MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 27, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Tuesday, February 27, 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
Ms. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John Carpenter (Excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Young, Principal Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB)
William E. Isaeff, Special Assistant, The City of Sparks, Representing the Nevada League of Cities
Bill Bradley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA)
Brian Hutchins, Chief of Transportation and Public Safety Division, Attorney General’s Office
Jeffrey Blanck, General Counsel, Legal Division, Washoe County School District
Floyd Harrison, Representing his daughter, Las Vegas, NV
Margaret King, Friend of Harrison Family
Cynthia Dianne Steel, Presiding District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Las Vegas, NV
D. Lanny Waite, Justice of the Peace, Overton, NV
Justin, Rites of Passage
José, Rites of Passage
Jason, Rites of Passage
Laurel Stadler, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
Leonard Pugh, Washoe County Juvenile Services
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
George Flint, Representing self
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 178
Assembly Bill 178: Provides various changes concerning damages that may be awarded in tort actions against certain governmental entities and their officers or employees. (BDR 3-192)
Chairman Anderson made disclosures that four members of the committee were employees of public agencies and therefore were protected by this type of tort cap.
· Mr. Oceguera, Fire Captain
· Ms. Koivisto, University System
· Ms. McClain, Clark County Government Agency
· Mr. Anderson, Washoe County School District
While not affected any differently than any other public employee, in order to meet the ethics requirements of the law for disclosure in this area, the Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division indicated the disclosure needed to be made during at least one meeting.
Assemblyman Brower disclosed his law firm represented governmental entities and political subdivisions that may or may not have been protected by provisions of Chapter 41 that were implicated by A.B. 178.
Chairman Anderson did not believe there would be any problem, but said it was better to err on the side of caution.
Chairman Anderson announced a quorum was present.
Scott Young, Research Division of LCB, served as staff for the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 46 of the Seventieth Session Interim Study Committee. The existence of the committee arose from discussions that dealt with the issue of sovereign immunity. It was determined it would be better to allow additional time for these issues in interim studies. The interim study committee was chaired by Mr. Anderson, with Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Claborn and Mrs. Ohrenschall who also served. There was an eight-member advisory committee that was cochaired by Mr. Bill Bradley from Nevada Trial Lawyers Association and Mr. Bill Isaeff from the Nevada League of Cities.
The interim study committee held five meetings and the advisory committee held two meetings. In the end, a recommendation was adopted that was presently before the Judiciary Committee as A.B. 178. Although the recommendation was passed unanimously, it had qualifications. Some members of the committee felt further study by the legislature was needed, with the understanding they had reserved their rights to either not support the proposal or modify it.
Mr. Young defined sovereign immunity as a judicial doctrine that arose during the feudal system in England out of the notion “the crown could do no wrong,” an echo of the “divine right of kings” theory. It was also based on the belief that as the superior member of society, it was improper for the king to be brought before any tribunal. Eventually the genius of the common law modified those doctrines.
When the United States became independent, the courts also adopted the doctrine of sovereign immunity but it was based on different principles. It was felt if the legislative and executive branches could be brought into court, and their policies examined through litigation, this might interfere with the balance of power as well as the separation of power between the respective branches of government. It was also felt the public treasury needed protection from potential disastrous financial judgments.
More recently, there were attempts to modify the sovereign immunity policy. In 1946 the federal government adopted the Federal Tort Claims Act that essentially allowed people to sue the federal government and its employees. There were some important procedural qualifications and limitations. Virtually every state had adopted some modification of sovereign immunity, as displayed in Exhibit C.
Nevada had adopted modifications to its sovereign immunity; those provisions were contained in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 41. One of the key limitations Nevada had retained was a limit of $50,000 for each action. This limitation was the impetus for A.B. 178.
Mr. Young pointed out that on page 8 of Exhibit C was a discussion of relevant Nevada case law. On page 10 was a brief discussion of another aspect of governmental immunity, the immunity granted to public officials. On page 12 was listed the history of Nevada’s monetary limitation on damages. The original limitation was set in 1965 at $25,000, which was raised in 1977 and 1979 to $35,000 and $50,000, respectively. On the bottom of page 13, there was explanation of the charts and tables at the back of Exhibit C:
Table 1- Page 31: Limitations on damages by state
Table 2 - Page 41: Comparison of state liability provisions
Table 3 - Page 45: Comparison of local liability provisions
Table 4 thru Table 11 - Page 55: Summary of claims 1994-1999
Page 14 (Exhibit C) listed government insurance coverage that existed in the state; the state of Nevada was fully self-insured for tort liability. Clark County and Washoe County were self-insured up to $1 million, above that they had excess insurance. There was a Nevada Public Agency insurance pool that insured approximately 50 rural and local governmental entities, which self-insured for the first $150,000 of liability and then had excess coverage. On pages 15 to 16 were listed some of the major issues discussed during the studies both in support and in opposition to changing the cap.
The interim study committee adopted a recommendation, it was unanimous but there were concerns expressed about the adequacy of the recommendation. Members of the interim study committee felt further discussion would be needed.
As chairman of the interim study committee, Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Young for the hard work in preparing the final document. He verified Exhibit C had just recently come from the printer and had not been distributed to members of the subcommittee yet. A great deal of exhibits were used to create the report and they were available at the Research Library.
Chairman Anderson indicated to the committee members it was his intention to put A.B. 178 into a subcommittee to develop the language in the bill because it was in skeleton form.
Chairman Anderson reported as part of the advisory committee, Mr. Bill Isaeff represented the city and county governmental agencies and Mr. Bill Brady represented the plaintiff side of the discussion.
Mr. Isaeff, Special Assistant to the Sparks City Manager, was the designated representative of the Nevada League of Cities with respect to the interim study committee, and served as cochairman for the advisory committee.
Mr. Isaeff said he was “generally” in favor of A.B. 178, which proposed to increase the tort limitation from $50,000 to $75,000 and provided some other types of relief set forth in the bill. It was reported 90 to 95 percent of current claims were being resolved within the current $50,000 statutory limit. The interim study committee was not insensitive to the testimony presented and believed some adjustments were appropriate. Thus, the local government team put together a proposal, which came before the interim study committee at its final meeting. This proposal eventually won the approval of the interim study committee as set forth in Exhibit C on pages 17 to 20.
Therefore, Ms. Isaeff was surprised A.B. 178 did not include a number of the recommendations from that proposal. Ms. Isaeff agreed with Chairman Anderson that A.B. 178 be sent to a subcommittee because he felt it required additional work particularly in the area the defined the powers and duties of the board that would administer the tort claim funds proposed by A.B. 178.
Some of the key points already included in A.B. 178 included (1) an increase in the tort limitation from $50,000 to $75,000, (2) a limit of two claims per claimant up to a maximum of $150,000, and (3) up to $250,000 additional compensation for medical expenses and loss of earnings in certain circumstances. Also included in A.B. 178 was information on the tax levied for the tort claims fund.
Chairman Anderson complimented Mr. Isaeff on finding revenue sources to offset the cost to the smaller counties. It was recognized since Nevada was self-insured, resources were limited for everybody.
Mr. Bill Brady appeared on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA). Reluctantly, he reported he opposed A.B. 178 and the recommendation that came out of the Interim Study Committee. Originally, NTLA thought it appropriate to put this issue before the legislature because the tort cap had not been increased for over 20 years. NTLA recommended the cap be increased to $125,000 based on inflationary factors.
The NTLA did not have a problem with raising the tort cap to $75,000 but felt limiting the number of claims per person to two was taking a step backward in consumer rights. These issues had been debated for over 50 years in the Nevada courts, which had recognized four or five different claims a person could make depending on what they experienced. The primary claim would be for the person’s own injuries, with possible multiple claims that involved watching loved ones injured and wrongful deaths of loved ones.
Mr. Bradley believed the additional $250,000 funding was a “red herring” since catastrophic injury cases were limited and rare. With a verdict in excess of $250,000, a person would have to “get in line” with others to wait until the end of year to determine what money was available, and then watch a board with a lot of regulatory power reach a conclusion as to what a person might be entitled to without any recourse. This would create a regulatory nightmare NTLA did not feel was appropriate or good public policy in the state. Also it was believed that the $250,000 would not go to the victim. A portion would go to the lawyer and the balance would go to the hospitals and doctors who provided the care. The victim would never see any of this claim, which was not the original intent of A.B. 178.
A condition of the recommendation was matching funds would come from the cities, counties and state; and there was debate as to what the match amount should be. The cities and the counties have said if the state did not match funds, they felt they could not go forward with their proposal. Furthermore, if the state did not match funds but the legislation went forward anyway, it would result in a new law where city and county employees were treated differently than state employees were treated, which would then be subject to the rules of the regulatory body.
There was further discussion regarding the effect of multiple claims. It appeared to the members that there had been a state audit that might assist the committee in determining the effect of such claims.
Chairman Anderson asked if the state audit was conducted by LCB. Mr. Bradley believed a contractor of the Attorney General’s Office completed the audit in the fall of 2000 with John Hansen as the state coordinator. Also reported was the fact that counties did not keep track of single and multiple claims separately, making it difficult to come to a conclusion regarding the multiple claim issues.
Mr. Bradley wanted it to be clear he was not talking about prisoner lawsuits, sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, or age discrimination cases. Federal law governed those cases and this cap had nothing to do with those cases, whatsoever. Again, these cases were lumped into the sovereign immunity cases, so the interim study committee could not complete a fair physical analysis on any increase in the cap.
In conclusion, Mr. Bradley restated his opposition to A.B. 178 and his belief it was time to increase the cap but that creating a regulatory body with a “red herring” of a $250,000 cap with many regulations would not be a positive step in the policy of the state of Nevada.
Chairman Anderson said the Judiciary Committee had now heard from the Research Department who drafted the report of the interim study committee (Exhibit C) and from the advisory committee.
Mr. Brian Hutchins, Chief of Transportation and Public Safety Division of the Attorney General’s Office, and Mr. Stan Miller, Tort Claims Manager for the Attorney General’s Office, approached the witness table.
Chairman Anderson said since A.B. 178 would be going to a subcommittee, he wanted to know who from the Attorney General’s Office would be dealing with these issues.
Mr. Hutchins said he and Mr. Miller, along with Mr. Tony Clark, the Solicitor General, would address the subcommittee. Mr. Hutchins said he did not have information regarding the audit, but he would look into it.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Mr. Jeffrey Blanck, Washoe County School District, who wished to speak against A.B. 178. Mr. Blanck said he would reserve his comments for the subcommittee.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the witnesses testifying from Las Vegas office.
Mr. Floyd Harrison was the father of Lakisha Maria Harrison who was involved in an accident on February 25, 2000. She was rear-ended by a Clark County School Bus, which resulted in her becoming a quadriplegic. Mr. Harrison read a letter prepared by his daughter that discussed her current situation and asked for compassion from the state of Nevada.
Ms. Margaret King, a friend of the Harrison family, had helped with a letter writing campaign. She said she was in opposition to the bill as it stood.
Chairman Anderson verified Ms. King had explained to the Harrison family that this new legislation was not retroactive and would not affect the Harrison situation.
Ms. King said Mr. Harrison understood this but was in consultation with legal counsel regarding the possibility of a retroactive action.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 178 and sent it to a subcommittee. The subcommittee chairman was Mr. Claborn, who was a member of the original interim study committee. Mr. Brower and Mr. Collins were assigned as members of the subcommittee.
Assemblywoman Buckley said the Harrison family had contacted her very soon after the accident. Ms. Buckley expressed her concern that money be found to help victims take care of their children. She hoped the subcommittee would explore the possibility of additional assistance through insurance. Chairman Anderson said the interim study committee did look at the insurance issue.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 174.
Assembly Bill 174: Establishes program of visitation to office of county coroner and authorizes juvenile court to order child adjudicated delinquent to participate in program of visitation. (BDR 5-103)
Assemblyman Nolan, the bill sponsor, read from a prepared statement about a similar bill introduced in 1993 by Senator O’Donnell. This bill, although passed by both house committees, died on the Assembly floor the night before sine die due to lack of information on the results of other Youthful Visitation Programs.
Mr. Nolan continued by describing the materials in his Exhibit D:
Jack Lehman, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas
Cynthia Dianne Steel, Presiding District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Las Vegas
Kenneth Proctor, Chief Judge, Dept. 1, Municipal Court, Henderson
Scott Langill, personal account dated 3-15-99
Robert Gaston
Jim Mancuso, Justice of the Peace, Special Juvenile Master, Incline Village-Washoe County
Jennifer Togliatti
Vernon McCarty, Washoe County Coroner
Gerald Hardcastle, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Las Vegas
Strange Experiences written by Dustin D. Swift & Jose M Arcos
Helping in the Community written by Marcus M. Adams
Trip to coroner’s office gives offenders a dose of reality, Las Vegas Review-Journal, February 6, 2000
Bloody wake-up call after a DUI; SHOCK THERAPY written by Elizabeth Fernandez, San Francisco Examiner, February 21, 2000
The bill as amended would establish a Youthful Visitation Program in Clark and Washoe Counties for youthful offenders under the age of 18. This would not be an alternative program, but an additional option that would require parental consent and waiver of liability.
The program would include, but would not be limited to, a discussion with participants on:
Many of the other states’ programs require the viewing of an autopsy; A.B. 174 does not mandate this.
Also included in the bill would be a $35 fee to the participant to offset the cost of the program including the required protective wear, and a $10,000 one-time appropriation for each coroner’s office to offset startup and personnel costs of administering the program.
Mr. Nolan felt it would be better to initiate this program with just youthful offenders who generally were more impressionable, more likely to exhibit risky and often life-threatening behavior, and more likely to disregard the reality of their own mortality. It would also give the coroners’ offices an opportunity to develop the program with a limited segment of the population thus address their workload concerns. The language in the bill was very permissive to allow the coroners latitude in developing their programs.
And what about seeing dead bodies? Many young people have become desensitized by death on the television, both real life events and drama/action films, as well as on video games where the mutilated and dead jump back up for “Round 2.” When the participants entered the coroner’s office, the rooms would be cold and sterile and the smell would be like no other. You would not need to see the bodies to know they were there.
This program has been conducted safely throughout the United States and there had not been any injuries or illnesses, or any litigation by anyone who attended. Whether you called it “shock therapy, a reality check, an intense education in death, or a second chance at life,” these programs have been reported as being successful in modifying the behavior of youthful offenders.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged three young men from the Rites of Passage Program, Minden, but asked the witnesses from Las Vegas be allowed to testify first.
Judge C. Dianne Steel believed A.B. 174 would be a nice addition to the arsenal available in attempts to redirect our youth who have been desensitized through the media as to what death really was. She was in favor of the bill.
Years ago, Judge D. Lanny Waite had contacted Ron Flood, coroner of Clark County, to discuss how Judge Waite could affect youth with whom he worked. Later he talked with Sandy Heverly, MADD, and was told such a program already existed in Orange County, California. A multi-agency committee was formed that traveled to Orange County to view their program; the results of that trip led to the 1993 legislation.
The Orange County program was originally designed to deal with DUI offenders. Of 2,400 young people under the age of 25 who had been taken through the Orange County program, there were only two repeat offenders. If Nevada could have such a positive impact on their youth, it would appear to be an opportunity that should not be overlooked.
Judge Waite suggested a language change. He reported there were cases where youth over the age of 18 were still under the supervision of the court. He asked to include “those under supervision after the age of 18” as well as “those under the age of 18.”
Chairman Anderson acknowledged three gentlemen from the Rites of Passage Program and as such they were entitled to certain privilege, and he addressed them by their first name only in order to maintain the rights granted them that related to their participation in the program.
Justin had been with the program for 15 months and went on the tour of the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office in September 2000. It was eye opening for him; he had never experienced anything like it before. It was “very scary”. As a result, he was challenged to go into the medical field and reported he had applied to various colleges for admission. On the tour he saw slides and a video; then viewed bodies that had been killed in many different ways. “It seemed like an hour but was probably only minutes,” he said. Chairman Anderson asked about the group on the tour. Justin said there were 15 students and 3 staff members.
Chairman Anderson verified this had not been a voluntary program. This was the result of a sentence from a judge, not an assigned school program. Justin agreed.
Chairman Anderson asked how the dignity of the corpse was maintained during this program. He asked if Justin felt it lessened the value of human life or respect for the human body. Justin answered he felt much more respect. He had never experienced death up close. When he was younger, he did not think about death. He did not think about the impact he had on people, the outcome of his fights, or what his victims went through.
Chairman Anderson asked if Justin had toured other jails or prisons. Justin said he had toured a prison six weeks previous. Chairman Anderson asked if Justin had toured a prison prior to going to the coroner’s office as part of a school project. Justin answered no.
José had been in the Rites of Passage Program for 14 months and went on the same trip with Justin to the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office. After seeing the slides, he had a different outlook…it was no laughing matter. When he moved down to the basement where the bodies were kept, just the smell gave him a different outlook on everything.
Chairman Anderson asked José if seeing the slides would have been enough by itself, or did viewing the bodies add to the impact? José said the slides were just pictures, but when he saw the bodies with the various wounds it made a difference.
Jason, age 18, went to the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office on the same trip. Going to the basement and actually seeing the bodies was a reality check. Jason felt participants needed to see the bodies.
Chairman Anderson asked if any of the bodies viewed were in the same age group as he. Jason reported some were actually younger. It opened his eyes; it could have been him. It changed his whole perspective on life.
Justin emphasized the slides would not have been enough. The slides were just like the disgusting movies and videos out there now. He said participants needed to see the bodies, the discoloration, and the rigor mortis.
Ms. Laurel Stadler, Chapter Director, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), supported A.B. 174 as a valuable tool for juvenile judges. She said young people had an invincibility factor that needed to be tempered with a reality factor. A program such as this could reduce the recidivism rate. Children would only go to this program after they had been in trouble, but hopefully it would prevent them from reoffending. That would be a worthy goal.
Chairman Anderson asked if this would lessen the implementation of the victim impact panels, or was it anticipated a judge would sentence juveniles into both programs.
Ms. Stadler reported there were a great number of juvenile judges sending alcohol offense juveniles to the victim impact panels, which for many was the only thing that made a difference in their lives. She believed the coroner’s office visit program would impact the juveniles in a different way.
Leonard Pugh, Director of Washoe County Juvenile Services, had discussed A.B. 174 with Vern McCarty, Washoe County Coroner. The Washoe County Coroner’s Office had a policy that did not allow anyone under the age of 18 within the Coroner’s office. Mr. McCarty offered training to medical students and police officers in evidentiary procedures, and questioned taking on the responsibilities based on his already overburdened workload.
Mr. Pugh said he supported any effort to combat DUIs and underage drinking, but he was concerned “scared straight” and “shock-type’ programs had a short-term impact on individuals. He had viewed victim impact panels and believed facing victim’s families and survivors of accidents was more powerful (Exhibit E). The victim impact panels not only held the juveniles accountable, but it provided treatment for them and at the same time made them face victims and survivors of similar offenses. Mr. Pugh was also concerned about the emotional trauma that could happen as a result of a coroner’s office visit.
Chairman Anderson was aware of the emotional impact of seeing a dead body, particularly for someone in that age group.
Vice Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Pugh if he had participated in a DUI victim impact panel. Mr. Pugh said it had been a few years since he had seen a panel in action, but he had been involved in developing a “victims of violent crimes” panel. Mr. Manendo asked what was the difference between a juvenile attending a meeting with victims in wheel chairs and families with pictures of bodies and crushed vehicles; and then actually seeing accident wreckage and lifeless bodies.
Mr. Pugh did not profess to be an expert on what the impact would be. He strongly believed in the impact of listening to what people have dealt with as a result of accidents. He said there was no interaction, no connection, when viewing a body. If research showed the “scared straight” or “shock” programs were not effective, what was the risk vs. the benefit of putting a 16, 17 or 18 year old into that situation?
Vice Chairman Manendo said he had attended panels and boot camps – “scared straight,” “in your face,” “hands on,” and he felt those programs were very effective. It was a reality check; somebody finally explained what happened.
Mr. Pugh disagreed and reiterated his belief that national research showed those types of programs were ineffective. Maybe with a strong educational element those programs might be effective. Vice Chairman Manendo said Nevada programs included the educational element.
Chairman Anderson remarked recent reports from the Department of Justice have shown the “scared straight” programs have been ineffective. “Scared straight” programs in the Nevada high schools were discontinued six years ago as a result.
Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, was not present to speak regarding the merits of the program. Her concern was the policy issue of parental consent, and she was not sure the amendment resolved her concern. When the court ordered a program and then mandated parental consent that waived liability, the parental consent appeared to be voluntary but in fact was mandatory. If consent was requested, consent should be real – it gave or denied permission. Those signing the consent form should have a choice.
Chairman Anderson stated the consent form, as used in schools, was a method which informed the parent of what was about to take place, i.e. a field trip, which was deviant from the normal behavior of a day. He was unsure as to the intent of the amendment, whether it was a method to make the parents aware of potential emotional stress associated with viewing a body. Going to a coroner’s office would be very different than going to a funeral seeing a prepared body.
Ms. Lusk agreed with Chairman Anderson regarding his use of a consent form. She suggested the consent form associated with this amendment should be used in the same manner giving the parent the option to grant or refuse participation.
Chairman Anderson reminded Ms. Lusk if the juvenile was being adjudicated as delinquent, the judge had the opportunity to make a behavioral change as part of the correctional program. That would be the judge’s option, not the parent’s. Ms. Lusk agreed, but restated in those cases the consent form should not seem voluntary.
Mr. George Flint, representing himself, shared a personal experience with the committee. At the age of 18, his son had trashed two automobiles and received eight speeding tickets. At that same time, four Native American boys were killed in an accident on Kietzke Lane. Mr. Flint took his son to the funeral home. He and his son walked into the embalming room where the bodies were laid, they were not a pretty sight. His son’s next automobile was an old blue pickup, which he still drives and he has not had any tickets since. Although it was a bit traumatic at the time, it was a life-changing experience.
Assemblyman Nolan was very sensitive to the issues and opposition raised during testimony. The success of these programs had been documented and the recidivism rate was very low for those who participated.
Assemblywoman McClain said these were unusual times and very different from past drivers’ education programs where videos “grossed you out.” Since then, television, movies and videos had desensitized children. Ms. McClain believed A.B. 174 was a good idea and would bring home the idea that death was very final.
Assemblywoman Angle supported A.B. 174. She was aware of a similar program in Detroit where even first-time offenders were participants. She believed A.B. 174 had not gone as far as it could, but it would be a good reality check.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 174 and asked Mr. Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, to put it on the work session document. Mr. Anderson suggested that Mr. Nolan further review the state liability question. Mr. Anderson also requested Mr. Pugh get any of his concerns to Mr. Anthony before the committee proceeded with A.B. 174.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: