The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:56 a.m., on Wednesday, April 14, 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:

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman James opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 50.

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, said she would like to preface the bills with an overview on the study committee for family courts and the results of the interim study (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Assemblywoman Buckley expounded this bill strengthens the authority of a chief judge to assure cases are handled in a timely manner, and allows judges to hear grievances regarding issues not relating to the merit of a case. Since the recommendations, the Nevada Supreme Court has formed a task force to consider a stronger chief judge model. She said the district court judges have voted to endorse a stronger chief judge model. These measures are to ensure there is someone in charge and the administrative operation of the court is not hampered. She submitted a proposed amendment by the Nevada Supreme Court (Exhibit D).

Chairman James commented that some language regarding temporary assignments to the family court of district judges does not change any judges, it only clarifies the language. Assemblywoman Buckley elaborated the language changes a presiding judge to a chief judge to more specifically delineate their duties.

Senator McGinness inquired whether the type of judge delineation changes salary and workload. Assemblywoman Buckley responded the chief judge would still be a judge with perhaps some lighter duties and an assistant, but no extra pay.

Senator Washington noted the bill says the chief judge shall establish procedures to address grievances. He inquired as to the source of the grievances. Assemblywoman Buckley stated grievances come mostly from litigants.

Senator Care noted the supreme court is proposing to eliminate the judge from the written report. Assemblywoman Buckley iterated the supreme court has adopted a model of tracking cases. She elaborated that existing law requires written reports from the presiding judge of each district be submitted to the clerk of the supreme court. She stated those required reports have never been done. The supreme court now has a computer program specifically designed to track case information, thereby complying with statute.

Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, reading from prepared text (Exhibit E) said the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is in support of A.B. 50. However, they are recommending an amendment concerning the statistical reporting requirements of the bill.

Chairman James wondered when the language requiring written reports from district judges was added to the statute. He inquired if the court's objection was that it was too cumbersome.

Ronald R. Titus, Manager, Division of Planning and Analysis, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of the Court Administrator, claimed he did not know when the requirement became law, but may have been added when the family court was created.

Ms. Kavanau interjected a statistical model has recently been approved by the state judicial council, and has yet to be presented to the Nevada Supreme Court. She stated approval is expected around June or July of this year. She elaborated the model does not include individual judicial performance statistics. It does include statistics about filings and dispositions. She said the model eventually would cover major events and lapsed time that is caseload specific, not judge specific.

Chairman James observed that based on earlier testimony by Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Nevada Supreme Court, the judge would be at odds with the amendment. Ms. Kavanau responded she believes the court will take the recommendation for the statistical model that does not call for the individual judicial position recording.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 50, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 51.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated A.B. 51 was about accountability. She expounded that information was not being collected by which the courts, and especially family court performance could be evaluated. She noted the supreme court has proposed amendments (Exhibit F).

Senator Washington noted one of the changes to this bill requires reports be submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). Assemblywoman Buckley affirmed that the district courts would report to the supreme court, the supreme court would forward the information to LCB, and LCB would copy judiciary.

Ms. Kavanau clarified there is no suggestion the individual judge information not be collected. She stressed that is valuable information for the chief judge. She elaborated that the statewide caseload statistics program does not look at individual judicial positions, but at caseload statistics statewide (Exhibit G.). She noted that while the district judges’ salaries are paid by the Legislature, district, justice, and municipal courts are not funded by the Legislature, but by local governments. She referred to the amendments proposed by the supreme court (Exhibit H).

Assemblywoman Buckley clarified the bill was amended to change the report from going to the clerk of the supreme court, to going to the administrative arm of the supreme court.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 51, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 154.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated A.B. 154 is a compilation of three different ideas regarding family law. One goal is the concept of "one judge, one family," where a family who may be dealing with the court on several matters, can have one judge hear all the matters. The one-judge, one-family concept eases the stress and confusion on a family. Another aspect of this bill is the issue of offers of judgment. The court decided the issues of valuation were too difficult, and the toll on the family and finances too costly. She received letters from family law attorneys (Exhibit G) saying they were in favor of applying the concept of offers of judgment to family law matters. The final part of this bill deals with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 22.030 that provides where there is a contempt proceeding in court, a party may petition to have another judge hear the contempt proceeding. The rationale behind this statute is to ensure there is no bias.

Cynthia (Dianne) Steel, District Judge, Department G, Family Division, Eighth Judicial District, conveyed her agreement with Ms. Buckley’s testimony, and support of A.B. 154. She stressed the one-judge, one-family concept is sorely needed. She stated that it is very difficult to put a value on support or custody issues. Judge Steel emphasized it is in the interest of the family’s health that family cases are settled as soon as possible.

Chairman James asked what happens when an offer of judgment is not seen by the judge, but the judge finds out later.

Judge Steel said her understanding is the way it should work is to send a petition saying these are the items remaining, not what the offer is on the items, but that these are the remaining identified issues.

Chairman James expressed concern that an offer of judgment may not provide a complete picture, and the other party may cry foul.

Ms. Buckley observed an offer of judgment may be helpful to finalizing court proceedings. By the time of an offer of judgment, the major issues have been resolved, and now the parties are nit-picking.

Chairman James stated some of the remaining issues can be sophisticated, and was concerned about reducing them down to a motion of an offer of judgment.

Kathryn Stryker Wirth, Attorney, Jolley Urga Wirth & Woodbury, said her practice is primarily in family law. She stated she was also testifying in her capacity as Chair of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Nevada. She conveyed the Family Law Section supports the concept of offers of judgment. She read a position disclaimer on behalf of the Family Law Section (Exhibit H). She said speaking for herself, family law cases are unique and involve property, businesses, support, custody, and other matters. She observed it is very difficult to apply the offer of judgment to these types of family law cases. She conveyed that to her the way section 11 is written, it is asking an already over-burdened court to micromanage the cases. She stated offer of judgment is inviting mini-cases and would create another level within the case. She suggested to resolve the possibility of delay and reduce the time in court, do not allow offers of judgment before the case is heard. She observed NRS 125.150, section 3, already gives the courts the discretion to award fees in any divorce case. She concluded she opposes the bill, as written.

Chairman James wanted to know about the bad-faith standard where it sets out a good-faith/bad-faith standard for granting of attorney fees where an offer of judgment was made. He suggested it might work to make an offer of judgment a post-trial action that would ensure against any taint of the judge’s impartiality of decision making. He observed the way section 11 is worded it could give the court the terms of the offer; it should be cleaned up.

Assemblywoman Buckley agreed that making the offer of judgment a post-trial action would work, just as long as it was still discretionary.

Chairman James stated the drafting of new language would be addressed on the offer-of-judgment issue.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Chief Administrative Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, stated he has concerns about some areas in the bill. He said that during the study committee process he became aware of the amount of distrust and suspicion about the integrity of the family courts. He said attorneys have said it would be appropriate to have a limited exception to the one-judge/one-family rule, and to have a new judge when it comes to parental rights. He submitted proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit I). Mr. Morrow urged that too restrictive a legislation would convey the perception of the potential for bias and the appearance of impropriety to families who must deal with many aspects of family law in the unfamiliar environment of the courts.

Assemblywoman Buckley observed there is still the option of filing a motion on actual bias. She pointed out that family court is entirely different from regular court because of the multiple layers of issues a family could have.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 154, and opened the hearing on Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 4.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated the resolution is a result of the interim study committee. She said there are many services available through the courts, but because of the many entry levels families are often not aware of the services. She conveyed the resolution urges the integration of the cases and services available to families. The resolution also recommends a report to the 2001 Legislature, a summary of the actions taken to coordinate and integrate the cases and any suggestions for necessary legislation to achieve the goals.

Ms. Kavanau observed that in the resolution the judges are directed to submit a report directly to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). She suggested interjecting the AOC as the recipient of that report; and the AOC then forwards the report to the LCB, as is being suggested for all information regarding the judiciary.

Chairman James commented the resolution has already been through the Assembly, and he prefers not to amend resolutions. He asked Ms. Kavanau to put the suggested amendment on the record for future consideration.

Judge Steel stated the family court in Las Vegas supports A.C.R. 4, and believes it is a good concept.

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: