MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 16, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:54 a.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was simultaneously videoconferenced in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas. 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
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Helen Foley, Clark County Health District
Robin Camacho, Director of Advocacy & Communications, American Heart Association
Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District
Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards
Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association
Merlyn Paine, representing self
Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks until a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 258 and acknowledged the primary sponsors of the bill as they approached the witness table.
Senate Bill 258: Makes various changes concerning tobacco. (BDR 15-1299)
Helen Foley, Clark County Health District, said S.B. 258 had “changed dramatically” since originally introduced. Ms. Foley read statistics from her handout “Tobacco Facts in Nevada” (Exhibit C, page 1) that included the following:
q Tobacco Use in Nevada
q Deaths in Nevada from Smoking
q Tobacco-Related Monetary Costs
q Tobacco Industry Influence
Ms. Foley believed a crisis situation existed. Other bills had come before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary this session. S.B. 258 originally proposed that local governments would have the option to decide whether or not there would be smoking; that concept was defeated and the bill was dramatically changed. Ms. Foley said the major concerns of S.B. 258 were the following:
q It was illegal for a school to prohibit smoking on the campus.
q It was against the law to prohibit smoking in state, county, and city buildings.
q It was against the law for the university to have a smoke-free environment.
Legislation over the years designated that every place “shall have smoking.” S.B. 258 did not ban smoking; what it said was that they “may have smoking sections.” Ms. Foley believed “shall” and “must” meant the same thing and were mandatory; “may” was permissive.
Chairman Anderson asked where Ms. Foley had gotten her statistics on illegally sold cigarettes to minors. Ms. Foley said the statistics came from the Center for Disease Control and surveys. Chairman Anderson asked if the surveys included smokeless tobacco, chew. Ms. Foley said the statistics included all forms of tobacco.
Chairman Anderson voiced concern about someone smoking in a kindergarten, first, or second grade classroom. Ms. Foley said the rule applied to the school, not the classroom. Chairman Anderson clarified that Ms. Foley had been referring to a designated area within the facility where smoking was allowed. Ms. Foley hoped that would be the case, but she knew of schools where that had not been the policy. Chairman Anderson, in his 30 years as a teacher, had never experienced smoking within a classroom. Ms. Foley said there were a number of organizations in Las Vegas that were generating information on smoking; she mentioned one Web site http://tobaccofreekids.org.
Assemblyman Carpenter questioned the data on one million packs of cigarettes sold to children illegally in Nevada each year; that would mean that a storeowner would have had to sell to the children. He believed the children were obtaining their cigarettes from their parents. Ms. Foley did not mean to impugn the integrity of retailers, but it was very easy for children to obtain cigarettes. The laws were very lax; while it was illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, it was not illegal for children to buy cigarettes.
Assemblyman Brower said if it was illegal in Nevada for a school to be smoke-free, how could “virtually every school in Nevada” have a no-smoking policy with the exception of a designated smoking area for employees. The idea that it would be illegal to ban smoking and, in fact, smoking was not banned in schools, seemed to be a statement without factual basis. Ms. Foley read the language from Section 1, subsection 4, in response to Assemblyman Brower’s statement. She continued designating those provisions with “shall” and “may” differences. Ms. Foley believed schools, state, and local government buildings should have the discretion to designate whether they wanted smoking and not make it mandatory to have smoking areas.
Chairman Anderson asked who would decide whether a building or area would allow smoking, the site administrator or the people who were physically on the property. Ms. Foley said the Senate had placed the permissive language within the bill; it was her preference that each school district set policies. Chairman Anderson made comments regarding the language of the bill following a consistent style set by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Ms. Foley agreed but pointed out a double standard; for buildings not controlled by a government agency it said “may”; but for government buildings the language said “shall.” She asked that the language be made consistent and that the “shall” become “may” in all instances.
Assemblyman Nolan agreed with the intent of S.B. 258, but cautioned the statistics could be debated. Earlier discussions during session had brought to the committee’s attention that fake identification could be purchased for as little as $25. Assemblyman Nolan asked if that was a contributing factor to cigarette sales. Ms. Foley believed buying cigarettes was one of the easiest things for anyone to do regardless of their age, as well as acquiring cigarettes from those who legally bought cigarettes.
Ms. Foley reported that the Clark County District Board of Health recently adopted a resolution, Number 03-01 (Exhibit C, page 2 and 3), that petitioned the Nevada legislature to “prohibit by force of law the use of any tobacco product(s) at any time by any person in or upon any school district grounds, properties or facilities within the state of Nevada.” The resolution also stated the “public has the right to manage its schools in such a way as to minimize the use of and environmental effect of hazardous and addictive products.”
Ms. Foley went on to review the bill and the changes made by the Senate. Chairman Anderson interacted with the discussion making comments where he deemed appropriate.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked for clarification on the definition of a child care facility. Ms. Foley read the definition from NRS 432A.024. Assemblyman Carpenter stated if there were six children in a private home, the caretaker could not smoke. Ms. Foley restated that a licensed person who took care of five or more children belonging to other people, could not smoke. Assemblyman Carpenter said child care was hard to find and smoking was immaterial to good care.
Ms. Foley said the two advertising sections, Sections 3 and 4, were handled adequately in the tobacco settlement agreement, but the Senate chose to include that language in S.B. 258. Chairman Anderson made comments regarding subliminal advertising, school projects, and school publications. Ms. Foley believed such advertising could be used as an educational tool, but not published by the schools.
Ms. Foley said another provision the Senate had added was found in Section 5 where Millennium Scholarship recipients would be asked to sign a written promise to refrain from use of tobacco products; this had become controversial. She preferred that those recipients know why they were receiving the Millennium Scholarship and where the money came from, but she did not want to set them up to lie.
Section 6 was another provision the Senate Committee on Judiciary included; it referred to smoking or non-smoking designated taxis. It did not mandate “no smoking” in the taxis, just that notification be made for the potential patron. Chairman Anderson posed scenarios contrary to the intent.
Since it was brought to Ms. Foley’s attention that the teachers’ association had problems with the legislation, she contacted other states to determine their experience with smoking or the lack of smoking. Chairman Anderson asked if she had talked with the American Federation Teachers Union. Ms. Foley said she had only spoken to Debbie Cahill. She contacted the Department of Education in Arizona, who started their program in August 1999; they were tobacco-free (Exhibit C, page 4).
Robin Camacho, American Heart Association, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit D). She remarked that the American Heart Association recently commissioned pollster Marvin Longabaugh to seek opinions of Nevada voters on various issues, many smoking related, and a copy of the results of that survey (Exhibit E) were presented to the committee. In a story published by the Washington Post in March, it was revealed that the levels of cotinine, a by-product of second-hand smoke, in the bloodstreams of Americans had decreased dramatically in the past decade. This decline was attributed to the drop in exposure to second-hand smoke through indoor smoking ordinances and decreased smoking. Chairman Anderson asked if the survey results were broken down by Clark County, Washoe County, and rural areas. Ms. Camacho said it was, and she would be glad to provide that information to the committee. Chairman Anderson asked if there were respondent differences in those three areas. Ms. Camacho said she would look up that information for him. Chairman Anderson was curious to see if the deviation was greater than the margin for error of 4.8 percent.
Assemblywoman Angle asked how the 87.6 percent polled who favored a ban on smoking in grocery stores, convenience stores, and drug stores were reflected in the bill. Ms. Camacho said the original version of S.B. 258 did address “everything outside of casinos and taverns”; unfortunately, the Senate chose to amend the bill and that issue was not addressed in the current version of S.B. 258.
Assemblywoman Koivisto was concerned with the belief that “smoke-free” signs were illegal. Ms. Camacho said as she interpreted the bill, the signs were illegal. Ms. Foley said where the bill dealt with public schools and public buildings, a sign could be posted prohibiting smoking in areas “not designated for that purpose”; but there had to be a separate room or area for smoking, it was mandatory to have a smoking area.
Rose McKinney-James, Clark County School District, was also a registered lobbyist for the Clark County Health District. In her representation of the Clark County School District, she supported the concept outlined in S.B. 258 taking into consideration the policy in place in the school district. That policy was based on current law and had designated smoking areas away from the school property buildings. Many believed it was important to provide a smoke-free environment, but the board of trustees had not taken a formal position on the measure. Chairman Anderson asked about security officers smoking at the schools; was that a common practice. Ms. McKinney-James did not know if it was a common practice; she did not believe it was consistent with the policy of the school district regarding smoking. Chairman Anderson believed security officers would not be allowed to smoke while performing their assigned tasks, but it might be possible on their breaks. Ms. McKinney-James said this was difficult to monitor and enforce; from time to time people would violate the policy. Chairman Anderson said it was not acceptable for a bus driver to smoke in a bus full of students, would they be allowed to smoke in an empty bus? Would the same hold true for a teacher in an empty classroom? Ms. McKinney-James said current policy would not allow smoking in a classroom or a bus, full or empty. Chairman Anderson asked if this would cause problems for site administrators who made a decision about certain buildings.
Ms. McKinney-James had a conversation with the school district general counsel regarding certain aspects of S.B. 258 that raised questions. Ms. McKinney-James reported that from the perspective of the school district board of trustees, they would prefer to establish a policy to provide to each individual principal, or person in charge of a school district facility, to implement, instead of having individual principals having the discretion to make those decisions. The concern would be to provide consistency and uniformity.
Chairman Anderson then asked a question regarding the enforcement of the “no smoking” policy in parks and recreational areas when school was not in session. Ms. McKinney-James believed in many instances, in order for the joint use to occur, a waiver or agreement would be signed that indicated the outside entity using the school district property must comply with all rules and regulations associated with the school.
Assemblywoman Angle asked for clarification of the “designated areas outside the school property” for smoking. How were the “designated areas” chosen? Ms. McKinney-James could not relate the manner in which a district determined what area would be designated a smoking area. When she previously said “off-site,” she was talking about outside the school building, away from the traffic of students. Ms. McKinney-James was willing to share a copy of the existing Clark County policy with the committee.
Randy Robison, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, agreed with Ms. McKinney-James. Many local school boards of trustees had policies that were consistent with current law. Regarding the “person in control,” it was preferred that it be the board of trustees that develop the district-wide policies, taking the pressure off the local site administrator. Mr. Robison said there were many “joint-use facilities” and he believed it would be beyond the scope of the board of trustees to be responsible to enforce a “no smoking” provision at an activity that was not sponsored by the school. There were two responsibilities the boards of trustees were very aware of: (1) providing a quality educational environment and (2) providing a quality work place environment. Mr. Robison felt it would be inappropriate to charge the local school district board of trustees with the responsibility to enforce that provision for an activity not within the educational curriculum.
Assemblyman Nolan was intrigued by the questions regarding after school events. Mr. Nolan was aware that in some instances school playgrounds had been incorporated in the park system and as such were frequently used for extracurricular activities. There was signage all over the schools prohibiting various behaviors; how did the schools enforce those signs. Mr. Robison said that was exactly what he was concerned about; resources were not available to enforce those regulations, the signs were posted and staff did the best they could do. Assemblyman Nolan posed a scenario involving a softball tournament, parents being on their best behavior and school staff being courteous if asking a person to smoke away from the children’s activity. Mr. Robison said, “Within the bounds of a school-sponsored activity, upon school property, within the bounds of school day or school year, we [school personnel] have certain responsibilities and we do our best to enforce those with the limited amount of resources and personnel that we have. If an activity occurring was not sponsored by the school, but may be on school property, outside of the school day, we are left without a way to enforce those particular provisions.” Chairman Anderson related his experience with school-sponsored events. Assemblyman Nolan agreed alcohol was illegal, firearms were illegal, and smoking was not permitted for students but was tolerated by adults outside of the school buildings. Chairman Anderson clarified what was needed was uniformity within the school district. Mr. Robison agreed.
Debbie Cahill, Director of Government Relations, Nevada State Education Association, had one concern about designating smoking areas. Ms. Cahill proposed an amendment (Exhibit F) for Section 1, subsection 4(b), deleting the word “may” and restoring the word “shall” as was currently in the statute. Also attached were policies from some, not all, of the school districts. Ms. Cahill believed if there was not a designated smoking area, teachers and employees would be forced to leave the school property and smoke in public view where students might be smoking. She was very sensitive that teachers were viewed as role models, even those who chose to smoke.
Merlyn Paine supported S.B. 258. She was encouraged that many of the “shall” would be changed to “may,” but she did not believe the bill went far enough. She felt Nevada had the highest smoking rate in the nation and the most liberal smoking laws in the nation. Getting personal, Ms. Paine suffered from asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with a lung function of approximately 60 percent. Ms. Paine made comments regarding provisions of the bill, both positive and negative. She asked that the committee consider amending S.B. 258 to make it non-smoking for all areas of a grocery store as well as the eating areas of restaurants.
Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was concerned about Section 5, which indicated a signing of a written promise related to the Millennium Scholarship Program. He believed the program was to encourage students to complete their high school education with a “B” average and qualify for assistance with their college education. If a student took that section seriously, they might decide not to take advantage of the scholarship and go on to college. Chairman Anderson asked if the choice was taking the Millennium Scholarship and saying the student would not smoke, or not taking the scholarship and keeping the student’s honor intact, was that Mr. Bennett’s concern. Mr. Bennett expected the student to give serious consideration to the question. Chairman Anderson asked how the university would track whether a scholarship recipient was smoking or not. Mr. Bennett said it should be remembered that the Millennium Scholarship Program was managed by the State Treasurer’s Office, not the University System; he did not know how the university would enforce that promise.
Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony on S.B. 258. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 258. Chairman Anderson said the bill would not be processed without several amendments. Chairman Anderson voiced concern about the Millennium Scholarship “written promise.”
Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the deletion of prohibited smoking in a “public waiting room, hallway and lobbies of medical facilities”; did that mean there was no smoking allowed in a medical facility? Chairman Anderson stated the Senate had removed that language because it was not necessary based on other amendments to the bill. Ms. Foley said the language allowed flexibility to designate for smoking and non-smoking areas. Assemblyman Carpenter expressed concern for those in a convalescent residence or nursing home.
Chairman Anderson said the bill would “go on the board.”
Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting for a five-minute break. The committee would reconvene for the work session.
WORK SESSION:
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting and noted a quorum was present.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 101 from the work session document (Exhibit G).
Senate Bill 101: Authorizes certain facilities for senior citizens to conduct bingo games under certain circumstances. (BDR 41-330)
Chairman Anderson said S.B. 101 was an excellent piece of legislation. It cleared up an ambiguity but hoped it did not have any unintended consequences. The Gaming Control Board did not feel it would cause any harm with the Senate amendments. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 101.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Manendo asked if senior citizen mobile home park residents would be included. Chairman Anderson did not believe the legislation would affect them. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall suggested, since many of the mobile home parks in both Assemblyman Manendo’s and her districts were designated for senior citizens, there might be an argument that they would be included. Chairman Anderson said if the Gaming Control Board was willing to talk to them about it, they might be able to make an argument.
Assemblyman Collins asked for clarification regarding whether a “bona fide” senior citizen center was for nonprofit, and the other facilities did not have that status, what would happen. Assemblyman Collins was also concerned about the senior citizens getting “hooked” on bingo, not participating in more meaningful activities. He might vote against the bill.
Chairman Anderson asked if Assemblyman Collins was raising the issue whether legislation should be managing how the health care facility or senior citizen center managed their clients’ time. Chairman Anderson did not believe the committee wanted to address that issue.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS VOTING NO AND MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 336 from the work session document (Exhibit G).
Senate Bill 336: Adopts revised Uniform Arbitration Act. (BDR 3-1343)
Chairman Anderson asked if the amendment would take care of those concerns previously discussed.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, stated the concerns related to arbitration clauses were required as part of a contract. The proposed amendment was drafted in such a way to allow for the state to say that mandatory provisions were presumed unconscionable unless preempted by federal law. The preemption portion of the amendment was required because of the Uniform Arbitration Act, so it would not affect interstate commerce contracts. The proposed amendment also amended Section 35 of S.B. 336 to provide that an appeal could be taken from an order granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration or motion to stay arbitration.
Chairman Anderson asked if Assemblywoman Buckley’s concerns had been addressed. Ms. Lang believed the amendment took care of Ms. Buckley’s concerns.
Assemblyman Brower asked if it was the intent of the committee to adopt all the language on pages 3 through 6 of the work session document (Exhibit G).
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendments on page 6. Assemblyman Brower did not agree with the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA) statements on page 3. He would vote “No.” Risa Lang clarified the amendment included only language on page 6. Assemblyman Brower said he would oppose any changes to the Uniform Arbitration Act. Ms. Lang said the amendment did not change the Uniform Arbitration Act, but added a separate idea to the bill. Chairman Anderson verified that Assemblyman Brower did not want any “Nevada twist” added. Chairman Anderson said S.B. 336 would be carried forward to the next work session for further discussion. Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Assemblyman Brower; she wanted to talk to others about the issues.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 412 from the work session document (Exhibit G).
Senate Bill 412: Revises various provisions pertaining to certain offenders. (BDR 14-798)
Assemblyman Carpenter said his concerns had been addressed with the amendments from the Division of Parole and Probation.
Chairman Anderson asked if clarification was needed on Mr. Thomas’ amendment. Ms. Lang said she would need additional clarification as to how the amendment would work. Chairman Anderson verified the committee was dealing with conceptual language, not actual language. Ms. Lang replied in the affirmative. Chairman Anderson and Assemblyman Carpenter shared comments regarding the written authorization to be in restricted areas and appearing in person when changing jurisdiction. Ms. Lang said she would contact Mr. Thomas to work out and identify the issues.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 412, giving the committee members the opportunity to see the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 412 WITH THE CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 504 from the work session document (Exhibit G).
Senate Bill 504: Revises provisions relating to employment of wardens by department of prisons. (BDR 16-1308)
Chairman Anderson stated there was no opposition to the amendment, but it seemed dangerous moving the employment of wardens from “classified” to “at will.” Chairman Anderson entertained a motion of either a do pass or an amend and do pass for S.B. 504.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification of point 4 of the amendment. Ms. Lang said she would contact Director Crawford for further explanation of the amendment. Chairman Anderson said the bill would not be harmed if passed without the amendment; he preferred that S.B. 504 would move forward without the amendment.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 504.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Koivisto had the same concerns as expressed in the original hearing in regard to giving the director blanket authority to appoint people and bypass the normal recruitment and search. Chairman Anderson said it was a dangerous precedent. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall agreed with Assemblywoman Koivisto.
MOTION PASSED WITH MRS. KOIVISTO, MS. OHRENSCHALL AND MR. ANDERSON VOTING NO. MS. BUCKLEY WAS ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Brower to present S.B. 101 on the Assembly floor. He asked Assemblyman Oceguera to present S.B. 412 and Assemblywoman Angle to present S.B. 504.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 548 from the work session document (Exhibit G).
Senate Bill 548: Makes various changes concerning sex offenders and other persons convicted of crimes. (BDR 14-512)
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendment on page 12 of the work session document (Exhibit G). Ms. Lang said the language was fine with some cleanup. Assemblyman Carpenter had concerns regarding high profile cases, still believing it should be strictly a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. Ms. Lang said NRS 176.139 listed the requirements for a psychosexual evaluation and those requirements were in Section 1 of S.B. 548.
Assemblyman Carpenter insisted in order to achieve the highest standards possible to avoid any situations where the evaluation would be questioned, those people with the highest training possible should conduct those evaluations.
Assemblyman Claborn felt the amendment on page 12, subsection B, took care of that concern. Chairman Anderson clarified the language in the amendment. Ms. Lang made comments on paragraphs A and B of the amendment.
Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned about those with training that were not psychiatrists or psychologists. Ms. Lang read NRS 176.133 where it defined who could conduct the evaluations.
Chairman Anderson read the list again and asked if that list was too broad. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Carpenter if it was his intent to change the current law. Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to limit the list to licensed psychiatrists and psychologists to conduct the assessments. Chairman Anderson said that would eliminate those who could currently do evaluations. Assemblyman Carpenter remarked that in Section 3 psychiatrist and psychologist should remain and the amendment to NRS 176.139 should remain the same.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification. Ms. Lang said the proposed amendment had been poorly written, the language in the brackets was being added. Chairman Anderson clarified what would actually occur with the amendment. Ms. Lang stated NRS 176.139 dealt with presentence evaluations and reports, and paragraph A dealt with NRS 176A.110 granting of probation, using a previous evaluation or obtaining a new assessment by a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted the current statute language to remain unchanged for both NRS 176A.110 and NRS 176.139. Ms. Lang reiterated that the language in brackets was not in the current law; the amendment actually would add that language to the law.
Assemblyman Collins recalled from the hearing that the intent was to remove the duplicate evaluations and make sure psychiatrists and psychologists did the evaluations. Ms. Lang stated paragraph A accepted the previous evaluation and paragraph B allowed the evaluations to be done by psychiatrists and psychologists.
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendments on page 12 of the work session document (Exhibit G) and entertained a motion for amend and do pass of S.B. 548.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 548 WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson made a brief comment regarding S.B. 254 and relinquished the chair to Vice Chairman Manendo.
Senate Bill 254: Establishes moratorium on execution of sentences of death of certain persons until July 1, 2003, and provides for study of issues regarding death penalty. (BDR S-871)
Vice Chairman Manendo asked for further comments from the committee members.
Assemblyman Anderson said S.B. 254 was not a perfect bill, there were many parts of it that were upsetting. However, it was an issue that had to be discussed in public and needed more examination. Mr. Anderson believed the Senate took a courageous position to move S.B. 254 to the Assembly. Mr. Anderson asked that S.B. 254 be moved to the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics to determine whether to do the study this session.
Assemblyman Nolan supported the study but was opposed to the moratorium on the death penalty while the study would be conducted. He believed there were ample provisions in state law to address the death penalty cases that were pending an appeal or on death row. Mr. Nolan said he would vote against the bill without an amendment to delete the moratorium.
Assemblyman Brower opposed the bill and asked to adopt by reference all testimony from the Speaker at the previous hearing. Mr. Brower would vote against the bill.
Assemblyman Claborn supported the death penalty and would support the moratorium.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall was in favor of the death penalty. She felt the study was warranted and felt the moratorium was necessary so that the data would not be shifting during the study. She supported the bill with the moratorium provision in it, although she was not in favor of abolishing the death penalty.
Assemblywoman McClain supported the study and said it made sense to have the moratorium during the study. Assemblywoman McClain asked about a verbal amendment regarding “gender.” Assemblyman Anderson said the amendment regarding “gender” could be added while the bill was in the Elections, Procedures and Ethics Committee. Assemblywoman McClain agreed as long as that was the intent on the record.
Vice Chairman Manendo entertained a motion to do pass S.B. 254.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 254.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Gustavson favored the death penalty, did not favor the moratorium, and was not convinced of the need for the study.
MOTION DEFEATED.
Vice Chairman Manendo relinquished the chair to Chairman Anderson.
Chairman Anderson said S.B. 550 would be held over to the next work session.
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)
Chairman Anderson made closing remarks.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: