reluctant to deny requests to move because so many of those decisions have been reversed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The amendment is an attempt, albeit a small one, to give the noncustodial parent some remedy for their situation.

Chairman James brought to Ms. Foley’s attention that there is another bill addressing the custodial parent moving out of the area; it is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 544.

Senator McGinness reminded the committee of previous legislation regarding child custody and the laundry list of things Senator Washington was addressing. He wondered if this laundry list would work any better than the other one. Senator McGinness questioned whether this committee would be back in future sessions trying to sort out what the judges and state supreme court are really trying to do. He said he is not sure anyone has an answer, but could possibly envision that scenario.

Senator Wiener commented that it was difficult to speak for judges and the supreme court. She said the intent was the legislation and the drafting of it in the best way possible. The timing of this bill with other legislation coming our way was to establish the legislative commitment to working with the guardianship cases, and looking out for the best interest of the children. She appreciated the offerings of those who testified, and look to amendments to address those concerns by working with staff on the language. The intent was to create some criteria and guidelines to give judges some parameters. The language of "shall consider" was not for a point system or a priority order, but to take it out of the realm of "this case versus that case" to show the legislative commitment to the best interest of our children.

Senator Washington noted he was the second sponsor of Senator Wiener’s bill, because he was proposing legislation that would basically do the same thing. He said he encountered several grandparents as guardians of their grandchildren, who experienced trauma when their children decided they wanted to put their lives back together. He said he was also involved in it himself, which made it more personal. He said with the new federal act that is coming out, it is going to be imperative and important that we either terminate parental rights or we try to reunify families as quickly as possible. He supports this bill as a good piece of legislation, and appreciates all the recommendations.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 347 and adjourned the meeting at 10:27 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: