MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 18, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:20 a.m. on Friday, May 18, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was simultaneously video- conferenced 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
Ms. Barbara Buckley
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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Michael Schneider, Clark Senate District 8
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, District 9
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael Buckley, Community Associations Institute, Legislative Action Committee
Renny Ashleman, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association (SNHBA)
Karen Dennison, Member of Working Group
Mark Gunderson, Glenbrook Homeowners Association
Michael Trudell, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association
Kirby Randall, Elk Point Country Club
Senator John Briggs, Retired, Elk Point Country Club
Bob Maddox, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Scott Canepa, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Kyle Waugh, Vacations Las Vegas, representing self
Jason Goldwater, Vacations Las Vegas, representing self
Tami DeVries, Legal Administrative Officer, Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division
Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Maureen Brower, American Cancer Society
John Albrecht, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General
Jim Wadhams, Board of Architects
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 666, the Reviser’s Bill.
Assembly Bill 666: Makes various technical changes to provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes. (BDR S-1071)
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, read a prepared statement (Exhibit C). A.B. 666 was drafted at the request of the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 220.080, which required the Legislative Counsel Bureau to make recommendations to the Legislature for clarification of specific statutes, for the elimination of obsolete statutes, and to call attention of the Legislature to conflicting statutes and such other matters as deemed necessary. There were seven changes outlined in the prepared statement (Exhibit C).
Chairman Anderson clarified the provisions of the bill and reported he had already received two conflict notices, which were not substantive in change. Chairman Anderson asked for questions from the committee.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked for clarification as to why NRS 488.407 was being repealed. Ms. Lang said NRS 488.460 covered the same matter; consequently, NRS 488.407 was duplicative.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 666 with the amendments needed to resolve the conflicts.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 666.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Oceguera to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 421, an exempt bill.
Senate Bill 421: Makes various changes to provisions governing common-interest communities. (BDR 10-446)
Senator Michael Schneider, District 8, approached the witness table with Michael Buckley and Renny Ashleman. Senator Schneider drew attention to an article from Governing Magazine, April 2001 (Exhibit D) with an article entitled “Boss Thy Neighbor” by Christopher Conte that dealt with homeowner associations in the Las Vegas area. Senator Schneider said the issue of homeowner association government was a big issue nationwide. He recalled S.B. 314 of the 69th Session, a similar bill that revised provisions governing unit-owners’ associations; this type of law was living and breathing and constantly changing.
Michael Buckley, a volunteer with the Community Associations Institute, Legislative Action Committee, which he had worked with since 1993. The basic purpose of S.B. 421 was to create a commission for common-interest communities. Homeowners’ associations paid $3 per unit to the Real Estate Division, which was how the proposed commission would be funded. The commission would be five members appointed by the Governor; two members would be unit owners, one of which would be a board member; the others would be a developer, a manager and a professional other than the manager. The commission would meet once a quarter to gather information related to associations and report back to the Legislature at the 72nd Session. The commission would be both an educational and disciplinary body responsible to promote awareness and education in associations, as well as to issue orders to “cease and desist” or stop violating the actual law, not the internal working documents of the association. Mr. Buckley continued highlighting S.B. 421 section-by-section.
Mr. Buckley said there were a number of technical corrections included in a proposed amendment (Exhibit E) that had been discussed with Senator Schneider. Mr. Buckley also explained the Section 39 Working Group Revisions (Exhibit F). He reviewed the notice provisions on foreclosures (page 22 of Exhibit E).
Assemblyman Brower asked for clarification regarding any size limitations or restrictions for associations as detailed in NRS 116. Mr. Buckley said NRS 116 applied to all associations, regardless of size.
Chairman Anderson said a conflict notice had been received concerning Section 15 with regard to A.B. 621, another bill which would revise provisions relating to real estate. Chairman Anderson asked if 80 percent of housing in Clark County belonged to an association. Senator Schneider said that was a good estimate for new construction; up to 60 percent of all housing in the Las Vegas valley lived under some type of association.
Chairman Anderson posed a scenario where he lived in an association, and he asked how he would he get an individual problem resolved. Would he have to submit a written request to the association to be reviewed? Mr. Buckley said it would depend on the type of problem; however, the property manager probably would be consulted. Mr. Buckley went on to say that with a single-family home in a regular subdivision, the homeowner could handle the problems. In a condominium, the association would handle any defects because an owner really owned only the airspace within the condominium. Chairman Anderson clarified for the record, even though a person might live in a common-interest community, it did not preclude that person from having his/her own individual rights. Senator Schneider said if a unit had a defect, the association would send someone out to remedy the problem. If the defect was not fixed to the owner’s standard, the association could take action for the owner. If nothing was resolved, litigation might result.
Chairman Anderson asked, if repeated requests did not resolve the problem and resulted in dissatisfaction with the association, what recourse was left.
Renny Ashleman, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association, said the last remedy would be to sue the association. Mr. Ashleman made comments regarding the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. He submitted an amendment (Exhibit G) that made an exception to Section 40 for units owned or leased by the declarant under the governing documents of the association.
Karen Dennison, a member of the Working Group, supported S.B. 421 and the amendments previously submitted.
Mark Gunderson, Glenbrook Homeowners Association and others in northern Nevada, was also a member of the Working Group, and he voiced support of S.B. 421 and the amendment proposed.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, District 9, supported Sections 40 and 41 of S.B. 421. Those provisions were added on behalf of the many southern Nevada individuals dealing with rentals; the provisions defined transient commercial property dealing with timeshare problems (Exhibit H). Chairman Anderson reiterated that Sections 40 and 41 applied to Clark County only.
Assemblyman Collins asked if renting of “show models” would conflict with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s rental proposal in Sections 40 and 41. Ms. Giunchigliani did not believe that would conflict with the proposed provisions in Sections 40 and 41.
Michael Trudell, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association and a member of the Working Group, agreed with the proposed amendments.
Kirby Randall, Elk Point Country Club, supported S.B. 421, but was concerned about Section 50(b) as it related to by-law changes (Exhibit I). He believed executive boards could amend by-laws to conform to their interpretation of NRS 116, that would not necessarily be the correct interpretation. Mr. Randall asked that Section 50 be deleted from S.B. 421.
Senator John Briggs, retired member of the California Legislature, was a unit owner at Elk Point Country Club. Mr. Briggs also asked that Section 50 of S.B. 421 be deleted (Exhibit J). He felt it was bad law; it was not democratic and might not be legal. He asked if Section 50 could not be deleted, at least it could be amended to include a requirement for a distributed agenda so that those who wished to attend a board meeting would know what was happening at that meeting. Also it had been mentioned that homeowner associations were governed by NRS 82 and NRS 116, Mr. Briggs believed NRS 78 should be included.
Bob Maddox, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, opposed provisions in Sections 36 and 37 of S.B. 421 that conflicted with provisions in A.B. 133, a bill that would make various changes concerning construction, constructional defects and common-interest communities. Sections 38 and 64 addressed issues already included in A.B. 133; they were not in direct conflict, but should be considered. Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Maddox had opposed Sections 36 and 37 of S.B. 421 during the hearings in the Senate. Mr. Maddox said he had testified in the Senate hearings, but was not part of the Working Group.
Scott Canepa, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, who had not seen the proposed amendments, wished to review those amendments and reserve his comments until then. He concurred with Mr. Maddox’s comments regarding Section 36 and 37, as well as Sections 38 and 64.
Kyle Waugh, Vacations Las Vegas, stated that he owned, renovated, and leased properties on a short-term basis within the Las Vegas Country Club. He was strongly opposed to Section 40 and asked that it be deleted from S.B. 421. He believed the purpose of Section 40 fulfilled a personal vendetta motivated by some very powerful residents within the Las Vegas Country Club. He felt Section 40 was intended solely to put him out of business, and it was not designed to protect communities from short-term rentals. Mr. Waugh said the Las Vegas Country Club Association claimed short-term rentals were a nuisance. Over the past four years there were fires, burglaries, prostitution, beatings, murder, and two methamphetamine lab explosions in units other than those he owned. He said Section 40 changed his rights alone. Discussions with other homeowners who used their homes for vacation rentals revealed they were not aware of any legislation, county ordinances or the possibility of problems regarding their properties. There was litigation currently in the courts. Mr. Waugh asked that the Legislature not pass Section 40 of S.B. 421 and, instead allow the courts to interpret the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) to settle his case.
Chairman Anderson asked how many units Mr. Waugh owned in the Las Vegas Country Club. Mr. Waugh said he owned 27 units. Chairman Anderson asked what the market share price would be for those units. Mr. Waugh estimated they were worth approximately $6 million. Chairman Anderson asked if they could be placed on the market in order to recoup his investment. Mr. Waugh said the Las Vegas Country Club was not a “hot market,” and he did not believe he could sell that many units in a short time period. Chairman Anderson asked what the current price for a unit would be. Mr. Waugh said the Las Vegas Country Club was very diverse with condos, apartment complexes, high rise towers, and estate properties ranging in price from $100,000 to $4 million.
Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Waugh had testified during the Senate hearings. Mr. Waugh said he had just become aware of the bill two days prior.
Jason Goldwater, Vacations Las Vegas, reported he had conducted business without incident over the past four years. Only a few people formed any opposition during those years; unfortunately, they were angry. Mr. Goldwater felt provisions in Section 40 were directed at Vacations Las Vegas. If 27 different people owned those same units, he believed he would still be able to operate those properties under management, and that concerned him. In conversations with his brother, Assemblyman David Goldwater, he was asked how he had found out about the bill, implying maybe it was not supposed to be discovered.
Tami DeVries, Legal Administrative Officer, Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division, submitted amendments (Exhibit K) that had been discussed with Senator Schneider. She went over the six provisions in the amendment. She also prepared a second packet (Exhibit L) outlining the fiscal responsibility of the Real Estate Division. It would not be a General Fund appropriation, but rather a use of reserves in the common-interest community budget. She asked that S.B. 421 be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She expected support from Senator Randolph Townsend, Senator Ann O’Connell, and Senator Michael Schneider in her request to send the bill to Ways and Means.
Assemblyman Carpenter submitted an amendment (Exhibit M) to provide that rural agricultural common-interest communities be subject to the provisions of the open meeting law.
Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. Pamela Scott, representing the Summerlin development of Howard Hughes Corporation, submitted a written statement (Exhibit N) in support of S.B. 421.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 421 and noted it was an exempt bill, allowing the committee time for further consideration. Chairman Anderson said the fiscal note for S.B. 421 was $820,000, with $396,000 for FY2001-2002 and $423,000 for FY2002-2003. Tami DeVries presented to the committee a revised fiscal note (Exhibit L) of $404,545 for FY2001-2002 and $412,980 for FY2002-2003.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 488, the tobacco settlement questions and the fiscal responsibility of the state.
Senate Bill 488: Revises authority of state treasurer to invest money held in certain trust funds and to administer proceeds from settlement agreements and civil litigation between State of Nevada and tobacco companies. (BDR 18-361)
Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, submitted a presentation package (Exhibit O) entitled “Tobacco Settlement Securitization Proposal” and reviewed the presentation page-by-page:
Mr. Krolicki explained two graphs (Exhibit P) depicting a variety of investment options. He then reviewed S.B. 488 section-by-section. Nevada was not a pioneer in the idea of securitization, and other states were using this procedure. Almost $4 billion in tobacco securities had been issued in North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, South Carolina, and New York City. It was expected that South Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin would enter the market shortly. Mr. Krolicki drew attention to a letter from the American Heart Association (Exhibit Q). Mr. Krolicki also submitted editorial articles (Exhibit R) from the Nevada Appeal, Reno Gazette-Journal and Las Vegas Review-Journal regarding the proposed state bonding authority to sell bonds that would be repaid from the proceeds of the tobacco settlement.
Assemblyman Manendo asked if Alaska and South Carolina were the only states that adopted that type of policy. Mr. Krolicki reiterated the list of states that presently had the policy in place (North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, South Carolina) and those whose policies were pending (South Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin).
Assemblyman Manendo asked what the short-term effect would be on the Millennium Scholarships, Senior Prescription Drug Program, and programs for children and the disabled. Would there be reductions in those programs? Mr. Krolicki said if the S.B. 488 was passed and the Governor signed it, Nevada could enter the market this summer or fall for bond sales. The $450 million trust fund would be established, and the money would be available immediately. The longevity of those funds depended on how quickly the money was withdrawn from the trust funds. Mr. Krolicki made two recommendations that related to the expectations of the Millennium Scholarship funds. He recommended the fourth and sixth case scenarios he had presented for consideration by the committee. He recommended the sixth case that actually matched the cash flow of the expectation from MSA to the penny. The intent was to have no less money available over time. The bonds would likely be paid over within 15 years. The only problem with taking out the money at the exact same pace was that in year number 15 there would be a shortfall or the bonds would need to be funded against.
The fourth scenario was more wholesome because the payments were spread out more evenly, but it required 91 percent of what was expected from the $1.2 million in MSA funds – unadjusted. Over 90 percent of every dollar was expected in the next 25 years, thereby paying for all the programs.
Vice Chair Manendo stressed the legislature just needed to be very conscious of how the program would affect children and future scholarships, seniors, and the disabled.
Assemblywoman Buckley had concerns about the proposal that, if enacted, would result in Nevada receiving only 45 percent of the original tobacco money. She did not know how that loss of income would be handled, and she anticipated programs would be cut. Mr. Krolicki clarified $1.2 billion dollars receivable paid over 25 years was worth $500 million today. He believed a dollar today was worth more than a dollar in 25 years. Assemblywoman Buckley said it was late in session, and the worst thing that could be done would be to make a mistake with this bill. Based on the analysis of a 5 percent return, there would be years when there was no money. The holes were a major concern. Mr. Krolicki stated there had been a 40 percent reduction in smoking in the last decade, and the American Cancer Society wanted to reduce smoking by 50 percent in the next decade. If successful at cutting smoking, it meant less money. If it could be predicted that every dollar from the MSA would come in over 25 years, securitization would not be needed. It was an insurance policy, in Mr. Krolicki’s judgment.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the current shortfall of $2.5 million was based on inflation adjustment, the prime rate, or some other factor. The four stocks mentioned were diversified and very profitable beyond the tobacco interests; those four companies were not going out of business. Both the bond and tobacco markets was risky in its limitations and fluctuations. Mr. Krolicki said it was a volume adjustment that contributed to the $2.5 million shortfall. He hoped to earn more than 5 percent in a very safe way and, in a balanced portfolio, with an 8 percent return. The four companies might avoid making the payments through “strategic” bankruptcy. Volume adjustments would happen, as estimated by Moody’s Investor Service. Mr. Krolicki could not guarantee the portfolio would meet expectations or that the $1.2 billion would actually come as a result of the MSA.
Chairman Anderson suggested that, in order to “regenerate” and “perpetuate” the Millennium Scholarship Fund, those who graduated should be obligated to repay a percentage of their assistance based on their higher economic status now that they had a college degree.
Assemblyman Collins said that by taking the cash upfront, Nevada should be able to make better investments to maintain the integrity of programs or it should not be done. Mr. Krolicki said the worst-case scenario would be the 5 percent investment. He hoped it would be higher, and 8 percent could be considered conservative in a balanced portfolio.
Assemblyman Carpenter reported he had heard of using money to pay farmers not to grow tobacco and asked the source of that money. Mr. Krolicki understood that the federal government proposed approximately 17 cents per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes, some of which would be used to offset “opportunity cost production losses for tobacco farmers.” He had heard some of the other states might use bond proceeds to offset those losses to tobacco farmers.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the individual state legislatures were allowed to decide how to use the tobacco dollars. Nevada chose to use the dollars for medical costs, prescription drugs, and Millennium Scholarships.
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, supported S.B. 488. She said a 1989 report that tracked smoking had recently been updated. In 1994 it was determined an individual smoked 154 packs a year; however, in 1999-2000 that consumption was reduced to 99 packs a year. With the reduction in smoking and the increased cost of cigarettes, Ms. Vilardo anticipated a reduction in the MSA dollars. Securitization was a way to insure some of those dollars, but that may be a limited opportunity.
Maureen Brower, representing the American Cancer Society, submitted a letter (Exhibit S) in support of S.B. 488.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was an inherent danger if numerous states asked for money upfront. Since the tobacco companies amortized the money over a long period of time, would they refuse lesser lump sum payments? Mr. Krolicki said a number of states had received money outside of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). He was unaware of any effort to calculate a present-day value of the $206 billion dollars included in the MSA.
John Albrecht, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General, worked on the MSA. The Attorney General’s office had opposed the first reprint of S.B. 488 because of the legal liabilities it created for the state, however, those legal liabilities had been eliminated in the second reprint. The Attorney General’s office was now neutral on the bill. There was no potential for lawsuit created against the state by the second reprint.
Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony on S.B. 488. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 488.
Chairman Anderson announced the subcommittee on S.B. 171, which would revise standards for designation of gaming enterprise districts in certain locations, would meet at 8 a.m. on May 21, 2001.
Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting at 10:52 a.m. until 20 minutes after adjournment of the Assembly floor session.
WORK SESSION:
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting at 1:37 p.m. for work session.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 336 from the work session document (Exhibit T).
Senate Bill 336: Adopts revised Uniform Arbitration Act. (BDR 3-1343)
Assemblywoman Buckley was extremely concerned about mandatory arbitration clauses being submitted in a contract of adhesion, a contract on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no negotiating power or retention of rights. Ms. Buckley believed it was a “complete abrogation of the American justice system.” She proposed to withdraw the amendment in its entirety and to bring it back next session. She had commitments from proponents of the bill to work on the issue during the interim.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion of do pass on S.B. 336.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 336.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS VOTING NO. MR. CLABORN, MR. OCEGUERA AND MR. NOLAN WERE ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo to present S.B. 336 on the Assembly floor.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 25 from the work session document (Exhibit T).
Senate Bill 25: Revises provisions governing granting of rights to visitation with child to persons other than parents of child. (BDR 11-45)
Chairman Anderson said S.B. 25 caused major concerns and noted there was a similar piece of legislation, A.B. 34, which would revise provisions governing granting of visitation rights with a child to persons other than parents of child. Chairman Anderson proposed that A.B. 34 be substituted for S.B. 25. The critical issue was an intact family that might be forced to deal with “unfit” grandparents. The reality was that parents had the right to control their children, therefore, A.B. 34 was a better piece of legislation. Chairman Anderson suggested A.B. 34 be inserted into S.B. 25, with the language being streamlined in conference.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25 WITH A.B. 34 AND MAKE IT AN O’CONNELL/BERMAN BILL.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Manendo said on February 28, 2001, A.B. 167, which would require certain judicial districts to establish educational seminars for separating parents in matters involving children, was passed by the committee and then passed the Assembly 40-0. S.B. 25 and A.B. 34 were in the same chapter. Did the committee have an opinion as to whether to amend S.B. 25 and A.B. 34 into A.B. 167?
Chairman Anderson said a number of options were open to the committee:
Chairman Anderson’s recommendation would be to move with one amendment, rather than two separate amendments.
Assemblyman Manendo said he had further discussions with Judge C. Dianne Steel, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Department G, who was interested in seeing the legislation passed. A.B. 167 would affect counties with populations of 400,000 or more (Clark County) where the district court would establish rules approved by the Supreme Court for separating parents with children under the age of 18. There would be mandatory classes for the parents to take. After the pilot program was completed, more judges supported the program.
Assemblyman Brower asked for the status of the two bills under discussion. Did A.B. 34 not survive on the Senate side? Chairman Anderson said neither A.B. 34 nor A.B. 167 were heard in the Senate. Assemblyman Brower had reservations regarding A.B. 167, but had supported the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblyman Collins to withdraw their motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WITHDREW THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 25 with amendments of A.B. 34 and A.B. 167 and labeled it as the O’Connell/Berman/ Manendo bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25 WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO ADD THE PROVISIONS OF A.B. 34 AND A.B. 167 AND ADD THE SPONSORS.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. CLABORN ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson said he would present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 301 from the work session document (Exhibit T).
Senate Bill 301: Makes various changes concerning certain professions. (BDR 7-634)
Jim Wadhams, representing the Board of Architects, said the amendment should read “professional employees.”
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendment and entertained a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 301.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 301 WITH TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. CLABORN ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Carpenter to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the summary of S.B. 550 from the work session document (Exhibit T).
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 said the public employee groups who had testified did not raise any concerns during the hearing. Chairman Anderson recalled he, Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblywoman Ohrenschall did have concerns regarding how contracted employees might be required to come to court.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 550.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins believed S.B. 550 was piecemeal legislation.
Assemblyman Brower was comfortable with the bill; there was no decision-making authority. Given the limited budget, S.B. 550 would save the state money.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall said, although it was true the investigator would not make a final decision, pre-sentence reports contained a recommendation that was 99 percent followed by overworked judges. There might be problems getting one of those contract employees into court should there be a problem with the report.
Chairman Anderson was divided on the question. The background sentencing reports were very time consuming, keeping officers from working on the streets. It was his understanding that Parole and Probation was asking for this pilot program to see if it would work, thus freeing up more time for those who supervised the “bad guys.”
Assemblyman Carpenter believed, according to testimony, that officers would be freed to do what they needed to be doing. The contracts would provide experienced people to do the pre-sentence background checks.
Chairman Anderson said there was no guarantee those contracted would be former parole and probation officers.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B 550 WAS DEFEATED WITH 7 NO VOTES, 6 YES VOTES (MS. BUCKLEY, MR. COLLINS, MRS. KOIVISTO, MR. MANENDO, MS. McCLAIN AND MS. OHRENSCHALL). MR. CLABORN WAS ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson said S.B. 550 was still alive in committee and would go back to his committee board.
Chairman Anderson reported the committee would need to reconsider S.B. 25. It appeared the content of A.B. 167 was not consistent enough with S.B. 25 to be considered as a single amendment. It would break the rules of the House to amend it into the bill. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Carpenter to again withdraw his motion and make a new motion on S.B. 25, limiting the amendment to that of A.B. 34.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to rescind the motion on S.B. 25.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO RESCIND THE MOTION ON S.B. 25.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MR. CLABORN ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson clarified the new motion was to amend and do pass S.B. 25 with the language from A.B. 34 and added the name of Assemblywoman Berman to the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 25 WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. CLABORN ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson then informed the committee of several Senate amendments. He received a concur/not concur for A.B. 105, which would revise provisions pertaining to explosive and incendiary devices. It was his intention to concur with the amendment for A.B. 105.
Chairman Anderson had a concur/not concur for A.B. 54, which would revise provisions relating to time within which prosecution for certain felonies must be commenced and certain provisions concerning genetic marker testing. It was his intention to concur with the amendment.
Chairman Anderson had a concur/not concur for A.B. 377, which would make various changes regarding orders for protection against domestic violence. He was concerned about the amendment, and, based on his preliminary examination, he would not concur with the amendment. That would result in a conference committee.
Chairman Anderson had a concur/not concur for A.B. 162, which would make various changes to provisions governing theft. He would not concur with the amendment for that bill.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 2:26 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: