MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 21, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Wednesday, February 21, 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
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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stephen Dahl, Justice of the Peace, North Las Vegas Justice Court, North Las Vegas, NV
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV)
Gemma Waldron, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Reno, NV
Nancy E. Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Reno, NV
Suzanne Ramos, Victim Advocate, Office of the Reno City Attorney, Reno, NV
Bob Crowell, Attorney from Crowell, Susich, Owen & Tackes, Ltd., Carson City, NV, representing the Nevada Judges Association
John Tatro, Justice of the Peace, Carson City Justice/Municipal Court, Carson City, NV representing the Nevada Judges Association
John Williams, Fines Enforcement Supervisor, Las Vegas Municipal Court, Las Vegas, NV
Sandie Stiles, City of North Las Vegas, Municipal Court, Judicial Enforcement Division, North Las Vegas, NV
Christy Magers, Court Administrator, Reno Municipal Court, Reno, NV
Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, Dayton, NV
Chairman Anderson stated that a quorum was present and continued his opening remarks. He opened the hearing on A.B. 82.
Assembly Bill No. 82: Makes various changes concerning orders to protect person from crime of stalking, aggravated stalking and harassment. (BDR 15-35)
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Koivisto, District 14, Northeast Las Vegas, the sponsor of the bill, to approach the witness table. The impetus for A.B. 82 was that the courts in southern Nevada started charging for Temporary Protective Orders (TPOs). Assemblywoman Koivisto related that in cases of domestic violence, most women who needed TPOs had left the situation without the ability to pay. When the court started charging for TPOs, it was reported that the number of TPOs requested dropped dramatically.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Koivisto if Judge Dahl was the next witness she wished to call to testify. He verified the amendment dated February 21, 2001 (Exhibit C) was the correct amendment to be discussed.
Judge Stephen Dahl, Justice of the Peace, North Las Vegas Justice Court, testified from Las Vegas via video conferencing in favor of A.B. 82. The TPOs had been handled two ways in Las Vegas: (1) The Las Vegas Justice Court charged fees for TPOs for stalking and harassment. (2) North Las Vegas and Henderson courts did not charge fees for TPOs. The confusion came from the fact that TPOs were listed in the civil jurisdiction of justice court, but the enforcement and implementation appeared in the criminal section. Judge Dahl believed A.B. 82 was a quazi-criminal bill and that victims should not be charged to obtain protection from crimes. TPOs might be the first line of defense victims had because law enforcement could not watch victim’s homes until a drive-by occurred, could not wait in a person’s home for a threatening phone call, and could not follow someone around town waiting for them to harass a person at a stop signal. As far as treating it as a criminal matter, violation of a TPO was a crime. Other civil matters did not criminalize the violation of a civil order, but in these cases, if someone violated a TPO, it was a gross misdemeanor. It was Judge Dahl’s conclusion that those matters needed to be dealt with on the criminal end, not on the civil end.
Chairman Anderson asked if Judge Dahl had an opportunity to review the February 21 amendment? Judge Dahl said he had looked at the amendment. In his court, most of those cases were resolved with the issuance of a 30-day TPO. The TPO was served, it conveyed that the person was serious, they would be left alone, and that ended the process. It was not a burdensome process for the court, but Judge Dahl believed that fees should be charged for the TPOs, just not to the victims.
Chairman Anderson asked why not just say that there would be no charges for TPOs, rather than seemingly leave an “open door” for one justice court jurisdiction in the south. Judge Dahl replied justice courts were only allowed to do what the legislature told them they could do. When the legislature told justice courts they could do this, they recorded the legislation in both the civil and criminal sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Removing the TPOs out of the civil jurisdiction could solve the problem, while it left the procedure to be handled through the criminal jurisdiction. He noted there was also an “escape clause” mentioned in Section 1, Subsection 1, Line 7 and 8 allowing that “the court may reduce them or waive them, as justice may require.” Also, it should be noted that fees would only be assessed after a hearing, which would eliminate the problem of assessing fees for someone who did not show up in court.
Chairman Anderson was reminded by legal counsel that the constitutional issue of Article 6 section 16 required fees for all civil cases. Judge Dahl reiterated that was why he had asked that TPOs be removed from civil cases (NRS 4.370 (1)(p)) and only left in the criminal jurisdiction (NRS 200.591).
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if a problem could develop with the Family Division of District Court when a TPO was issued in their civil jurisdiction. Judge Dahl reported the justice courts in Clark County only handled stalking and harassments. The Family Division was a district court, and if one of their civil orders was violated it would only be a misdemeanor. If an order from the justice court was violated, it was a gross-misdemeanor. It was his belief that these two matters should not be combined; they were different courts with different penalties and different procedures.
Chairman Anderson thanked Judge Dahl for taking time from his schedule to testify.
Ms. Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, supported the intent of A.B. 82.
Ms. Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, was in favor of A.B. 82 with the proposed amendment (Exhibit C) dated February 21, 2001. It was her suggestion that Subsection 3 be removed due to the fact that court clerks in Reno Justice Court simply handed out forms, followed procedures in Subsection 2 of A.B. 82, and felt that they were not qualified to do anything more. Consequently, Reno Justice Court did not charge for TPOs and Washoe County did not charge for serving the TPOs.
Ms. Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, read a letter from the Attorney General’s Office (Exhibit D) that said the Attorney General’s Office strongly supported A.B. 82, which provided for the deferral of fees and costs when they applied for a TPO from stalking and/or harassment under NRS 200.591. As chair of the statewide Domestic Violence Prevention Council, the Attorney General wished to convey the strong support of the council for A.B. 82.
The proposed legislation was also necessary to satisfy requirements for federal grant funding through Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for the state of Nevada. These grant funds were used to fund a range of services, projects and initiatives designed to combat domestic violence in our state. To continue receiving grant funds under VAWA, “Nevada must certify that its laws do not require that the victim bear the costs associated with the filing, issuance, registration, or service of a protection order, petition for a protection order, or witness subpoena, whether issued inside or outside the State, tribal or local jurisdiction”. Ms. Hart also reported there was concern that the “deferral” language might not satisfy the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice since it did not actually “waive” fees and costs. It was suggested that the present language might be submitted to the Department of Justice to see if something more would be required.
Ms. Hart also submitted to the committee a second letter from the Office of the Attorney General from M. Veronica Frenkel. This letter (Exhibit E) was not discussed during the hearing, but also expressed support for A.B. 82.
Assemblyman Brower asked if there were any present to testify in opposition of A.B. 82. There being none, he said he would reserve his comments for later.
Ms. Suzanne Ramos, Victims Advocate, Office of the Reno City Attorney, reported she assisted victims in domestic violence cases, stalking, harassment, and destruction of property. As a member of the statewide Domestic Violence Prevention Council, she supported A.B. 82. Ms. Ramos believed that it was crucial for the victims to not be charged.
Chairman Anderson inquired if there were any other testimony or questions on A.B. 82 and/or its proposed amendment to remove Subsection 3 on Page 2 of the bill. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 82.
Assemblywoman McClain moved to amend do pass A.B. 82.
Assemblyman Nolan seconded the motion.
Assemblywoman Buckley said she was unaware that charging fees for TPOs would jeopardize the VAWA funds, and because her employer, Clark County Legal Services, just began receiving VAWA funds to help domestic violence victims, she would abstain from voting.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY ABSTAINING.
Chairman Anderson assigned the presentation of A.B. 82 to Assemblywoman Koivisto, and he or Vice Chairman Manendo would take care of the amendment.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 103 on behalf of the Administrative Offices of the Court (AOC), sponsored by the Committee on Judiciary.
Assembly Bill No. 103: Makes various changes to fees charged by justice of the peace and municipal court judge. (BDR 1-526)
Mr. Bob Crowell said the Nevada Judges Association through the AOC supported A.B. 103, which changed the fee for celebrating marriages and added a fee for renewing a civil judgment.
Judge John Tatro, Justice of the Peace, Carson City, reported that raising the fee on marriages was mainly for the rural court judges. The current fee had not been raised for ten years. The judges were not trying to get rich, just cover their expenses. A civil judgment was good for six years. If renewed, it would take the same amount of time and the same procedure as the original filing. The fee would be used compensate the court for that process.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification on the renewal of civil judgments. Judge Tatro said that 90 percent of civil judgments were formal civil actions and a default judgment was entered. Then there would be an attempt to collect by a collection agency, which continued for six years. Just prior to the termination of the six years, there would be a filing for a renewal of the judgment if it were not paid. During the collection period, the judgment was maintained on the books as an open file, was being considered an active file and could not be archived.
Chairman Anderson asked if this then became a housekeeping procedure that you would be asking to be paid for. Judge Tatro replied if the case were paid within the initial six years, the case would be closed and the file could be archived. This request would cover storage fees, files, actual filing, and the work to process the judgment just like a new filing. Even the $10 fee might not cover the actual costs, but it was an effort to compensate for the time spent.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked, in regards to the marriage fee, if the Justice of the Peace received the fee; he thought the fee went to the court. Judge Tatro replied that it depended on the jurisdiction. In Carson City, the fee went to the court between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. After 5 p.m. or on the weekends, the fee went to the judges. Judge Tatro verified that the fee would go to the judge in most cases. In some counties the fee went to the judge, in others it went to the court.
Assemblyman Carpenter had a problem with raising the fee to get married. It was his understanding that in most places the judges did not travel too far. In Elko, participants come to the courthouse to get the license and the justice of the peace would be right there. Even if you took the license back to Wendover or Jackpot, the justice of the peace would be right there, also. In most cases, they also got “tipped” well. Judge Tatro said he did not accept tips, and he had traveled to perform weddings. “In court” weddings were very different than “at home” weddings, which experienced a lot of delays.
Assemblywoman Buckley recalled hearing a bill in the Seventieth Legislative Session that allowed justices of the peace to accept tips or gifts; did that bill pass and how did it impact this issue.
Judge Tatro reported bill had passed, which applied to commissioner townships. The way the law had been, it prevented the justice of the peace from accepting anything, even sitting down to dinner with the guests. That would not affect the proposed fee in A.B. 103.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated that a justice of the peace could accept gratuities and that should be considered in the debate for the whole picture. Judge Tatro replied, “I suppose.”
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any others who wished to testify on A.B. 103. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 103.
Chairman Anderson said that other questions existed and research was needed for A.B. 103. The committee would retain A.B. 103.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 106.
Assembly Bill No. 106: Makes various changes to provisions governing collection of delinquent fines, administrative assessments, fees and restitution. (BDR 14-524)
Chairman Anderson said that this was one of his favorite topics. This would be a revisit for him of a large question from the Seventieth Legislative Session. He had participated in an interim study between 1997 and 1999, and several members of the Judiciary Committee had sat on that interim committee, with Ms. Lang as the legal counsel. Mr. Anderson noted there were proposed amendments.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged John Williams, Sandie Stiles and Christy Magers, who approached the witness table to testify.
Mr. Williams began his testimony with a bit of history as outlined in Exhibit F. This bill would amend legislation to NRS 176.064, which provided incentive to courts, state, city and counties to collect fines and fees. A.B. 106 would amend four areas as follows:
Mr. Williams also said that since 1997 when NRS 176.064 was passed, the Las Vegas Municipal Court had enhanced collection efforts by $6.8 million on 53,628 cases of which 21,236 were closed. In fiscal year 2000, the Fines Enforcement Unit of Las Vegas Municipal Court took an average of 30,000 inquiry calls from delinquent defendants, made 19,000 calls to delinquent defendants, saw an additional 3,000 delinquent defendants at the front counter of the court, and cleared 6,500 warrants in the one year.
Assemblywoman Buckley was in favor of making those delinquent pay their bills, but she was very opposed to putting people on the “debt treadmill,” which was what most collection companies did. She said that she would not sanction municipalities engaging in that activity. Had it been considered to contract a collection agency and give the agency a percentage of the fines?
Mr. Williams reported that the Las Vegas Municipal Court had two programs in existence. The first was an in-house enforcement unit that gave delinquent defendants every opportunity to pay fines and fees through an installment program. After they are 12 to 15 months delinquent, fines would be sent to a collection agency that acted as an extension of the court enforcement unit, first party receivable management. This agency would be paid a 23 percent rate that came out of the fines and fees. This year that percentage would amount to over $250,000 paid out by the court and the city to the collection agency. Because the courts were only allowed to pay agencies the amount of the fee imposed by the court (5 to 10 percent), the court could not turn it over to a third party process except to be placed into the credit bureau.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked for clarification regarding the $250,000 fees paid. Mr. Williams said the $250,000 was under the first party receivable management where the agency operated as an extension of the enforcement unit. The agency would be paid 23 percent out of what would be collected.
Chairman Anderson clarified that it would not have been an expense if the fines had not been collected.
Mr. Williams said that the collection agency paid all the money to the court and then the court returned their fee.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if, even though they acted as an extension of the enforcement unit, the collection agency followed the Fair Debt Collection Practices.
Chairman Anderson asked if delinquency was assessed on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Williams said that delinquency was based on the date the misdemeanor offense went into warrant – one time. Chairman Anderson replied then each time it would go to warrant, it would be assessed as delinquent. Mr. Williams replied, “Correct, but it would never exceed the amount of the original delinquency.”
Assemblyman Carpenter asked how much money was needed to develop and implement a collection program. Mr. Williams said currently the statute allowed for the money to be used to develop and implement a collection program, but it also said that the courts could only pay the collection agency the amount of the fee imposed by the court. So the money was being used for two separate things. In order to operate the enforcement unit, it had cost $500,000 a year. This year the unit could collect $2.5 million and the first party receivable management could add another million dollars to that. So in order to enforce the orders of the court and maintain the credibility of the court order, it had been a very expensive proposition.
Mr. Williams went on to say there had been a great deal of concern about the fines and fees not collected by the court. In order to collect those fines and fees there needed to be a revenue source.
Chairman Anderson related that the interim study discovered a misconception on the part of the judges who believed the defendant would pay the fine as part of his punishment. It was too easy to get away from that part of the problem. A disagreement between the courts and the Legislative Counsel Bureau as to the distribution of the dollars collected from the fees, fines and restitution was also discovered.
Mr. Williams said if the enforcement unit did not add the cost of the collection effort, it would affect the amount of restitution collected. The question was whether to impact the people who caused the problem or the taxpayer who generally took care of their misdemeanor citations and criminal offenses.
Assemblywoman Buckley said that restitution could be given priority to be paid above the fines, which was supported during the Seventieth Legislative Session. What happened to the $6 million already collected … where had it gone? Mr. Williams reported the $6 million went into the general fund of the court and that money was used to operate the court.
Assemblywoman Buckley emphasized that the court had all the same operating costs before the court received the enhanced revenue based on the tools given them by the legislature. Now it was said if the courts did not receive more, it would be taken from the victims. She did not follow the logic. Mr. Williams said it was a matter of whether to pay the fines up front or dismiss them in the end. One way or another, it was still a cost.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there were more aspects of the collection program that needed to be developed. Mr. Williams said ideally the enforcement unit hoped not to use a collection agency. But at the current time there were only four collection officers in his unit who handled over 40,000 cases. The unit sent approximately 3,000 cases a month to the collection agency due to lack of funding and staffing. Forty-one percent of defendants were not even in the jurisdiction of the court when turned over to the collection agency. If this process were to be completed in-house, the unit would need to develop programs and purchase equipment just to do the reporting to the credit bureaus. And to do that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act would be an expensive proposition.
Chairman Anderson mentioned one observation brought out in the audit report originally was that two-thirds of the highway patrol citations were paid in advance in lieu of court appearance. Where the person said “I’ll never be back to Nevada again…come and find me” became the remaining one-third that then needed to be collected.
Mr. Williams replied it was a matter of “how many ways can you get their attention”? First, you needed to find them. Sometimes, it would be a matter of suspending their driver’s license, although that would not stop them from driving. For others it would be a matter of putting it into the credit bureau, which would impact their daily life. For those who had matters in other jurisdiction, it was a matter of setting priorities.
Chairman Anderson asked what the number of fines set by the court totaled in the last fiscal year. Mr. Williams did not have that number available. The Las Vegas Municipal Court received approximately 110,000 cases a year. Chairman Anderson asked, of the 110,000 cases, what percentage fell into this category. Mr. Williams replied the one-third figure was probably correct.
Chairman Anderson asked if the division of the fees to the state of Nevada had remained constant or diminished. Mr. Williams said that 12 percent of fees were administrative assessment, most of which went to the state.
Ms. Sandie Stiles supported A.B. 106 as she read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G). Modeled after the Las Vegas Municipal Court collections division, the North Las Vegas Municipal Court had implemented a pilot program to further expand their collection efforts. A separate division was also created, the Judicial Enforcement Division, which led to doubling collections. Ms. Stiles believed that A.B. 106 would “strengthen the incentive for defendants to fine-tune the responsibility with which they address the court’s requirements and also provide an avenue for resolving delinquencies, reduce the backlog of outstanding warrants, and place the primary cost of doing business through a collection agency with the end-user – the defendant.”
Chairman Anderson asked what percentage of the total load went to collection. Ms. Stiles replied the program was new but they were pulling from a $6 million backlog of which they anticipated receiving approximately $5,000 a month.
Chairman Anderson asked of the $6 million, how many of them were outstanding over a year. Ms. Stiles replied, “all of them, dating back to 1993 up to 1998.”
Ms. Stiles said that North Las Vegas began their efforts without a collection agency. But the agency had tools that would be very expensive for North Las Vegas to implement. Using a collection agency appeared to be a “cleaner way” to handle the delinquencies.
Chairman Anderson asked what percentage of the $6 million, was out of state. Ms. Stiles replied approximately 35 to 40 percent.
Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Williams, Ms. Magers and Ms. Stiles would provide information to him regarding the age of the delinquencies and how many were out of state, necessitating the use of the collection agency. Also of interest would be the success rate of the collection agency.
Ms. Stiles commented on Assemblywoman Buckley’s concern about keeping people in debt. The North Las Vegas collection program was very flexible with a lot of programs, working with the defendant. Their first priority would be to resolve the problem – not put the defendant in jail.
Assemblywoman Buckley expressed her concern that A.B. 106 could take the defendants away from the alternative court programs and into a collection agency that did not offer the alternative programs. It would be hoped that the collection agencies followed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but not all did.
Ms. Stiles reported that the office staff worked the most recent (three to four year old) cases. The only cases sent to the collection agency were the older ones.
Mr. Williams said even when a defendant would be turned over to a collection agency, that defendant would not be denied assess to the court or the court programs. The court would work with the defendant through the collection agency or directly with the collection agency to resolve the case. As far as agencies following the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, those agencies were monitored very closely. If those agencies wanted to continue working for Las Vegas Municipal Court, they must abide by that.
Chairman Anderson asked if the collection agency’s followup letter included information regarding the fine and the opportunity to come into the court. Mr. Williams said the agency letter listed the court hours, as well as the time the defendant could contact the agency. Under the first-party receivable management, the agency was acting on behalf of the court and had the same flexibility to work with the defendant as the court did to resolve the cases. The agency actually had better hours for contact than did the court.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Williams, Ms. Stiles and Ms. Magers to provide a copy of the court and collection agency letters to Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst.
Assemblyman Carpenter had two questions: (1) was the collection agency currently receiving 5 to 10 percent as their fee? And (2) would A.B. 106 allow the collection agency an unlimited percentage as their fee, or was there an upper limit as to what an agency could charge?
Mr. Williams stated A.B. 106 would allow the enforcement unit to return to practices in effect before the bill was passed, to contract with the collection agency at whatever the going rate was. At this time, the unit would only be allowed to contract with the agency at 23 percent. Some agencies charged 35 percent; some charged 50 percent when legal action was taken. The enforcement unit did not anticipate those charges since legal actions would be taken through the city attorney.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked how giving the court the ability to determine how collection fees would be used would change what was happening currently. Mr. Williams said the city or the county was responsible for determining how those fees would be used, while administratively it was the courts that were doing the work. What was being asked was to give the court the ability to determine how to develop and implement the collection program, and to use the fees accordingly. This would be what has been done at the state and court administrator level.
Chairman Anderson asked if the League of Cities had signed off on that issue. Mr. Williams responded he had not communicated with the League of Cities.
Ms. Christy Magers, Court Administrator, Reno Municipal Court, came to the hearing to ask for more clarifying language in A.B 106 as highlighted on Exhibit H. Her concern was for existing programs that needed funds for further development and implementation.
Chairman Anderson asked if the City of Reno was diverting funds from the courts to run other services. Ms. Magers emphasized that $30,000 to $40,000 a year was collected and was being used to pay for a collection position. This position had already been funded through the City General Fund, but a decision was made to use the court collection funds instead of City General Funds. Consequently, those funds were not available to develop the program further or add another collection position.
Chairman Anderson clarified who was requesting the amendment.
Ms. Magers represented Reno Municipal Court and could not speak for City of Reno. The Reno Municipal Court had discussions with the finance department; and the city attorney interpreted that since the collection program was already in existence, it was acceptable to supplant general funds.
Ms. Magers responded to Assemblywoman Buckley’s original concerns. Reno Municipal Court had defendants prepare an income expense questionnaire to determine their ability to pay fines. If it was determined the defendant was unable to pay the fine, they would be converted to community service. Reno Municipal Court worked very closely with their defendants and would not set them up to fail. Washoe County Collections Division had been paid a $6,000 a year flat fee to handle delinquencies for Reno Municipal Court.
Chairman Anderson asked what percentage of delinquencies was older than six years. Ms. Magers said she would need to get that information.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked what the Washoe County Collection Division did for the court. Ms. Magers said Reno Municipal Court had contracted with the Washoe County Collection Division with benefits for both the court and Washoe County. The court worked with the defendants initially up to 12 months and then Washoe County would do the skip tracing on those cases determined to be at a dead end. Washoe County had been paid a flat fee of $6,000 a year for their services.
Chairman Anderson thanked the panel for their testimony and reminded them of those materials requested to be returned to the committee.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), was concerned about fees being taken out of restitution, and expressed her appreciation that this was also a concern of the committee.
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 106. He said that the bill would be held pending information requested.
Chairman Anderson discussed potential Bill Draft Requests that were still being drafted, one dealt with implants and the other dealt with mental commitment. Monday, February 26 would be the last day to request Bill Draft Requests.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:52 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: