MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 2, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:06 a.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley (excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steven Barr, representing the Nevada Corrections Association
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, Department of Prisons
Julie Slabaugh, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Office of the Attorney General
Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
Gemma Greene Waldron, representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Chairman Anderson opened the meeting and noted a quorum was present. He opened the hearing on S.B. 233.
Senate Bill 233: Makes changes pertaining to correctional officers employed by department of prisons. (BDR 16-1179)
Chairman Anderson offered condolences to the correctional officer community for the tragic accident that had occurred recently during a training exercise.
Mr. Steven Barr, representing the Nevada Corrections Association, testified in support of S.B. 233. He explained the bill clarified existing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that had not properly addressed the duties of a correctional officer.
Mr. Barr referred to page 1, line 10, of the bill, which added language that specified duties of a Correctional Officer and established that a Correctional Officer would have the powers of “peace officer” as stated in Section 1 of the bill.
Mr. Barr stated the second revision was clarified on page 2, line 45, of the bill. He stated Correctional Officers already had exemption from NRS 202.350. The change would clarify existing NRS statutes by adding the exemption by classification title in statute. Correctional Officers were already exempted under two of the other categories, but the change would clarify the exemption by profession.
Chairman Anderson noted the bill seemed fairly straightforward.
Mr. Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification and Planning, Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP), stated the department had a neutral stance on the bill based on the amendment provided in the Senate. He requested a clear statement for the record that the language, “The supervision, custody, security, discipline, safety and transportation of an offender,” was not intended to exclude Correctional Case Workers in the conduct of disciplinary activities and the management of that activity within the Department of Prisons, and that it not interfere with responsibilities and duties related to classification and security of an institution. He added that Correctional Case Workers were the individuals primarily responsible for the conduct of disciplinary hearings, the assignment of inmates to disciplinary housing, and their removal from disciplinary housing. A major component of security of an institution was the task of classification of inmates.
Mr. Whorton requested affirmation that the intent of the legislation was not to exclude those people from that activity and stated the NDOP did not oppose the bill.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Whorton to explain the difference between Correctional Officers and Correctional Case Workers. Mr. Whorton explained Correctional Case Workers were the individuals primarily responsible for the development of classification and reports to various state government agencies. He explained classification was a system to place individual offenders in appropriate facilities with programs to meet their needs and the need of the state for protection. Classification included security components of fences, guard towers and guards watching those areas. He explained it was dangerous to place inmates in institutions not properly able to manage their conduct.
Reports developed by Correctional Case Workers included Parole and Pardon Board reports. They managed the work-time reporting system. They worked directly with offenders to resolve conflicts, to answer questions, and to provide information to inmates and to other agencies.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification that even though Correctional Case Workers were in direct contact with inmates, there was no need to train them to the level of Category I or Category II Peace Officers. Mr. Whorton replied case workers were not required to be trained to the level of Category I or Category II. Many of them were, however, Category III-trained, in a similar manner to Correctional Officers. He explained the primary difference was that Correctional Officers had physical control of an inmate with the possibility of the need to exert deadly force to maintain security.
Chairman Anderson asked if a Correctional Officer had to fire a weapon into a group of inmates, whether a Correctional Case Worker might be in the line of fire. Mr. Whorton replied that was a possibility and explained both professional classifications worked together in the various institutions. He explained a Correctional Case Worker would not be found standing duty in a tower and would not normally be performing transportation duties.
Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Whorton to clearly state the department’s position for the record. Mr. Whorton stated, “The Department of Prisons did not oppose the legislation if it was the intent of the legislation to exclude Correctional Case Workers from the performance of their duties relative to the administration of the disciplinary process.”
Chairman Anderson expressed concern that Correctional Case Workers should have the proper training to protect themselves and others if they were being placed in harm’s way. Mr. Whorton replied it was not unusual for individuals who were Correctional Officers to become Correctional Case Workers. He was one member of the staff that, at one point, had chosen that career path. He added that risk had been recognized by the inclusion of Correctional Case Workers in the law enforcement heart and lung bill.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 233.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 233.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY AND ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson assigned the presentation of the bill on the floor of the Assembly to Assemblyman Gustavson. The Chair opened the hearing on S.B. 504.
Senate Bill 504: Revises provisions relating to employment of wardens by department of prisons. (BDR 16-1308)
Mr. Whorton stated the bill was an initiative presented by the NDOP to provide the director the ability to seek some consistency in the management of upper level staff. He explained Wardens were exempt and at-will employees for all purposes with the exception that they were required to be processed for initial employment through the standard Department of Personnel recruitment process. That was sometimes cumbersome as demonstrated by the fact there had been a period of time when three Warden positions were vacant while the recruitment process was underway.
S.B. 504 would allow the NDOP the opportunity to appoint individuals to the positions in a process consistent with other high-level state administrators. Mr. Whorton noted Wardens were Grade-level 44 positions and the bill would enhance opportunities to review candidates for the positions from outside the state who specialized in management of penal institutions. Mr. Whorton noted the practice proposed by the bill was consistent with what was being done in other states and sometimes confused candidates for positions.
Mr. Whorton stated Director Jackie Crawford proposed an amendment to S.B. 504. The amendment would allow doctors to be included as employees of the NDOP who would be eligible for appointment and designated as at-will employees. He added doctors were already exempt employees. He justified the request by stating doctors were high-level employees and were managed in the manner of middle management.
Chairman Anderson noted the bill was a Department of Administration, Budget Division, request and asked if the amendment had been considered in drafting the original legislation. He added it appeared the amendment had not been provided in Senate hearings. Mr. Whorton replied that was correct. He added the idea was relatively recent on the part of the department.
Mr. Whorton explained the Medical Division of the NDOP had attained some efficiencies and reduced costs of medical care. Privatization of medical care had been considered during the 1999 Legislative Session. Mr. Whorton stated the Director of the Medical Division believed the amendment would provide him the opportunity to respond to the changing medical needs of the department and provide further efficiencies and perhaps reduce liabilities. He explained the ability to craft the medical staff to meet the needs of the department would promote those goals.
Chairman Anderson asked whether Assistant Wardens were classified or exempt employees. Mr. Whorton replied Assistant Wardens were classified employees.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was one or more Assistant Wardens for each institution. Mr. Whorton replied currently there were Assistant Wardens of Operations and an Assistant Warden of Programs. The Chair asked what would happen under the bill if a classified Assistant Warden was offered an opportunity to promote to an exempt classification of Warden. He asked what would happen if the new Warden discovered he or she did not like residing in Lovelock or Ely or for other reasons was not happy in the new position. He opined that employee would have lost certain protections afforded under the classified service. Mr. Whorton replied precedent had been set by individuals who became Wardens and then reverted to a lower-level position. He noted a variety of reasons prompted such career changes. He had made such a change when he wanted to move back to the Carson City area from southern Nevada.
Mr. Whorton stated at-will employees were not cut off from the department. He added, historically, administrators needed to be responsive and accountable to the executives. He explained the process proposed by the bill would provide consistency for at-will employees to be subject to conventional executive employment within state service.
Assemblyman Nolan asked if the Medical Director was an appointed position and whether a medical doctor was assigned to each of the institutions. Mr. Whorton replied the Medical Director was an appointed position and possibly the highest-paid employee of the state. He stated there was a doctor at each major institution, but not at the various honor camps. He explained the staff attempted to use the most physically fit inmates in the camps but if the inmate incurred immediate medical needs, the inmate was taken to a local medical facility.
Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if the current personnel requirements were deleted, what assurances would the legislature have that proper personnel decisions would be made without nepotism or favors for friends. Mr. Whorton responded that had been an issue in public service over the years. He added the management of a correctional institution was much more complex than most people realized. He noted such staff were required to have knowledge of the aspects of:
People unfamiliar with institutional management would not survive any length of time. Mr. Whorton noted management of penal institutions was a very specialized body of knowledge. He suggested no executive would risk their career by placing an unqualified person in such a position.
Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Whorton to provide the amendment language document in writing to staff by the end of the day and it be included as Exhibit C of this document. The Chair closed the hearing on S.B. 504.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the presence of Mr. Longero’s class from Carson High School. He explained committee procedures to the students.
The Chair opened the hearing on S.B. 547.
Senate Bill 547: Makes various changes pertaining to litigation involving prisoners. (BDR 2-478)
Ms. Julie Slabaugh, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Office of the Attorney General, testified that her primary responsibility with the Litigation Division was that of counsel to the NDOP. She noted the bill was mirrored after federal law, the Prison Litigation Reform Act passed in 1996. Ms. Slabaugh stated S.B. 547 sought to make inmates eventually responsible for paying the full filing fee when filing civil actions in state courts. She explained ordinary citizens already paid those costs as litigants.
The procedure was in place at the prison system, mirroring the current method for handling similar costs related to federal litigation. She explained when an inmate filed a civil suit in federal court they incurred a filing fee of $150. A financial certificate was obtained from the Division of Inmate Services, which detailed the balance in the inmate’s account for the previous six months and the average monthly deposits in the account for the previous six months. The inmate sent the documents to the court that then reviewed them and determined what initial filing fee would be required. The standard fee was 20 percent of the greater of the average monthly balance or deposits over the previous 6 months.
Ms. Slabaugh stated she had seen orders from the court that established a monthly filing fee debit as low as $2.06. Once the initial filing fee was paid, the Division of Inmate Services entered it into the computer and the computer automatically deducted the 20 percent from the account until the full filing fee was paid. She noted that amount in federal court was $150 and in state court it ranged from $116 in some counties to $142 in Elko County.
Ms. Slabaugh explained the deposits would be removed from the inmate account and placed in a special account monitored by the prison and at the end of the month, the prison cleared the account and sent a check to the appropriate court with an itemized list of inmates, including the amounts deducted from their accounts. Once the total filing fee was paid, the computer automatically ceased deductions from the account. She stressed, because the system was already in place, there would be no fiscal impact on the prison system.
Ms. Slabaugh explained the reason for bringing the legislation was that in 1995, prior to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Attorney General’s Office processed 225 filings in federal courts. She noted those were just cases under the authority of that office including such things as litigation against a state employee. In the year 2000, only 30 federal civil litigations from inmates were filed. In 1995, only 26 cases of inmates filing civil litigation suits in state courts were filed. In 2000, 34 cases were filed. She opined inmates had finally realized it was still free to file civil litigation in state court but in federal court they would have to pay the full filing fee.
The bill would also have an impact on small claims cases. The total number of cases, including small claims cases, totaled 77 in the year 2000. Ms. Slabaugh said such cases had an enormous impact on the prison system. She explained inmates filed small claims cases to get out of prison for a day and appear in state court to present their case.
Ms. Slabaugh had seen small claims filed for things such as a pair of stolen jeans when the jeans were actually issued by the state and the inmate had ripped out the zipper. That made the jeans “altered” and they were confiscated. The inmate claimed he had purchased them in Japan and sued the state for $1,500. She explained she had to call the Correctional Officer and the Property Officer as witnesses in the case and it took a great deal of time for something so frivolous.
Ms. Slabaugh provided other examples explaining certain inmates were very litigious. One inmate had been in prison since 1986 and had filed 96 civil actions against prison officials and/or state officials. The same inmate had filed cases nationwide claiming to be a resident of Sacramento, California, or the state of Virginia, bringing his total number of cases filed to 150. He had filed five cases in just the month of April in Clark County against individuals other than state employees. Such cases impacted a wide range of agencies and individuals. Another inmate who had been incarcerated since 1992 had made 43 filings in state court.
Ms. Slabaugh commented on Section 3 of the bill that stated a prisoner could not bring a civil action for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. She explained that section also mirrored federal law. She explained inmates claimed mental and emotional distress over nearly anything and it was a very hard claim to disprove. In Nevada tort law, when intentional infliction of emotional distress was alleged, a physical injury was required to be proved as well. She stated physical injury did not include sleepless nights or bad dreams. Inmates got around that provision by filing their claims under the Eighth Amendment covering cruel and unusual punishment.
Chairman Anderson noted as Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, he received numerous letters from inmates. He had recently received a series of e-mails relative to prison conditions, especially after the recent execution. He asked if there was some provision in the bill that would lessen such statements that were purposely inflammatory and sought the use of sensationalism to draw attention to the inmates. Ms. Slabaugh replied the bill sought to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. The bill would not prevent an inmate with a valid claim from filing a lawsuit. The fact no money was in the inmate account to pay the initial filing fee would not prevent the filing of the lawsuit.
Chairman Anderson asked what happened, using an example, when an inmate filed multiple civil lawsuits for which $2.60 per month was withdrawn for payment of filing fees and that total had built to $20,000. He asked what happened if the inmate became eligible for release while a debt was still owed. Ms. Slabaugh responded if an inmate’s sentence expired, the prison had no way to pursue debt collection. She noted deductions only applied for any month in which the account maintained a balance greater than $10. Inmates were also allowed a savings account in which they were allowed to build to approximately a $200 balance that could be drawn by them upon release from prison. The court could attempt to attach that as well. She noted it would be the responsibility of the courts to pursue the inmates once they were discharged because the inmate still had a responsibility to pay the filing fee.
Chairman Anderson stated one issue of concern was that the inmate was released with, in essence, “pocket change” to start a new life. He asked if the bill would take that “pocket change” away from them. Ms. Slabaugh replied that was a possibility. She opined a court might not actually proceed with such an action. She commented the typical inmate who filed multiple lawsuits was one whose sentence was life without parole or life with the possibility for parole but with a large minimum sentence. She added the average inmate who was serving from two to ten years in a medium security facility had a prison job, was taking classes, and other self-improvement programs, and was not usually the type of inmate to file frivolous lawsuits.
Chairman Anderson asked if the “typical” inmate who filed such lawsuits and had not participated in work programs would be simply running up a large bill. Ms. Slabaugh replied she had not intended to imply inmates sentenced to life in prison did not participate in work programs. She added many inmates had money deposited on their books by family members and they obtained money from friends as well.
Ms. Slabaugh stated when an inmate received money on the books, there were required statutory deductions, but 20 percent was guaranteed for their own personal use. She explained, instead of going to the prison canteen and buying a bag of Doritos, an inmate could file a lawsuit and pay a very small amount toward the filing fee of the lawsuit each month.
Chairman Anderson asked if the inmate would not be able to go to the canteen because it would take their account below a certain level. Ms. Slabaugh replied the intent of the bill was to place inmates on equal footing with ordinary citizens.
Chairman Anderson restated his concern. He asked what happened if an inmate had a certain amount of money in his or her account and they perceived that by making a purchase at the canteen, they could draw the account low enough that the state could not withdraw their monthly amount for repayment of civil litigation filing fees. Ms. Slabaugh replied $10 was the required minimum amount in an account except for new inmates who arrived and had no money.
Chairman Anderson asked how family members would be informed money they sent to their family member would be withdrawn to pay filing fees. Ms. Slabaugh replied inmates were very good about informing their family members. She explained the process proposed in S.B. 547 was already occurring with federal court litigation. Until the year 2000, the majority of cases had been filed in federal court, so the prisons and inmate families were well aware of the concept.
Assemblyman Brower asked in general litigation, when an inmate was involved as a witness or a defendant, if other parties wanted a deposition they could travel to the prison to obtain it. He asked if it was common for a prisoner to be transported to a courtroom to participate in civil proceedings as a witness. Ms. Slabaugh explained that had been the practice in the past and in state courts it still would be. In federal courts inmates participating as a witness did so by videoconference. She added federal courts required inmate plaintiffs to be present. Most frequently depositions were taken by telephone and inmates tried to make written depositions to defense witnesses.
Assemblyman Carpenter referred to Ms. Slabaugh’s comments relative to Section 3 of the bill that prohibited an inmate from bringing a civil action for emotional or mental injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical harm. He asked if the intent was that if a person truly had a mental problem, that the inmate would not be able to bring a lawsuit for the mental harm. Ms. Slabaugh stated Section 3 only referred to allegations of mental distress. She noted one case where a problem inmate was creating so many disturbances that he had to be placed in a cell where he could be watched at all times. The inmate sued because he said the lack of privacy caused him mental distress resulting in cruel and unusual punishment. A mentally ill inmate who did not receive treatment would have justification for a charge of deliberate indifference to medical treatment. Section 3 of S.B. 547 only referred to allegations that some action of the prison system caused the inmate mental distress. Vice Chair Manendo stated he shared Mr. Carpenter’s concerns.
Mr. Brower clarified that Section 3 really confirmed the state of civil law as it existed in the state already. Ms. Slabaugh concurred. She stated inmates circumvented current statutes by filing for “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment rather than intentional infliction of emotional distress. The section brought inmate allegations into line with the state of tort law in Nevada.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 547 noting the concerns of Mr. Manendo and Mr. Carpenter relating to Section 3 of the bill. He opened the hearing on S.B. 550.
Senate Bill 550: Allows division of parole and probation of department of motor vehicles and public safety to contract with person to conduct presentence investigation. (BDR 14-1436)
Mr. Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), described the bill. He explained the bill would change existing law to allow the Division of Parole and Probation to contract presentence investigations outside the division. The Attorney General for the division had reviewed the language of the bill.
Mr. Lutzow stated currently, sworn and some non-sworn staff conducted presentence investigations. The intent of the proposed change was to hire retired Parole and Probation Officers and law enforcement officers with experience to conduct presentence investigations, which would result in potential cost savings to the state. He explained the division would not have to provide continual training and office space for such contracted employees.
Mr. Lutzow testified the state of Utah already had such a program and the division had sent staff to Utah to review their process. Utah felt it had achieved some cost savings and maintained the quality of the investigations.
Mr. Lutzow stated the intent was not to have all presentence investigations done through contracts. Under the current budget, the intent was to utilize funds from two positions to experiment with the program for six months to one year before the program was expanded further.
Chairman Anderson asked what cost savings could be expected with the change. Mr. Lutzow replied that was still unknown. He added a Parole and Probation Officer earned approximately $60,000 per year, it took about five hours to conduct a presentencing investigation, and investigations were anticipated to be contracted at $165 per report. The cost savings would be achieved through infrastructure costs on personal computers, floor space, vehicles, and those types of inherent costs. The actual cost of the contract would probably be close to the salary currently paid for a Parole and Probation Officer.
Chairman Anderson noted the bill contained no fiscal note, but given the impact mentioned in Mr. Lutzow’s testimony he thought the division might be able to demonstrate specific savings before the finance committees. Mr. Lutzow stated, according to a Department of Administration Internal Audit report, the ultimate savings to the state would be $1.3 million. He explained that estimate would be realized if both Clark County and Washoe County offices were fully privatized.
Chairman Anderson asked if S.B. 550 was a step to incur a reduction in the number of officers in the division or just a better utilization of funds. Mr. Lutzow replied the appropriate answer was “yes” to both questions. He explained there would be an ultimate reduction in sworn staff, but the goal would be to move sworn staff from paper intensive tasks to supervising offenders on the “street.”
Assemblyman Collins asked if the current cost for a presentencing investigation was $500 and the division felt the contracts could be written for $165 per investigation, would that offer a person accepting the contract a decent wage. Mr. Lutzow replied the division was unsure whether the $165 figure was an adequate amount. That would not be known until a contract was put out to bid. Some individuals had been spoken to informally, who had indicated they would not consider a contract at $165 per investigation. Others had approached the division and indicated the investigations could be done for $165.
Mr. Collins stated it seemed like a typical case of, “you get what you pay for,” and the qualified candidates for a contract would be required to be educated, qualified, and retired, and he asked how the program could be successful if apparently competent people were already stating they would not accept such a contract. Mr. Lutzow replied that was why the division intended to start the program as a pilot project. He commented the average officer conducted 20 investigations per month so the pilot would target 40 investigations per month. That was why the division was reluctant to jump into the project for total privatization of presentencing investigations.
Mr. Lutzow stated the division would retain control of the investigations and the contract staff would not submit their reports directly to the courts. The division would edit the reports and make the actual sentencing recommendation.
Mr. Brower asked if Mr. Lutzow was aware of any analogous situations in state government where similar activities were being contracted out. Mr. Lutzow replied the division had a similar recent experience. The division had previously hired employees to perform site sexual evaluations for individuals who had committed sexual offenses and were facing sentencing. Those had been difficult positions for which to recruit within state service, because of the state pay scale. Currently, those tasks were contracted out and the state was paying less than had been anticipated.
Mr. Brower noted that appeared to be a success story from within their own division. Mr. Lutzow confirmed the site sexual evaluations were being completely done in the private sector currently.
Chairman Anderson asked what would happen if a judge received the final sentencing report and recommendation and had a question they wanted to ask the investigator. Mr. Lutzow agreed there were occasions when a judge had questions directed to the individual who prepared the report. If that occurred, the division would have to make that person available to the court if the judge made the request in the form of a judicial order. He reiterated, during the initial test of the procedure proposed in S.B. 550, the intent was to discuss the possibility of working with some of the district judges on the process. The defense counsel or the prosecutor could make the same request as well.
Chairman Anderson asked if it was unusual for a judge to ask for a particular probation officer from the division to do the majority of presentencing reports for their specific court or for a particular type of crime. Mr. Lutzow replied such requests for specific individuals related to specific types of crimes had not occurred; however, occasionally judges became familiar with an individual in their court and were comfortable with them. Overall, judges understood that the Division of Parole and Probation was under a different branch of government.
Chairman Anderson noted he had done a “ride-along” several years ago with the staff of the division and one of the most frequent complaints he had heard was that Parole and Probation Officers did not have enough time to spend supervising the people who were part of their caseload and often spent more time doing paperwork associated with the court. He asked if Mr. Lutzow saw the provisions of S.B. 550 as a positive process to allow more time in an officer’s caseload for working with the people. Mr. Lutzow replied affirmatively. He explained the reality was that the officers that were currently assigned to the courts had limited interaction with the offenders through visits in the office or a jail setting for an hour or two. He added the division had used certain civilians in making the investigation reports without a decrease in the quality or quantity. The intent of the division was to get the officers on the “street” with the offenders where the offenders were a threat to the community.
Chairman Anderson noted no one had signed in from the officer employee groups either in favor or in opposition to the bill. He asked if officers had expressed job concerns because of privatization. He asked if that issue had been raised when the bill was in the Senate. Mr. Lutzow replied there was no opposition in the Senate and the intent of the bill had not been hidden from officers.
Ms. Gemma Greene Waldron, representing the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, testified that with Mr. Lutzow’s testimony, the association was comfortable with the bill. There had been concern earlier because presentence investigations were heavily relied upon by courts and by the district attorneys’ offices. Plea bargains were often based on concurring with whatever the division recommended as a sentence. The concern had been centered around who would be contracted to do the investigation and that concern had been addressed in earlier testimony.
Chairman Anderson asked if the Nevada District Attorney’s Association was in support of the bill. Ms. Waldron replied the association was neutral regarding the conduct of business at the Division of Parole and Probation and they wanted assurance that a sworn officer would conduct the investigation.
Chairman Anderson asked what exposure to liability against the state might result as a consequence of the bill, especially with use of non-sworn staff. Mr. Lutzow replied any contractor accepted would be required to post an insurance bond and if malfeasance or lawsuit occurred, litigation against the state might occur. There would also be certain assurances with regard to the bond.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 550.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 550.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Collins stated, even with the assurances described in the testimony, he could not support the bill.
Chairman Anderson noted a minimum quorum was present, but with any dissenting votes, the motion could not be passed.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WITHDREW HIS MOTION IN DEFERENCE TO MR. COLLINS.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall joined Mr. Collins in his concerns about the bill.
Chairman Anderson informed the committee regarding scheduling changes and adjourned the meeting at 9:14 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: