MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

May 21, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 9:35 a.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was simultaneously videoconferenced in Room 4412 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

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Cindy Clampitt, Recording Committee Secretary

Deborah Rengler, Transcribing Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Julie Slabaugh, Attorney General’s Office

Kevin Higgins, Attorney General’s Office

Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chief’s Association

Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer

 

Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the S.B. 546 summary from the work session document (Exhibit C).

 

Senate Bill 546:  Revises penalties for abuse or neglect of child. (BDR 15-471)

 

Chairman Anderson asked for clarification regarding what constituted “substantial mental harm.”  Chairman Anderson had been told that substantial mental harm was a rare occurrence; Exhibit D reflected that statement.

 

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, agreed that substantial mental harm was explained well in S.B. 546, Section 1, subsection 3(e). Mr. Graham also noted that medical testimony was required to prove substantial mental harm.  Chairman Anderson asked how often a scenario might develop that would result in dealing with a mental health question.  Mr. Graham had discussed that question with Doug Herndon, Clark County prosecutor, and reiterated that it was very unusual.

 

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 546.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. NOLAN ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.

 

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Koivisto to present the bill on the Assembly floor.

 

Chairman Anderson noted that S.B. 519 was on the Chief Clerk’s desk; Exhibit E outlined Amendment No. 864 that further clarified Sections 22 and 23 eliminating any unintended consequences.

Senate Bill 519:  Provides for establishment of programs for re-entry into community of certain prisons and parolees and revises provisions regarding sealing of records. (BR 16-1477)

 

Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, explained the amendment (Exhibit E) as it pertained to what records could be sealed and what offenses fell under the category of sexual offenses.

 

Assemblyman Collins clarified that S.B. 519 had already passed out of the committee.  Chairman Anderson agreed.  Assemblyman Collins asked if the amendment included reference to the ecstasy drug.  Assemblywoman Buckley further clarified provisions in the amendment related to records regarding statutory sexual seduction, lewdness, and exposure that could be sealed in seven years; serious sex crimes such as sexual assault, rape, or incest, the records would never be sealed.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 864 TO S.B. 519 IN SECOND REPRINT.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Anderson said he would handle the amendment on the Assembly floor.

 

Mr. Anthony read the S.B. 547 summary from the work session document (Exhibit C).

 

Senate Bill 547:  Makes various changes pertaining to litigation involving prisoners. (BDR 2-478)

 

Assemblyman Carpenter voiced concern over the language in Section 3.

 

Julie Slabaugh, Attorney General’s Office, said the point of Section 3 was to bring the statute in-line with state tort law, which required a physical injury prior to an emotional distress claim.  Inmates currently filed claims for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, not as an emotional distress tort claim; an independent Eighth Amendment claim did not require a physical injury. 

 

Assemblyman Carpenter asked why would Nevada want to put that provision in statute if inmates could file a claim under the Eighth Amendment; were there circumstances where inmates could not file a claim.  Ms. Slabaugh said it had to do with damages and preventing the inmates from “forum shopping” between state and federal law.  S.B. 547 would parallel federal law preventing filing of a claim without a prior physical injury.  Ms. Slabaugh said many of the emotional distress claims were frivolous.

 

Assemblyman Brower asked if Eighth Amendment claims filed by inmates were brought pursuant to Section 1983, or was some other vehicle used.  Ms. Slabaugh said Section 1983 referred to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which provided that a citizen could bring a case into a state or federal court for a violation of their civil rights.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said many times courts attributed motives to legislation as they interpreted the law; if this was already the existing law, why were prisoners being singled out.  Would the Supreme Court object to legislation taking further action.  Ms. Slabaugh said prisoners were the only ones allowed to use the Eighth Amendment alleging cruel and unusual punishment to get around the state tort law.  Other citizens of the state were not being punished by the state. 

 

Chairman Anderson said there were still serious questions to be resolved and that S.B. 547 would be placed back on the board. 

 

Mr. Anthony read the S.B. 551 summary from the work session document (Exhibit C).

 

Senate Bill 551:  Makes various changes concerning computers, technology, Internet and crimes against children. (BDR 15-442)

 

Kevin Higgins, Attorney General’s Office, said his concerns had been addressed in the submitted amendments. He commented on one provision in Section 4, subsection 1, that stated the perpetrator had to be at least five years older than the victim; this eliminated the problem with boyfriend-girlfriend situations.

 

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 551 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE LEGAL DIVISION.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            MOTION PASSED WITH MR. BROWER ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Nolan to present the bill on the Assembly floor.

 

Assemblyman Manendo read the recommendations from the subcommittee report on S.B. 171.  Included, as part of the subcommittee report, was an amendment (Exhibit F) that had been submitted by Harvey Whittemore during the subcommittee hearing.

 

Senate Bill 171:  Revises standards for designation of gaming enterprise districts in certain locations. (BDR 41-116)

 

Chairman Anderson asked why a “majority plus one” vote was needed, as opposed to a constitutional majority vote. The “majority plus one” provision could result in requiring a unanimous vote.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter commented that the current language required three-fourths of the members to vote; it was felt this standard was too high.  Reducing that number to a “majority plus one” would still guarantee a high standard when approving gaming establishments in neighborhoods.  Also, if a member abstained, it would not reduce the number of votes required to pass the motion.  If too many people abstained, a motion could not pass.

 

Assemblywoman McClain agreed with the Chairman; she would support a constitutional majority.

 

Assemblyman Collins said in 1989 neighborhood gaming was addressed. In 1997, S.B. 208 of the Sixth-Ninth Session, that revised provisions governing gaming licenses, addressed the issue again.  Local ordinances might allow a majority vote of “those eligible to vote.” Assemblyman Collins believed the super majority vote was needed to prevent local representatives from “abstaining out” of a vote; he supported the “majority plus one” vote.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera said he also agreed with the Chairman; he believed if a person were allowed to abstain, it was easier to kill a measure without being held responsible for their vote.

 

Assemblywoman McClain believed if the requirements were not placed on the legislature, why require that of other elected officials.  Ms. McClain said she thought it was overkill.

 

Chairman Anderson said he did not like the bill, “It pushed the legislature in the face of local government.”  Although it might not be proper for two members of a body to make a decision, the power of a local official should not be diluted.  Chairman Anderson believed a constitutional majority was sufficient.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter reiterated that the subcommittee reduced the number required to pass a motion from three-fourths to a majority plus one; it was felt the three-fourths was too strict.  Assemblyman Carpenter said the “people from the south” needed to make the decision.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said it was easy to be on either side of the issue.  From a policy point of view, she agreed with the Chairman.  From a practical point of view, trying to make a strong statement to enforce the law that was passed, she agreed with the subcommittee.  Her goal was to protect the people in the community who had purchased residential property only to have a casino “pop up.”

 

Chairman Anderson took a straw poll.

 

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion on S.B. 171, but said he would not support the vote.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 171 WITH THE DISCUSSED AMENDMENTS.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED. THE MOTION PASSED 10-3 WITH MS. McCLAIN, MR. OCEGUERA, AND CHAIRMAN ANDERSON VOTING NO.  MR. BROWER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.

 

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo to present the bill on the Assembly floor.  Chairman Anderson said he might speak against the bill on the Assembly floor.

 

Mr. Anthony read the S.B. 516 summary from the work session document (Exhibit C).

 

Senate Bill 516:  Requires affidavit in support of action for professional negligence against certain design professionals. (BDR 3-1452)

 

Chairman Anderson said he had strong objections to various provisions of the bill as written.  If the committee were to move with the bill, it would be to amend only those sections as proposed by the American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada (ACEC) (Exhibit G), which were similar to the language in A.B. 133 that made various changes concerning construction, constructional defects, and common-interest communities.  Chairman Anderson also said there was a conflict with A.B. 621 that would revise provisions relating to real estate.  There was a huge fiscal note on S.B. 516 that would require the bill to be sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, where it would probably die at this late date.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter said he believed there were good points in the bill, but did not see how to make it work with the Contractor’s Board.  Was it the intention of the committee to amend parts of S.B. 516 into A.B. 133, or just try to keep S.B. 516 alive. 

 

Chairman Anderson said that language was already in A.B. 133, but there was no guarantee that the Senate would pass A.B. 133.  S.B. 516 could be passed with only the amendments from the ACEC that might result in a conference committee, where the similar issues in A.B. 133 could be dealt with.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said during the hearings it was demonstrated there were some shortcomings in the law in regard to subcontractors not knowing until the end of a lawsuit that there were problems that they could have fixed.  She believed all the problems should be addressed in A.B. 133 to the extent time allowed.

 

Assemblyman Collins said he agreed with parts of the bill, but not those provisions that applied to the Contractor’s Board.  As a subcontractor himself, he would probably abstain from the vote.

 

Assemblywoman Angle said she agreed with Assemblywoman Buckley in recognizing the problem, but was not willing to “bet” on the Senate.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 516 WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM THE ACEC, WHICH HOPEFULLY WOULD RESULT IN A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Anderson clarified those amendments submitted by the ACEC, which would delete the bill as a whole and substitute the proposed amendment to the bill from the ACEC.

 

            ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.

            MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 14-0.

Chairman Anderson said he would handle the bill and amendment on the Assembly floor.

 

Chairman Anderson called attention to S.B. 83.

 

Senate Bill 83:  Increases amount of homestead exemption. (BDR 10-4)

 

 

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 83 created a rule that was not wanted.  It would allow someone in a homeowners’ association to not pay their fees, and not be able to be exempted from the homeowners’ association.  It was the Chairman’s intention to go back to the original bill, to increase the property exemption to $160,000, or not act on the bill at all.  This bill was not needed as protection in a bankruptcy.

 

Assemblyman Brower said he agreed with the Chairman.  The intent of the Homestead Act was not to put people out of their homes, but not to keep them in their “$3 million” homes.  Assemblyman Brower was unclear where the original increase of the exemption to $160,000 came from.  Chairman Anderson said the chief sponsor of the bill indicated that was recognized as the increased cost.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 83 BY GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL BILL AS INTRODUCED.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Collins commented that the legislature continually bumped up the amount of a homestead, and asked why the language could not include “5 to 10 percent over market value” or a cost of living allowance (COLA).  Chairman Anderson said the intent was to be able to keep a “simple” home; there was some “wiggle room.”

 

            MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

           

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Brower to present the bill on the Assembly floor.

 

Chairman Anderson drew the committee’s attention to the S.B. 286 summary from the “On the Board” work session document (Exhibit H).

 

Senate Bill 286:  Revises provisions relating to certain committees that review issues pertaining to criminal justice. (BDR 14-774)

 

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 286 proposed to remove the Sentencing Commission and create a legislative commission on criminal justice.  It would be necessary to keep the prison industrial program and technology crime provision found in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 209.015 and NRS 205A.010 through 205A.050, respectively.  There was also concern regarding whether the commission would need subpoena power. 

 

Ms. Lang said the language was consistent with provisions of other standing committees.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 286 WITH THE DISCUSSED AMENDMENTS.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Anderson said he would present the bill on the Assembly floor.

 

Chairman Anderson called attention to S.B. 339 listed on the work session document (Exhibit C).

 

Senate Bill 339:  Provides for release of education record to certain persons under certain circumstances. (BDR 34-424)

 

 

Chairman Anderson reviewed the language in the amendment.

 

Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chief’s Association, said the explanation had been done poorly at the last committee hearing regarding what information was really wanted.  The intent of the bill was to obtain the directory information -- name, address, telephone number, and parent contact numbers -- as well as the attendance records for the juvenile probation officers to make determinations and recommendations on sentencing.  It was also acknowledged that there was concern about parent notification.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked for further clarification on the immunity for schools if information was incorrectly released.  Ms. Ohrenschall suggested that the parent notification be “advance notice”; there should not be any reason why the parent could not be informed before the records were released.

 

Chairman Anderson said he believed the intent was for a police officer to be able to go to the school and access this information from the school computers.

 

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if the attendance information could be used to cite a parent, forcing them to go to court to pay a fine in defense of their child’s absenteeism.  Were there any constitutional issues that should be addressed.  Chairman Anderson said S.B. 339 would not change the parent’s responsibility to have a child in school, and the school attendance person still retained their responsibility.  With the new testing standard, attendance was becoming a bigger issue.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if language could be included related to a “simultaneous” release of information to the police department and the parents.  Chairman Anderson said there existed an automatic telephone program that informed parents of absenteeism.  In Sparks, there were also two written reports that were sent to the home, and a teacher must try to make one-on-one contacts.

 

Assemblywoman Angle said her initial concerns were addressed in the amendment.  Mrs. Angle had also reviewed the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which already allowed all this information to be released for health and safety issues.  The schools were only required to inform the parents at the beginning of the school year that the information was a matter of public records.  Assemblywoman Angle said she felt S.B. 339 might be unnecessary since the release of information was already allowed by the FERPA.

 

Chairman Anderson asked Captain Nadeau to clarify why the statute was needed.  Captain Nadeau agreed that the FERPA allowed access to that information, but there was disagreement among the district attorneys and the school officials.  The FERPA empowered the state to make legislation to help clarify the issues, and that was what S.B. 339 would do.  Chairman Anderson asked if S.B. 339 would mirror federal law.  Captain Nadeau replied in the affirmative. 

 

Chairman Anderson asked for further clarification from Ms. Lang.  Ms. Lang said “directory records” would need to be better defined in the bill.  Ms. Lang read the current definition of “directory records” to be amended into the bill.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson said his original concerns had been addressed in the amendment. 

 

Assemblywoman Angle said she would support the bill with the definition of directory records as read by Ms. Lang, and with language that would require a school to include a disclosure of the possible release of information in their annual notification, as well as include the allowance of a written letter from the parent requesting that information not be accessible.

 

Chairman Anderson clarified that amendments to S.B. 339 should include a mandate that the statute be subject to federal laws as outlined in the FERPA.  Assemblywoman Angle read FERPA 99.37 noting “annual notification.”  Chairman Anderson recalled that Mrs. Angle had requested notification at the beginning of the year.  Assemblywoman Angle said she assumed the annual notification was done at the beginning of the year.

 

Chairman Anderson asked if adding the definition of directory records would affect any other statute.  Ms. Lang said she believed that adding that definition should not affect anything else.  Chairman Anderson reiterated the proposed amendments to S.B. 339.  Assemblywoman Angle agreed.

 

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee that S.B. 339 received a joint-referral to the Assembly Committee on Education; it was possible there would be problems with the bill, since the Committee on Education might not have enough time to work on it.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said she was still concerned whether S.B. 339 was the “right way to go”; she hoped the committee was not making a mistake.

 

Chairman Anderson said computers made information readily available and consistently changeable.  Chairman Anderson believed many had forgotten that the real purpose of schools was for the best interest of the children, not as holding pens or concentration camps.  Because of the uncooperative nature of some schools, the FERPA law was put into place.  Chairman Anderson had a certain level of confidence in S.B. 339 if the process was not disruptive to the regular school day.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter said he did not understand why the police department would need the attendance records.  Captain Nadeau said it was to verify who the kids were and their location during the time of a crime or incident.  Juvenile Parole and Probation used the attendance records for their recommendations to the courts. 

 

Chairman Anderson said he believed the federal government would be giving the police the power to accomplish this; that did not mean the state had to enact similar legislation.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if there might be a circumstance where the issue of attendance could be used to bind a child over as an adult.  Were there any constitutional problems regarding right to counsel or Miranda warnings.  Captain Nadeau said attendance could be used as an alibi.  The directory information could help identify a suspect and make contact with the suspect and his parents; that was the original intent of the bill resulting in a speedier investigation.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if it was an incriminating factor, did it require constitutional protection.  Chairman Anderson said the process could be handled with probable cause and a search warrant.  S.B. 339 provided the opportunity to speed the process.  Captain Nadeau said since it was all part of the investigation, it could be challenged by the defense or the criminal bar.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if the information could be used as an element to develop probable cause.  Captain Nadeau said the information would be used to “move toward” probable cause, but would not constitute probable cause.  

 

Assemblyman Collins verified that S.B. 339 only allowed the release of information for a juvenile who might be a suspect in a crime.

 

Chairman Anderson said the last item on the work session document (Exhibit C) was S.B. 547; no action was taken.

 

Senate Bill 547:  Makes various changes pertaining to litigation involving prisoners. (BDR 2-478)

 

Assemblyman Brower asked that the committee consider S.B. 488.  He said it was a tough issue and deserved more discussion and deliberation.

 

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)

 

Chairman Anderson questioned whether it would be in the best interest of the state to obligate the tobacco companies to produce the dollars to pledge to the bonds.  The secondary question was whether there would be a shortfall in monies to pay off the bonds, thus affecting the Millennium Scholarships and other programs. 

 

Assemblyman Brower said the only way the idea put forth by the State Treasurer would not work was if tobacco sales fell drastically in the next few years.  Mr. Brower suggested sending S.B. 488 to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley agreed with Assemblyman Brower.  She believed if S.B. 488 were to be passed, Nevada might lose money in a time where the General Fund did not have money to supplement the programs.  She said she felt more study was needed; she was not comfortable “taking a chance.”

 

Assemblywoman McClain said the problem with studying the issue too long was that Nevada would lose the window of opportunity.  Other states were taking advantage of this opportunity; only so many of those type of bonds could be sold.

 

Assemblywoman Angle said she was comfortable with the bill based on the facts presented by Mr. Krolicki. 

 

Assemblyman Collins said he liked the idea of “cash in hand,” but must not have understood the issues involved in the tobacco settlement.  Those companies sell more than just tobacco; the size of the settlements reflected their financial status.  But, since the future could not be projected, Assemblyman Collins said he did not support the bill.

 

Assemblyman Nolan said he supported the bill, as the intent was to maintain the funding of the programs established.  He believed the Treasurer had demonstrated thorough research, including potential pitfalls that might lie ahead.  Assemblyman Nolan said S.B. 488 was a good protective measure.

 

Chairman Anderson said he believed the committee would like more information but there was only 12 hours to meet the current deadline to pass the bill out of committee.  Mr. Krolicki’s solution was knowledgeable, workable, and could be accomplished, but the Chair did not believe it was good public policy and he had not reached a comfort level with the issue.  Chairman Anderson said he would exercise the prerogative of the Chair and not take a motion on the bill.  Perhaps Mr. Krolicki could convince the Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics to allow a future study to bring it back to the 72^nd Session in 2003.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera asked what was the window of opportunity. Every study did not need to take two years; a one-year study could be reported to the commission.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter said he did not support the bill.  There was no question that people would continue to smoke; that was not a consideration. 

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto said she did not understand all the ramifications well enough to pass the legislation.

 

Chairman Anderson asked if there were any other bills to be considered.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson asked the committee to consider S.B. 19.

 

Senate Bill 19:  Provides that person who repairs appliances and electronics has lien for work performed and materials furnished. (BDR 9-171)

 

Chairman Anderson said there were unresolved issues.  Senator Washington testified but the bill requester never showed up.  Assemblyman Gustavson said he was concerned for those who had equipment sitting in warehouses, unable to move it, and the investment they represented.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO DO PASS AND RE-REFER S.B. 488 TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

 

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 488 was not an exempt bill; the bill could be moved out of committee but by doing so would not guarantee that it would be kept alive.

 

Brian Krolicki, State Treasurer, said it had been indicated to him that if S.B. 488 was moved out of committee, it would be made exempt. It had already been referred by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, so it would be kept alive and it would be made exempt.

 

Chairman Anderson asked about the fiscal impact.  Mr. Krolicki said he believed the cost associated with the issuance of the bonds could make it exempt.  Chairman Anderson said without a floor session, that was a false hope.  Mr. Krolicki said he “would appreciate the opportunity for false hope.”   Chairman Anderson asked to see the actual bill and the bill history.

 

Assemblywoman Angle asked the committee to consider S.B. 258.

 

Senate Bill 258:  Makes various changes concerning tobacco. (BDR 15-1299)

 

Chairman Anderson said S.B. 258 would not be considered.

 

Chairman Anderson read the bill history of S.B. 488.  Chairman Anderson verified that on May 14, 2001, S.B. 488 had been referred without recommendation by the Committee of Government Affairs to the Committee of Ways and Means, after it had been reviewed by the Committee on Judiciary.  Chairman Anderson said the committee could send the bill “out the door” without recommendation based on what the Committee on Government Affairs had done.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley said she believed that unless the bill was exempt, it could not be re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.  Chairman Anderson agreed with Assemblywoman Buckley.  Chairman Anderson was informed by legal counsel that the Committee on Ways and Means would decide whether a bill was exempt when they got it.   Chairman Anderson did not advise taking action.  Mr. Krolicki said, “For $1 billion it was well worth it.” 

 

Chairman Anderson entertained a motion without recommendation for S.B. 488.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO RE-REFER S.B. 488 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.

 

Assemblyman Brower concurred there was no harm in letting the budget committee take a look at S.B. 488.  Chairman Anderson said he believed “it was a bad deal.”

 

            MOTION PASSED 9-5 WITH MS. BUCKLEY, MR. COLLINS, MRS. KOIVISTO, MR. MANENDO, AND CHAIRMAN ANDERSON VOTING NO.

 

Assemblyman Collins asked the committee to consider S.B. 254.

 

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)

 

Assemblyman Collins asked if anyone was going to execution in the next two years. Chairman Anderson said there had been testimony of two possibilities.  Circumstances were different since the Senate heard the bill.

 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

 

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cindy Clampitt

Recording Committee Secretary

 

 

Deborah Rengler

Transcribing Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

DATE: