MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 15, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Thursday, February 15, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Barbara Buckley (Excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker Emeritus Joseph Dini
Senator Mark Amodei
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Todd L. Torvinen, Legislative Representative, State Bar of Nevada
Ann Price McCarthy, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Valerie Cooney, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Elana L. Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Family Support Division, Clark County District Attorney
Jan Gilbert, Legislative Representative, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Brian Hutchins, Private Citizen
Ronald R. Pacheco, Private Citizen
Sandra-Mae Pickens, Attorney, Carson City, Nevada
Charles S. Zumpft, City Attorney, City of Yerington, Nevada
Douglas Homestead, Mayor, City of Yerington, Nevada
Thomas J. Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities
LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, Lyon County Board of Commissioners, Lyon County, Nevada
Mary Walker, Legislative Representative, Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County, Nevada
Andrew List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties
Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County Sheriffs Department, Douglas County, Nevada
Jim Nadeau, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Sheriffs Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Ron Bushy, Jail Sergeant, Douglas County Sheriffs Department, Douglas County, Nevada
Willi Baer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southern Nevada
Larry Singer, Past Chairman, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southern Nevada
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and noted there was a quorum present. Chairman Anderson advised the committee he received a request from Judge McGee of Washoe County to clarify some problems he identified in the National Adoptive Safe Families Act. Chairman Anderson noted the committee still had several Bill Draft Requests (BDR) available and asked if the committee felt it should use one of its BDRs to address Judge McGee’s concerns.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO REQUEST A BDR TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF JUDGE MCGEE REGARDING THE FEDERAL ADOPTIVE SAFE FAMILY ACT.
ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson made the committee aware of several reports he had received. Those reports dealt with domestic violence in Nevada, assessments charged to public utilities for travel expenses relating to appearances at federal regulatory agencies, and an integrated permanency planning project dealing with the overall problems relative to child behavior and foster parent programs. Chairman Anderson advised that any committee member who was interested and wished to receive a copy of these reports should contact his secretary for a copy.
Chairman Anderson noted the presence of Speaker Emeritus Dini, Senator Amodei, and the Sheriff of Lyon County. Chairman Anderson then opened the hearing on A.B. 37.
Assembly Bill No. 37: Increases maximum monthly amount that parent may be required to pay for support of child. (BDR 11-1051)
A copy of a letter dated February 8, 2001 to Chairman Anderson from Erika L. Smith regarding A.B. 37 was entered as Exhibit C.
Todd Torvinen, Legislative Representative, State Bar of Nevada, appeared on behalf of the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Mr. Torvinen advised the committee the State Bar was required by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 125B.070 to make recommendations to proposed changes to formulas contained in that statute. The State Bar could not lobby and Mr. Torvinen appeared before the committee only to explain the recommended changes and the rationale for the change proposed by A.B. 37.
Mr. Torvinen provided the committee with a handout of statistical evidence which supported the report of the State Bar of Nevada regarding modifications to the child support formulas under NRS 125B.070 (Exhibit D). The recommendation of the State Bar was to raise the cap for child support from its current level of $500 to $785. The current cap of $500 was set in 1987 and, due to inflation, in today’s dollars that cap would effectively amount to a little over $300. Wages had also risen over the same time period either at the inflation rate or faster than the inflation rate. Mr. Torvinen provided statistics on inflation and the corresponding adjustment factors from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, western region urban areas. When the adjustment factor was applied to the current cap, an increase of the cap to $784.24 became necessary to keep up with the inflation rate.
Mr. Collins recalled the issue of increasing the child support cap was brought up in previous sessions and noted the courts had the discretion to go above the cap. Mr. Collins asked if the judges were using their discretion to go above the cap in cases in which it was warranted. Chairman Anderson advised that such a question was not properly addressed to Mr. Torvinen due to the neutral position of the State Bar. Mr. Collins inquired if the State Bar had any numbers on how many times judges had gone over the cap. Mr. Torvinen advised there was no information on that subject contained in the State Bar’s report.
Ms. McClain wondered why there was not an inflation clause in the current statute so that an increase in the cap due to inflation would not be necessary every few years. Chairman Anderson observed that inclusion of an inflation clause would be a policy question for the committee to determine.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the State Bar’s report included information on the increase in wages. Mr. Torvinen indicated the State Bar’s report did not contain information on wage increases but reiterated that wages had kept up with or exceeded the inflation rate and offered to supplement the report with that information. Mr. Carpenter indicated he would like to have information on the increase in the minimum wage since the cap was imposed. Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Torvinen provide statistical information to Mr. Anthony.
Mrs. Angle inquired if the statistics provided were for Nevada alone or if they were national statistics. Mr. Torvinen reiterated that the statistics provided were from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, western region, which consisted of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Mrs. Angle asked how the proposed cap of $785 compared to those states. Mr. Torvinen indicated he did not have information on the individual states, but provided the committee with the overall inflation rates for the same years.
Ann Price McCarthy, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, informed the committee that she was also an attorney in private practice focused primarily on family law, but appeared today on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association which supported A.B. 37. Ms. McCarthy pointed out that divorce causes one household with joint incomes to be divided into two households with a single income, making life more expensive for everyone. Daycare had become so costly that the average single mother could not pay her daycare bill on the amount of child support received, and close to 90 percent of custodial parents were mothers. Ms. McCarthy reported only seven other states had a lower child support payment, based on an income level of $48,000 per year, than Nevada. Every state in the United States, except Nevada and three other states, imposed a double-digit support obligation for persons with high incomes. Ms. McCarthy told the committee that in her experience she could not recall a single time when a judge went over the child support cap, even when, in Ms. McCarthy’s opinion, circumstances warranted. Ms. McCarthy further advised the committee of her opinion that the problem with including an automatic inflation clause in the statute was that it would result in an odd amount of money being collected and the child support enforcement system would have a nightmare to deal with.
Mrs. Angle asked how many states had the same child support cap as Nevada. Ms. McCarthy advised that several states were very close to the cap used by Nevada.
Mr. Carpenter recalled Ms. McCarthy had stated there were a lot of people in Nevada who made over $250,000 per year and asked if she had any numbers. Ms. McCarthy advised that the statistics she was referring to were taken from the American Bar Association publication the Family Law Quarterly, Issue No. 34, Spring 2000. However, Ms. McCarthy noted that because of the cap in Nevada it would not matter how much you made over $48,000. Mr. Carpenter was surprised to hear that a judge would not go over the cap even if a person earned $250,000 per year. Ms. McCarthy responded that she could recall case law where the cap was raised for good reasons, but pointed out that the statute which contained the cap was phrased in a way which told the judges the $500 cap was adequate to meet the needs of a child. Accordingly, unless a person could show they had a special needs child, judges were unwilling to go over the cap. It was Ms. McCarthy’s opinion that the current cap was inadequate to meet the needs of a child.
Mr. Brower sought clarification that under the current law a judge could go beyond the cap, but in practice judges were unwilling to do so unless there were extraordinary circumstances. Ms. McCarthy confirmed that Mr. Brower’s understanding was correct. Mr. Brower asserted the point of the bill was not to increase the burden on the parent who paid the support because the formula for calculating support would remain the same, but to increase the maximum if the parent who paid the support should be paying more according to the formula, but was not because of the cap. Ms. McCarthy stated Mr. Brower was absolutely correct and added that raising the cap would only affect people who could, according to the established formula, afford to pay.
Mr. Collins stated he was concerned with the use of the word “adequate” to support raising the cap. Chairman Anderson gave his opinion that the use of words such as “adequate” gave discretion to the judge to aid in making tough choices.
Mr. Manendo asked if a judge currently had the discretion to order an amount of support which was greater than the amount calculated by the percentage formula, assuming it was still under the cap. For example, if, based on the formula, a person should be paying $300 a month, did a judge have the discretion to order that person to pay $500 a month. Ms. McCarthy believed that technically the judge did have that discretion if he made special findings of fact, but, absent such special findings of fact, she felt such an order would be appealed and reversed. Mr. Manendo indicated he had been contacted by people who claimed to make $7 or $8 an hour and had been ordered to pay the cap. Mr. Manendo also felt that a person who could not afford to pay the cap but was ordered to do so, could not afford to appeal that order. Ms. McCarthy responded that she was not aware of a single time when something like the situation described by Mr. Manendo had occurred, unless the obligor was behind in his child support.
Valerie Cooney, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, informed the committee she had never seen a judge go over the cap. Ms. Cooney felt that the cap disproportionately favored the wealthy and the matter was not litigated more aggressively because the cost of litigation would be borne by those who were in need of the support. Ms. Cooney advised that judges apply the cap routinely and were reluctant to go beyond the cap without a clear showing of special needs and an ability to pay. Ms. Cooney informed the committee that there were two single mothers at her place of employment who each paid $950 a month just for childcare and had an annual earning ability of $25,000 to $30,000.
Mr. Carpenter questioned whether the bill, if passed, would affect existing support orders. Ms. Cooney advised that the courts could review support orders every three years or anytime there was a significant change in circumstances. While the bill would not be retroactive in the sense that it would create arrearages, it could be applied to previously existing support orders. Mr. Carpenter expressed concern that the higher cap could be used to force people who really could not afford a higher support obligation to pay more. Ms. Cooney did not believe it would, and advised that the bill only affected those who could afford to pay more but were not paying more because of the cap.
Elana Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Family Support Division, Clark County District Attorney, testified in support of A.B. 37 and reminded the committee that children were expensive. According to the Consumer Price Index, $500 worth of goods and services in 1987 was equivalent to $758 worth of goods and services today and that childcare in Clark County ran about $600 per month. Ms. Hatch advised the committee everyone from high wage earners up to millionaires only paid $500 per month in child support because of the current cap, while a person earning the average wage in Nevada paid $454.92. Only $45 separated what the Nevada average wage earner paid in child support from what the millionaire paid with the $500 cap in place. Ms. Hatch believed there was no equity in this situation and this was not how Nevada should take care of Nevada children. Ms. Hatch informed the committee that, in her experience, she had seen a deviation downward from the cap 99 percent more often than she had seen a deviation upward.
Mr. Carpenter suggested that the amount of support should be based on the amount of wages earned. Ms. Hatch pointed out that higher wage earners had not had an increase in their child support obligation since 1987 since they were at the cap, while the obligation of the lower wage earners increased steadily with an increase in wages. Mr. Carpenter stated it was hard for him to believe that a person making $500,000 a year only paid $500 a month in child support. Ms. Hatch noted that $500 a month was the amount ordered by the courts based on the current law and that requests for a deviation were rarely acted on by the court.
Jan Gilbert, Legislative Representative, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, urged the committee to pass A.B. 37 and felt the bill was long overdue. Ms. Gilbert asked the committee to consider presenting a bill draft request to analyze the cap situation in the future, stating her belief Nevada was one of the few states that had a cap on child support.
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, advised the committee that the Nevada Women’s Lobby was in full support of A.B. 37. Ms. Gang asked the committee to think of the children and their needs when making its decision. She indicated the Nevada Women’s Lobby felt that A.B. 37 alone was not enough and questioned why there was a cap at all.
Chairman Anderson then took testimony from those who wished to speak in opposition to A.B. 37.
Brian Hutchins, private citizen and resident of Carson City, spoke on his own behalf in opposition to A.B 37 (Exhibit E). Mr. Hutchins informed the committee he held joint legal and secondary physical custody of his two daughters. When school was in session, Mr. Hutchins kept his daughters for six days and their mother kept them for eight days. When school was not in session, Mr. Hutchins kept his daughters half of the time. Mr. Hutchins stated each of his daughters had their own room and belongings in his house and he paid the maximum amount of child support, medical insurance and other expenses such as sports. Mr. Hutchins advised he was opposed to A.B. 37 in its current form because the bill did not simply raise the cap for child support from $500 to $785 per month, but it also imposed a 4.3 percent increase per year in the cap since the original law was passed in 1987. Mr. Hutchins stated he did not know of anyone whose income had increased by that amount in that period of time and pointed out that state agencies do not receive an increase in their budgets by merely determining what the increase had been in inflation. Mr. Hutchins further stated the raise in the statutory cap affected only parents with gross incomes over $52,000 and questioned what the real cost was to raise children. Mr. Hutchins felt the proposed cap contradicted state law or policy because the state only paid a total of $400 or $500 a month for a foster child. Further, he felt current statute and A.B. 37 both incorrectly focused the burden for child support only on the gross income of the secondary custodial parent, although support of the children, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 125B.020, was a joint responsibility of the mother and the father. Mr. Hutchins pointed out that the primary custodian received several tax benefits in spite of the fact that the secondary custodian paid support. Mr. Hutchins was informed by his attorney that factors such as relative time spent with the children and relative income of the parents were routinely not considered by the courts.
Mr. Hutchins requested that the current record be supplemented with the significant opposition presented to a proposed increase in the child support cap in 1997. Chairman Anderson advised that every legislative body was entitled to the opportunity to view issues presented to it with a fresh outlook and it was inappropriate to take previous testimony and apply it to the current situation.
Mr. Hutchins concluded by recommending that Subsection 2 of NRS 125B.070 be deleted from the statute and that the committee consider an amendment to that effect.
Mr. Ronald R. Pacheco, private citizen, referred the committee to the comments contained in his letter (Exhibit F). Mr. Pacheco stated by increasing the child support cap to $785 a month, one could presume it cost $1,570 a month to raise a child. That amount would calculate to $339,120 to raise a child to the age of 18 years. Mr. Pacheco advised that the United States government calculated the cost of raising a child to the age of 18 years to be $160,140 for a middle-income family and pointed out the large discrepancy between the two numbers. Mr. Pacheco told the committee that his son stayed with him from Friday to Tuesday of every other week and he contributed to substantial medical expenses for his son. Mr. Pacheco asked that the committee not pass A.B. 37 in its present form.
Mr. Manendo asked what, on average, Mr. Pacheco paid a month in both child support and medical expenses. Mr. Pacheco advised he paid approximately $700 per month because of medical expenses. Mr. Manendo asked Mr. Pacheco if he would share with the committee the amount of his current income. Mr. Pacheco stated his income was approximately $49,000 a year. Chairman Anderson inquired whether medical expenses were part of an employee benefit package or if they were actual out-of-pocket expenses. Mr. Pacheco responded that he paid $140 per month for medical insurance which covered all four of his children.
Sandra-Mae Pickens identified herself for the committee as an attorney who practiced in the area of family law and appeared in order to allow the committee to hear the other side of the story. Ms. Pickens stated she primarily represented men in divorce actions who were typically the non-custodial parent and typically earned over $50,000 to $70,000 a year. Ms. Pickens told the committee that her clients generally had their children 49.99 percent of the time and only one day made the difference between who was determined to be the custodial or the non-custodial parent. Notwithstanding, the non-custodial parent was still required to pay the statutory cap of $500. Ms. Pickens further advised that her clients paid medical premiums and all medical expenses in addition to child support. Ms. Pickens stated the court did not take the relative amount of time each parent spends with the children into consideration and felt the court should look at the relative income of both parents. Ms. Pickens stated she was against A.B. 37 because her clients paid for medical expenses and extracurricular activities in addition to the cap and would continue to do so regardless of the amount of the cap.
Mr. Carpenter restated his understanding that people who made anywhere from $60,000 to $200,000 a year were only required to pay $500 a month in child support. Ms. Pickens confirmed Mr. Carpenter’s understanding and advised that such people often pay for all extracurricular activities, such as sports and dance, and medical insurance, which could cost on average $150 to $300 depending on the type of policy, in addition to child support. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Pickens what she thought her clients paid each month for child support and all other expenses. Ms. Pickens thought it was in the range of $1,000 to $1,500 per month.
Chairman Anderson noted both custodial and non-custodial parents paid for extracurricular activities in order to spend quality time and bond with their child but were not obligated to spend money to do so.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 37 and opened the hearing on A.B. 41.
Assembly Bill No. 41: Authorizes city attorneys to defend person in criminal proceeding under certain circumstances. (BDR 1-380)
Speaker Emeritus Joseph Dini, the sponsor of A.B. 41, brought the bill before the committee at the request of the city of Yerington and the Yerington city attorney. Speaker Emeritus Dini explained that in small communities it was difficult to find qualified candidates for the part-time position of city attorney who were willing to accept a position which did not pay well and limited their private practice. Recently, the city of Yerington hired attorney Chuck Zumpft as its city attorney, but Mr. Zumpft was unaware that he could no longer represent criminal defendants in his private practice in another county. Speaker Emeritus Dini advised that A.B. 41 attempted to correct this situation by allowing a city attorney to take up criminal proceedings outside the jurisdiction of that city.
Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senate District, co-sponsor of the bill, indicated that he had discussed technical “tune-up” language that would be submitted in amendment form.
Charles Zumpft, attorney in private practice in Minden, Nevada, and city attorney for the city of Yerington, informed the committee that, although everyone in the state of Nevada was charged with knowing the laws of the state, he was unaware when he took the role of city attorney that he would no longer be able to defend criminals anywhere in the state of Nevada. Mr. Zumpft stated the contract with the city of Yerington was now less attractive because his income base had been reduced and he only worked in Yerington two or three mornings a month to prosecute misdemeanor criminal defendants. Mr. Zumpft felt the current law effectively shrank the pool of interested applicants for part‑time city attorney positions and pointed out that this issue affected small communities with finite budgets far more than it affected individual attorneys. Cities and counties needed the ability to have as great a selection of candidates for open positions as possible, but that was prevented by the current law.
Mr. Zumpft advised the committee that he sent the Bill Draft Request to all of the district attorneys and city attorneys in the state of Nevada for their input and received only two responses (Exhibit G). Mr. Zumpft thought the issue was whether an attorney should be able to walk both sides of the fence and indicated his opinion that an attorney who knows how to walk both sides of the fence, was a more knowledgeable attorney, which would benefit his clients. Mr. Zumpft indicated the experience he brought to the city of Yerington as a criminal defense attorney helped him be a better prosecutor. Mr. Zumpft pointed out that currently, under other provisions of the law, it was possible for him to represent a criminal defendant in certain circumstances and accordingly felt that the law already provided that it was acceptable for an attorney to walk both sides of the fence.
Mr. Zumpft noted there was potential for conflict under A.B. 41 as currently written and suggested the word “jurisdiction” on line 17 of the bill should be changed to the word “county,” to prevent a person from prosecuting criminal defendants in justice court, for example, and representing criminal defendants in district court of the same county. Mr. Zumpft felt it was inappropriate for a city attorney to use the police department as a tool when prosecuting and then take an adverse position against the same police department when defending.
Mr. Zumpft reiterated his belief that this was an issue impacting cities and A.B. 41 would give cities a larger pool from which to select job applicants and felt the focus should be on the needs of the cities and the counties.
Chairman Anderson indicated he would look at the suggested changes to the bill.
Mr. Nolan inquired how a city attorney would deal with a conflict of interest created by an existing client who committed an offense within the city attorney’s jurisdiction. Mr. Zumpft responded that such a conflict would be handled by asking the court to appoint a temporary prosecutor to prosecute that particular case.
Mr. Zumpft advised the committee of another suggested change to the language of A.B. 41. At line 16, the words “for compensation” did not serve a purpose, in Mr. Zumpft’s opinion, and he suggested they be deleted.
Chairman Anderson indicated the suggested change would be discussed with legislative counsel. Ms. Lang, committee counsel, advised that the language was added for clarification because currently a city attorney could not accept compensation for defending a person in a criminal proceeding.
Chairman Anderson inquired about the restriction of practice from an entire county when the county may have multiple communities. Mr. Zumpft responded that neither he nor any member of his firm would engage in criminal defense in that county.
Douglas Homestead, Mayor, City of Yerington, Nevada, told the committee the city of Yerington could not find a local attorney to fill the position of city attorney for the amount of salary that was available. Mr. Zumpft, who currently holds the position, took the position without realizing it would restrict his private practice. Should Mr. Zumpft leave the position because of this restriction, the budget for the city of Yerington could not support the salary required by other attorneys. Mr. Homestead felt passing A.B. 41 would provide relief to small cities by allowing attorneys to contract with them at a lower fee. Mr. Homestead recommended the committee pass A.B. 41 with the suggested changes.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the city of Yerington would be required to amend its charter if A.B. 41 was passed. Mr. Homestead replied that he did not know but he did not think an amendment of the city’s charter would be required.
Thomas Grady, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, informed the committee that A.B. 41 had been provided to all of the League’s entities without reply. Accordingly, the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities assumed that none of the entities they represented had a problem with the bill and supported A.B. 41 as presented and as suggested to be amended.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 41 and opened the hearing on A.B. 55.
Assembly Bill No. 55: Eliminates requirement that county jail be located at county seat. (BDR 16-795)
Speaker Emeritus Dini, Assembly District 38, spoke in favor of A.B. 55, which was requested by the Lyon County commissioners. Speaker Emeritus Dini explained that Yerington was the county seat of Lyon County and thus the county jail was located in Yerington, while the population center of Lyon County was in Fernley, Silver Springs and Dayton. Current statute provided the county jail must be located at the county seat, and A.B. 55 attempted to give the county commissioners the permission to build a jail outside the county seat in order to accommodate the population center of Lyon County.
LeRoy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner, Lyon County, Nevada, testified that A.B. 55 was requested by Lyon County because of the significant growth it was experiencing. The jail complex in Yerington was currently at capacity and despite the use of video arraignment, every prisoner must be transported from Dayton, Silver Springs and Fernley to the jail in Yerington and then returned to the justice court in those townships for hearing and trial. This transportation requirement put a tremendous burden on the vehicles and resources of the Lyon County jail and the county would like the flexibility to build a jail where they needed one.
Senator Amodei, Capital Senate District, advised the committee of suggested changes to the bill. There was a concern expressed by counties which had branch jails relating to the language at line 21, page 1, which stated “… in which a branch county jail is located must ….” Senator Amodei indicated the proposed amendment was simply to change the word “must” to the word “may.” The purpose of the proposed amendment was to allow operational decisions to continue to be made by county sheriffs in jurisdictions which had both branch jails and main jails by not making the language regarding where detainees were housed mandatory but making the language permissive.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether the existing law currently provided the judge with the discretion to make those decisions. Senator Amodei confirmed the intent of the bill was to maintain the existing discretion held by county sheriffs in jurisdictions which had both branch jails and main jails in terms of where prisoners were housed. Chairman Anderson felt that by replacing the word “must” with the word “may,” the county commission would be placed on an equal basis with that of a judge. He indicated he would have legal counsel look into the effect of the proposed change.
Mr. Carpenter expressed concern regarding the operational aspect of maintaining the sheriff in one community and the jail in another community, and felt that once a county moved one facility away from the county seat, other county facilities would follow. Mr. Goodman explained that Lyon County was unique because of its demographics and geography in which 71 percent of the population lived outside of the county seat, creating a huge expense in transporting people from the population areas to the county jail. Mr. Goodman acknowledged that most other rural counties were not faced with the same problem that Lyon County was faced with, but advised that Lyon County continued to experience tremendous growth, which only heightened its prisoner transportation burden and expense.
Mr. Carpenter felt the issue was not unique to Lyon County and commented that all prisoners were transported to Elko from all parts of the county. Mr. Goodman responded that Lyon County used video arraignment but prisoners were required to be transported back to the justice courts in other parts of the county for hearings and trial.
Ms. McClain suggested that any amendment to the bill should specify that prisoners could be held in either the county jail or a branch jail. Chairman Anderson advised that bill drafting would take a look at the proposed amendment and determine what was necessary.
Speaker Emeritus Dini clarified that Lyon County was not trying to interfere with the operations in any other county, it was simply trying to solve some of its own problems.
Mrs. Angle believed that other counties were faced with the same type of problems and questioned whether Speaker Emeritus Dini had spoken with representatives from any other counties about their desire to locate the county jail outside the county seat. Mrs. Angle also expressed concern regarding moving county facilities outside of the county seat. Speaker Emeritus Dini felt it was expensive and difficult to move a county seat and did not believe that the county seat would be relocated because a jail was built in another community. Senator Amodei responded the bill was not drafted to be a Lyon County specific application and reiterated it was not the intent of the bill to curtail the existing operational discretion used by sheriffs in other counties. Senator Amodei further noted the bill was not the first step toward moving the county seat of Lyon County out of Yerington.
Chairman Anderson asked that it be noted for the record that it was the intention of Sheriff Smith of Lyon County to speak in favor of A.B. 55 but he was called away and was unable to do so.
Mary Walker, Legislative Representative, Carson City, Douglas County, Lyon County, Nevada, spoke in support of A.B. 55. Ms. Walker had not discussed the bill with Nye County or Elko County but had discussed the bill with the Nevada Association of Counties.
Andrew List, Policy and Research Coordinator, Nevada Association of Counties, indicated the county commissioners he spoke with were in full support of A.B. 55. Mr. List felt the bill was about providing the county commissioners with the flexibility to do what was best for the people who elected them and keep the cost involved in transporting prisoners to a minimum.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. List if he supported the change in wording from “must” to “may.” Mr. List indicated he did.
Chairman Anderson noted that Bernie Curtis, Douglas County Commissioner, was present in support of A.B. 55 but did not wish to speak.
Ron Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, Nevada, indicated he was not in favor of A.B. 55 due to Subsection 2 of the bill, which limited where inmates could be housed once convicted. Sheriff Pierini felt the entire section should be reviewed to ensure the sheriff had the ability to place inmates where he felt it was necessary. Chairman Anderson noted Sheriff Pierini’s concerns with subsection 2 were beyond the original intent of the bill and the proposed amendment. Sheriff Pierini reiterated his opinion that the sheriff had to have discretion to place inmates where necessary.
Mr. Collins indicated his belief that Clark County used interlocal agreements which allowed the Clark County jail to overflow into facilities in North Las Vegas and Henderson. Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Representative, Washoe County Sheriffs Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, responded that Las Vegas Metro contracted with a variety of agencies in order to have sufficient beds to handle its inmate population until its new facility was completed.
Captain Nadeau felt the existing language was confusing to sheriffs and new language might help to solve the confusion. He indicated the most important issue was that the sheriff retained the discretion to move inmates from branch jail to branch jail in order to best manage the inmate population. Captain Nadeau advised that the Washoe County Sheriffs Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association did not want to interfere with the progress of the bill, but simply wanted to express its concerns regarding the need for discretion on the part of the sheriff.
Chairman Anderson sought clarification from Sheriff Pierini regarding the Douglas County Sheriff’s position on A.B. 55. Sheriff Pierini indicated he was in favor of the intent of the bill but was concerned about the language in Subsection 2.
Ron Bushy, Jail Sergeant, Douglas County Sheriffs Department, indicated that he ran the jail on a day-to-day basis and felt that it was imperative that the sheriff had the opportunity and ability to move inmates when and where they felt it necessary. Chairman Anderson confirmed that Mr. Bushy was not opposed to the bill but to the proposed change of the wording from “must” to “may.”
Chairman Anderson brought A.B. 55 back to committee and indicated the committee had a choice to move the bill as it was or amend the bill by putting it to a work session.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED DO PASS A.B. 55.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Carpenter felt the amendment issue should be dealt with then rather than pass the bill and deal with the amendment later.
Mr. Nolan noted the committee had the option to amend and do pass if the authors of the bill felt comfortable with the proposed changes in language.
Mr. Gustavson agreed the bill should be amended now to clarify the language, based on testimony heard by the committee.
Chairman Anderson asked the maker of the motion and the second to withdraw the motion if they were in agreement with the comments provided by their colleagues.
Mr. Collins indicated he was not inclined to support an amendment from “must” to “may” but would withdraw the motion if the Chairman requested he do so.
Chairman Anderson put the motion to a vote.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Chairman Anderson indicated A.B. 55 would be moved to a work session and opened the hearing on A.B. 69.
Assembly Bill No. 69: Imposes surcharge on payment of child support collected by district attorney to be used for programs for mentoring of children. (BDR 11-110)
Willi Baer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southern Nevada, explained that the idea for A.B. 69 resulted from the fact that noncustodial parents who paid child support through the district attorneys office did so because the custodial parent was forced to file a complaint in order to receive support. This situation left many children without a positive adult role model in their lives and the cost to provide children with a professional mentor was approximately $1,500. Ms. Baer referred to an independent study which revealed that children who were mentored through the Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) program were 46 percent less likely to use drugs, 27 percent less likely to use alcohol and 33 percent less likely to engage in violence (Exhibit H). Funding would enable BBBS to recruit, screen and match many more children in need of a mentor.
Larry Singer, Past Chairman, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southern Nevada, told the committee he was advised there were some very complex issues attached to A.B. 69 and therefore withdrew the request for the bill. Mr. Singer stated the anticipated funding generated by A.B. 69 was approximately $400,000 and asked the committee for suggestions or recommendations on how to proceed to fund the program from another source.
Mr. Collins suggested BBBS ask counties to require an additional penalty on employees whose wages were garnished.
Chairman Anderson noted his belief that the intent in withdrawing A.B. 69 at this time was to allow the bill to come before a money committee and request funds for the program without the legislation proposed in A.B. 69.
Ms. McClain felt that since the bill was jointly referred to Ways and Means, all this committee needed to do was amend the bill to a request for an appropriation.
Mr. Claborn inquired how the monies would be collected and distributed and who would decide which organizations received the money. Ms. Baer indicated she was looking for direction from the committee on how to collect the money and funds received would be put to the various BBBS program costs and expenses. Ms. Baer advised that BBBS was governed by a board of directors who made decisions about what funding each program received.
Mr. Singer stated the district attorneys offices of both Washoe County and Clark County indicated their willingness to collect and administer funds if they were directed to do so.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged there were others present who wanted to testify both in favor and against A.B. 69 and, in light of the request to withdraw the bill, advised those persons to leave a card with the secretary and he would correspond with those persons regarding alternate funding sources.
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, asked to be notified of the committee’s intent on proceeding and indicated she would hold her comments until that time. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lusk to relay to the committee why Nevada Concerned Citizens was not in favor of A.B. 69. Ms. Lusk felt strongly that if a non-custodial parent could afford to pay out another dollar, the dollar should go to the custodial parent.
Elana Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Family Support Division, Clark County District Attorney, told the committee both the Clark County District Attorney and the Washoe County District Attorney absolutely supported mentoring for children because they believed mentoring made a difference. However, Ms. Hatch stated it would cost $90,000 to do one mailing to involved parties in order to notify them of a surcharge proposed by A.B. 69 and if hearings were thereafter requested the cost would be significantly increased. Ms. Hatch could not support A.B. 69 because of the cost, but supported the BBBS program and their efforts to provide mentoring to Nevada children.
Chairman Anderson indicated he would not entertain a motion on A.B. 69 at this time.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:58 a.m.
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: