MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 8, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:59 a.m., on Thursday, March 8, 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. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Libby A. Herlihy, Paralegal and Small Business Owner, Las Vegas, Nevada
Lt. Stan Olsen, Governmental Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Undersheriff Richard Z. Winget, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Capt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association on behalf of Clark County District Attorney, Stewart Bell
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Management Analyst, City of North Las Vegas, City Manager’s Office
Andy Anderson, President of Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Chief Mike Sheldon, City of Las Vegas Department of Detention and Enforcement
Commander Mike Murphy, City of Las Vegas Department of Detention and Enforcement
Phil Gervasi, President of Police Officers Association, Clark County School District Police
Elliott Phelps, Chief of Police, Clark County School District Police Department
Chief José A. Elique, Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety for University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Public Safety
Ronald P. Dreher, President, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Ron Cuzze, State Peace Officers Counsel and NCOPS
Anthony York, school district police officer
Gary Wolff, Business Agent, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Chief Tamara Evans, Washoe County School Police Department
Richard M. Tiran, Adult Parole and Probation Officer, Vice President, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs (NCOPS)
James R. Kidder, Associate Vice President for Planning, Budget and Analysis at University of Nevada, Reno
Mary Phelps Dugan, Assistant General Counsel, University and Community College System of Nevada
Beth McAuliffe, resident agent employee, Clark County, Nevada
Steve Williams, Washoe County School District
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Robert L. Crowell of Crowell, Susich, Owen & Tackes, Ltd., representing State Bar of Nevada
David A. Clark, Assistant Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Rob W. Bare, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Juanita Cox, on behalf of People to Protect America
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and confirmed that there was a quorum present.
The Chair described the bill draft as one the committee had agreed to introduce on behalf of Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 15-1303.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 148: Revises provisions regarding certain stays of court proceedings during legislative session. (BDR 1-844)
Chairman Anderson called Assemblyman Greg Brower to the witness table.
Assemblyman Brower introduced himself and stated that he represented Assembly District No. 37. He described A.B. 148 as a “clean up” bill that was intended to change a very old statute only slightly. Other members of the Bar, around the state, had advised him of a problem in NRS 1.310, a statute that dated back to 1960. The statute stated that a legislator who may be a party to some form of lawsuit and/or a lawyer who was a legislator who may be representing a party in a lawsuit, was entitled to a continuance of that suit during the legislative session. Assemblyman Brower then provided examples for clarification. He advised that other states with similar legislative structure had enacted similar statutes. Subsection 2 was pointed out. It addressed the issue of a lawyer/legislator who, in order to obtain a stay or continuance of action, was required to have been employed by their client prior to the commencement of the action. Usually, a party filing a lawsuit hired their attorney before filing said lawsuit. The responding party would not hire their attorney until after the suit was commenced. Given the language of the statute as it existed, a responding party’s attorney would not be able to request a continuance, if that attorney was also a legislator.
The Legislative Counsel Bureau proposed that a lawyer/legislator seeking a stay should have been hired before the legislative session began. The reason Assemblyman Brower believed that made sense was he wanted to avoid a party finding a lawyer/legislator to represent them simply for the purposes of delay.
Chairman Anderson stated that he felt Assemblyman Brower had addressed the most important issue. The Chair then stated for the record that it was not the intention of the legislation that a person be able to “shop” for an attorney/ legislator in order to secure a continuance. However, he opined that a legislator/lawyer who wished to participate in a specific case that did not conflict with their legislative duties should not be prohibited from doing so. Consequently, the statute should be a basis for a continuance, but not an absolute granting.
Assemblyman Brower responded that Chairman Anderson’s understanding was correct. A.B. 148 would see that a legislator was not forced from session involvement; however, the new language would preclude a party from obtaining a continuance simply by finding a lawyer/legislator mid-session.
Ms. Ohrenschall inquired of the ramifications in the instance of the “family lawyer.” She asked in the instance of an individual who was sued after session began and a lawyer/legislator that had represented a client or their family members for years. How could a party obtain a continuance when the attorney would not have been hired until after session started?
Assemblyman Brower responded that he believed a continuance would be granted in Ms. Ohrenschall’s sample case. However, if a lawyer/legislator had been employed but an action had not yet been commenced, perhaps that would create a loophole for a judge to refuse a continuance. He stated that the committee might wish to have the Legislative Counsel Bureau review that aspect of A.B. 148. The language might need to be expanded to cover both possible contingencies: where a lawyer had a long history of representing a party, but an action was not commenced until later.
Ms. Buckley voiced her support for A.B. 148.
Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Ohrenschall to submit proposed language for consideration at the committee work session.
Mr. Carpenter asked whether A.B. 148 would apply to federal court. Assemblyman Brower thanked Mr. Carpenter for making a good point; however, as A.B. 148 was a Nevada state procedural rule, he did not see any way to establish a binding effect upon a federal court.
Assemblyman Brower requested the committee consider the addition of a few words. He specified Subsections 1 and 2 where language read “the action or proceeding for the duration of any legislative session,” he proposed the addition of “including discovery” after the words “action or proceeding.” The purpose was to avoid doubt in a judge’s mind that not only did a trial or a hearing require postponement until session completion, but that the legislator/lawyer could not be compelled to participate in depositions or other time-consuming discovery during session.
Chairman Anderson confirmed the location of the subject language at lines 6 and 16 of A.B. 148. Assemblyman Brower reiterated that the same language should be used in both Subsections 1 and 2. Chairman Anderson then called for further testimony either in support or opposition of A.B. 148 before closing the hearing on A.B. 148. The Chair brought A.B. 148 back to committee and indicated that it would be addressed, as possible, at the committee work session of March 16, 2001.
Assembly Bill 220: Revises provisions governing duties of certain peace officers when felony is committed or attempted in their presence or in area that is within their jurisdiction. (BDR 14-141)
After opening the hearing on A.B. 220, Chairman Anderson called forward Lt. Stan Olsen of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and Capt. Jim Nadeau of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
Lt. Olsen introduced himself and “Metro” Undersheriff Richard Winget. Lt. Olsen addressed his prepared statement (Exhibit D) which included correspondence from Henderson Police Chief Michael Mayberry dated March 7, 2001, a memorandum from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department dated October 21, 1999, an Officer’s Report dated October 21, 1999, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department memorandum dated October 14, 1999. He stated LVMPD’s support for the concept of A.B. 220, although the bill was considered very broadly written. Consequently, amendments would be presented (Exhibit E) and he provided a brief introductory statement. He advised that policing in America, and the types and methods of crimes committed, had changed significantly over the past decade. Southern Nevada was affected as well. He continued that policing was a complex combination of technology, technique, legal doctrine and court decisions. Like doctors, teachers, and attorneys, specialization had become a requirement in law enforcement.
Lt. Olsen anticipated that several labor organizations would testify in opposition to A.B. 220 as it limited the jurisdiction of various policing agencies in the case of serious felony crimes. He said it was important to remember that A.B. 220 was not a labor bill. A.B. 220 addressed victim issues, as victims of violent crimes had the right to the most qualified specialists. Lt. Olsen outlined his various qualifications, experiences and training but advised that he was not qualified to investigate a murder, attempted murder or a sexual assault. He attended a Category One police academy where he was trained in basic investigation types, but training was only a foundation. He stated that it took experience dealing with violent crimes to build the skills necessary to investigate violent crimes and those skills were “perishable.” LVMPD supported the concept of A.B. 220 and believed it best for victims.
Mr. Collins asked if trained police officers would, for example, contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) where experience and jurisdiction was beyond the officer but within the FBI’s scope. For the sake of brevity, Mr. Collins utilized the concept of “Andy Taylor of Mayberry.” Lt. Olsen confirmed that Mr. Collins’ understanding was correct. If the subject matter was outside LVMPD’s area of expertise, they would work with the FBI.
Chairman Anderson asked Lt. Olsen to address the proposed amendments. Lt. Olsen advised that the proposed language change was underlined on the handout (Exhibit E). The amendment attempted to narrow the issues to serious, violent crimes committed against persons. He addressed Section 1, Subsection 1, lines 3 through 9, where the proposed change read “crime against a person category A or B felony.” The same language was repeated again later in the paragraph. Section 1, Subsection 3, part (a), lines 1 through 16, add “or any other felony.” after the words “gross misdemeanor”; Section 1, Subsection 3, part (b), lines 1 through 20, add “Arson investigator” after the word “resources”; and Section 1, Subsection 3, part (c), lines 2 and 3, add “or any other felony.” after the words “gross misdemeanor”.
Undersheriff Richard Winget then addressed the committee and stated that A.B. 220 was about public safety. He believed A.B. 220 was about the police department’s responsibility to do what was right for the community and how community members looked to the force to act for their public safety. He stated that A.B. 220 was also about preparedness and expertise. He stated that LVMPD deferred to arson investigators and their expertise, preparedness and arson dogs. Law enforcement officers would not respond to the scene of a fire and claim jurisdiction over an arson investigation. LVMPD patrol officers would not investigate violent crimes, those investigations were left to the most skilled investigators. Those who investigated murders, sexual assaults, etc. had worked for years within that system and worked on those types of cases daily. They knew what the district attorneys needed for prosecution and what evidence to gather to ensure that a jury could convict. A.B. 220 was also about support. Investigators needed the support of professional crime scene analysts who had developed expertise in identifying, collecting, and preserving evidence. Undersheriff Winget stated that forensic specialists who then performed chemical trace evidence and DNA analysis supported crime scene analysts. He concurred that those highly evolved skills were perishable.
Undersheriff Winget continued that A.B. 220 only affected two counties in Nevada: Washoe County and Clark County. He informed the committee that Washoe County District Attorney Dick Gammick, Washoe County Sheriff Dennis A. Balaam, Clark County Sheriff Jerry Keller, Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell as well as the major police chiefs in both counties all supported A.B. 220. As to the importance of immediacy in investigation, Undersheriff Winget provided an example where two gentlemen in their 50s were playing tennis when a young man decided to skateboard on the tennis courts during the game. There was a confrontation and the young man struck one of the gentlemen in the face with a board, causing severe injury. As time progressed, the victim’s condition became critical and concern for his survival rose. At that point, the marshals requested assistance from LVMPD crime scene analysts. LVMPD assigned a crime scene specialist to the marshals who then, two days after the incident occurred, attempted to reconstruct a crime scene that had never been processed. The analyst attempted to reconstruct and photograph the scene, diagram the situation, and collect blood samples. He was then required to interview the victim while still in the hospital and collect evidence from him. The analyst then went to the suspect’s home and collected his clothes. Those were all critical elements and evidence. Undersheriff Winget then stated that A.B. 220 was about responsibility, preparedness and doing the right thing. A.B. 220 would ensure that only experts in that field and those prepared to deal with violent crime performed investigations.
Chairman Anderson inquired as to a first officer on the scene. He asked why there was no follow up from Clark County’s Metro units. Undersheriff Winget responded that marshals are Category One police officers and had jurisdiction within the parks. Further conversation showed that LVMPD had concurrent jurisdiction over parks. How were park rangers, school police officers, and other Category One officers to make a determination? Undersheriff Winget stated that, if the evidence at the scene indicated that a violent felony crime had occurred and the discoverer of the crime was to call 911, then a primary law enforcement agency would be dispatched to the crime scene. If a Las Vegas ranger was in the area and discovered the scene, then his responsibility would be to protect the scene and standby for the primary law enforcement agency to respond. If a LVMPD officer was on the scene of a crime that was more appropriately handled by the FBI, then LVMPD would be responsible for standing by and protecting the scene and notifying the FBI. Chairman Anderson addressed the issue of possible bad feelings when jurisdiction was transferred to another agency. He agreed with the importance of protecting crime scenes from degradation but was concerned that A.B. 220 may not provide what was needed.
Mr. Carpenter addressed the “crime against a person” Category A or B felony. He inquired whether immediate determination of those crimes might be difficult upon first responding to a crime scene. He did not believe that the first officer to respond would necessarily conclude that a different agency should be contacted. Further, did that procedure carry some form of penalty, or was it common knowledge?
Undersheriff Winget stated that a case would be transferred upon discovery of its “violent” nature. That was easier to distinguish if one considered Category A and B felonies as violent crimes. He acknowledged the value of park police, school police and university police. His concern was that, within their limited jurisdiction, those officers also obtained limited experience. Police within those jurisdictions could go 10 or 15 years without working a homicide or sexual assault. He compared that with individual detectives, many of whom worked violent crimes every day. He felt it was very important that skilled, professional people handle violent felonies.
Undersheriff Winget offered an additional example in which a 16-year-old girl was sexually assaulted on the campus of a vocational/technical center in Las Vegas. She met a man, spoke with him briefly and then he beat her. When the girl regained consciousness she found much of her clothing removed. School police responded to a bloody crime scene and recognized the need and responsibility to protect the crime scene. However, the principal instructed the officer to remove the tape and allow students to pass. Once classes were in session, the officer attempted to reconstruct a decimated crime scene.
Chairman Anderson referred to a list showing murder, kidnapping, and other Category A felonies, fights were listed as Category B, but mentioned that even dueling was still listed. He had a special concern for some Category B felonies: coercion, force or threat of force, theft (over $2,500), vending machines. Recognizing that A.B. 220 applied to counties of over 100,000, he felt that a closer look at the amendment may need to be taken if the matter was to proceed.
Mr. Carpenter felt strongly that it was a matter of communication between officers. He believed that training sessions should be established and that problems in communication had to be dealt with effectively, not to simply pass a law. Lt. Stan Olsen confirmed for the committee that the intent behind the amendment was for A.B. 220 to apply to serious, violent crimes against persons.
Capt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, advised that WCSO supported the legislation. He believed amendments should narrow the felonies to only those violent crimes against persons (i.e., homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robberies). He also requested inclusion of language allowing interlocal agreements similar to those in other portions of statute. That capability would allow for flexibility among other entities and enable integration of task forces, etc. He did not wish to diminish the close, cooperative working relationships that existed between LVMPD and other agencies, nor was he questioning those officers’ capability or dedication. Over the last ten to fifteen years, police agencies had been created and expanded, which contributed to the blurring of jurisdiction and authority lines.
Capt. Nadeau listed many of his accomplishments and credentials but advised that he would not purport to lead a homicide investigation. As a full-service sheriff’s office, WCSO spent thousands of dollars annually to ensure that investigators were provided with hundreds of hours of cutting-edge training to better serve Washoe County residents. He agreed it was best to allow experts with a thorough knowledge of the latest investigative techniques and relevant legal intricacies to handle investigations. He believed the bill would bring focus back to agency responsibility and that the time had come to redefine lines of authority and jurisdiction. Capt. Nadeau provided the committee secretary with the rough statements he had prepared (Exhibit F).
Chairman Anderson called for further testimony in support of A.B. 220.
Ben Graham represented Clark County District Attorney, Stewart Bell, who was unable to attend. He advised that Capt. Nadeau’s testimony covered Mr. Bell’s opinion excellently and voiced his support for A.B. 220.
Mr. Nolan inquired whether there had been cases where the District Attorney’s Office was unable to prosecute due to poor investigative procedure by a non-primary officer. Mr. Graham was not personally aware of any such cases.
Kimberly McDonald, MPA, Management Analyst, City of North Las Vegas, testified to the City of North Las Vegas’s support of A.B. 220 and the proposed amendments, as the Chief of Police was unable to attend.
Chairman Anderson called forward the first panel: Andy Anderson, Mike Sheldon and Mike Murphy. Mr. Anderson, President of Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, advised that NCOPS represented several organization, three of which were listed in Section 4(a). They had not had time to assimilate the amendments proposed by the previous speakers. Mr. Anderson had been contacted by David Burns, Henderson POA, and Brad Walsh, North Las Vegas POA, who related their strong opposition to A.B. 220. Chairman Anderson requested and received Andy Anderson’s confirmation that he represented several different police organizations throughout the state.
Mike Sheldon, Chief of Las Vegas Department of Detention and Enforcement (LVDE), provided a brief overview and stated that detention and enforcement consisted of a 1,400-bed city jail complex, animal control, parking enforcement and the city marshal unit. They also housed the Southern Nevada Police Academy where all police organizations in southern Nevada, except Metro (LVMPD), were trained. Those departments included Henderson P.D., North Las Vegas P.D., Boulder City, Mesquite, school district, Clark County park police, all entities named in A.B. 220. LVDE was the first nationally accredited organization in Nevada and was one of only 16 agencies that held the National Sheriffs Association’s prestigious Triple Crown Award.
Mike Murphy, commander of field services for Las Vegas Department of Detention and Enforcement, enumerated 28 years of service, was a graduate of the FBI academy and a former police chief. He was responsible for overseeing the duties of the marshals and park police. He stated his opposition to A.B. 220 and, for the record, that millions of tax dollars had been spent over the last four to eight years to put more officers on the street. However, in reality, if A.B. 220 were passed, it would negate approximately 250 police officers. Commander Murphy believed A.B. 220 was a “fix to a non-existent problem” and advised that LVDE routinely solicited assistance from LVMPD. Also, LVDE used a written memorandum from Undersheriff Winget as a guideline in handling crimes.
Commander Murphy concurred that the subject matter of A.B. 220 could and should be dealt with as a local issue. He suggested preparation of memos of understanding, policy and procedure rather than legislation and agreed that crime trends and policing procedure changed. Commander Murphy referenced Sheriff Keller’s remarks to another committee as to his pride in the monthly meetings attended by all local police chiefs. Commander Murphy stated that, although the monthly meetings would be the appropriate forum for those issues, the subject matter of A.B. 220 had not come up. He advised that there were many felonies that could be handled at the first-to-respond level. He then provided examples referencing forensic intervention and how LVMPD was contacted for assistance. He discussed the “smoking gun” theory in homicides where, if the suspect was standing there with a smoking gun, they made the arrest immediately, then called for assistance in processing forensic evidence. Commander Murphy advised that the changes proposed by A.B. 220 would not lighten the call-service load for organizations on either side of the issue. He stated that it would increase the call-service load for LVMPD and would increase LVDE’s time spent remaining on the scene of calls awaiting response. LVDE possessed a 95 percent conviction rate on the last 100 felonies its personnel investigated. In his opinion, A.B. 220 would only benefit felons. It would not increase the quality of life for southern Nevada residents. In closing, Commander Murphy stated that policy allowed for flexibility but that law did not.
Ms. Ohrenschall requested clarification and discussed an example involving a park policeman and a murder in progress. She wondered if he would be required to call it in as opposed to taking action to stop the attack. Commander Murphy advised that, as the bill was written, they would apparently not have the authority to intercede on any felony.
Mrs. Koivisto requested confirmation from the panel that they believed the subject matter of A.B. 220 should be dealt with via jurisdiction agreement and not as statutorily. Chief Sheldon responded in the affirmative and voiced his surprise at the bill. He stated that existing policy and procedure addressed most if not all of the issues in A.B. 220.
Chairman Anderson then questioned the panel with respect to specific felonies that might take place within a jail and the procedures followed. Chief Sheldon confirmed that those events did occur and stated that if evidence was sufficiently prima facie, the corrections officer on the scene would investigate. However, because they possessed more expertise on specific crimes, marshals or Metro might be called depending upon the circumstances.
Mr. Nolan asked who was called when allegations against corrections officers were involved. Chief Sheldon responded that LVDE possessed an internal affairs bureau that would begin the investigation. If a “sex kit” was required, LVMPD (“Metro”) would be contacted. Mr. Nolan then requested clarification that an outside agency was not automatically contacted on an internal investigation. Chief Sheldon confirmed that, depending on the nature of the crime; LVDE would handle the case if it was within its expertise. For example, LVDE did not possess forensic expertise and Metro would be contacted because that was within Metro’s abilities and staff.
Mr. Carpenter inquired what kind of cooperation LVDE received from Metro when they were called in. Chief Sheldon responded that Metro had provided excellent support.
Ms. McClain questioned Commander Murphy about the monthly chiefs meeting for the entire Las Vegas valley and how the subject matter of A.B. 220 had not been raised. Commander Murphy advised that he was involved with the monthly meetings as the police chief in Mesquite until he went to LVDE. It was his experience that the issues had not been topics of discussion. He stated that Chief Sheldon did attend each month. Ms. McClain believed codifying the issues in state law, although A.B. 220 exempted all state agencies, would impact the legal system.
Chairman Anderson then called forward the second panel: Phil Gervasi, Elliott Phelps, and José Elique.
Phil Gervasi introduced himself as the President of the Police Officers Association, Clark County School District Police. He outlined his decades of police service and that he had retired from another agency. Further, Clark County School District (CCSD) police had approximately 10,000 calls per year, several thousand of which were felony calls. CCSD police also received many “hang ups” which required a response before determining whether they were felonies or misdemeanors. He stated that A.B. 220 would create a duplication of service. CCSD police, in service since 1989, had not had a single incident where a child had been fatally injured at school. CCSD police did respond to calls that were ultimately felonies and he provided examples of incidents handled by CCSD and where Metro was called. Mr. Gervasi also advised the committee that two CCSD officers were trained by the Metro school. He understood that the POA felt that interlocal agreement was the solution.
Chairman Anderson addressed an allegation by the sheriff that was relative to a school site. He discussed how the primary administrator at a school site would occasionally indicate that they were more concerned with the student body as a whole, than a potential criminal investigation and, thus, lose the event. The Chair asked Mr. Gervasi if he believed such events did not occur.
Mr. Gervasi did not deny that such events might occur. He specified them as training issues and agreed that the subject matter of A.B. 220 was not something to be legislated.
Chairman Anderson asked if it dealt with the responsibility of a Category 2 police officer that ends up in a conflict between his site administrator and the statute. What would his decision be if he had to decide between a crime and administrator?
Mr. Gervasi referenced A.B. 376 of the Seventieth Session that stated that the chief of police would supervise all school police officers and answer directly to the superintendent. Since that bill had been in effect, CCSD answered only to the chief of police on criminal matters, not to administration. Mr. Gervasi discussed a shooting where Metro was called in and informed CCSD that the crime scene was handled in a textbook fashion.
Ms. Ohrenschall readdressed Ms. McClain’s point. She agreed that once a crime had been committed, the more sophisticated forensic agency should be employed quickly, if at all possible. She asked, in the event A.B. 220 were passed, could Mr. Gervasi foresee a perpetrator attempting to have his arrest dismissed because it was performed by school district police and not a Metro officer. Mr. Gervasi responded that it was possible.
Elliott Phelps, Chief of Police for the Clark County School District Police Department, advised the committee that he also had over 30 years with municipal police forces and had served as a police chief. Most of Mr. Phelps’s career was in investigations. He acknowledged that skills were perishable, but that the recognition of one’s weaknesses were not. He stated that the subject matter of A.B. 220 had never been presented to him. Although he could not guarantee that the example of October 1999 would never happen again, he would take steps against a site administrator overruling the processing of a crime scene. Currently, S.B. 86 had resulted in an interim committee being formed to take a specific look at campus police’s jurisdiction. His interest was the best interests of Clark County students. If that entailed interlocal agreements, or possible consolidation with Metro, those were things they were more than willing to discuss via interlocal communications. In his experience, once something became law, more issues and more confusion were created than through an interlocal agreement or discussions.
Chairman Anderson stated that he was concerned with the loss of potential Category A and B felonies that were committed on school grounds. The Chair acknowledged that it was a new and changing area of concern for schools. He advised that school police officers and administrators needed to be aware of new and different roles being exhibited, not just “door shaker.”
Mr. Carpenter addressed current events and asked what types of special training were being done considering the types of crimes being committed on school grounds. Mr. Phelps responded that they had implemented “active shooter” training that would preclude the staging of large SWAT teams prior to the entry of schools. Within his force of over 140 officers, they had investigators who were trained in sexual assaults, child abuse, etc. He confirmed that they were mandated by state law to keep training at a specified level. Their training went above and beyond the requirement to ensure that the officers were fit for a high school campus, and such training was being expanded.
José A. Elique, Director of Public Safety and Chief of Police, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, addressed the committee in opposition to A.B. 220. He provided the committee with an annual report, dated October 2000 (Exhibit G), as well as a prepared statement (Exhibit H). Although appointed June 1, 2000, he had previously established a 700-man corps of sworn peace officers who provided law enforcement and public safety services to the City University of New York. He then discussed the nation’s largest urban university system comprising 20 colleges, over 200,000 students, and 30,000 faculty and staff employees. He stated that colleges and institutions of higher learning were special places that were ideally suited to the community-policing model. NRS Chapters 396 and 325 empowered the university and community college system of Nevada’s Board of Regents to create a police department.
Mr. Elique felt the fundamental message sent to UNLV police officers was, yes, their job was different than that of a Metro officer or Nevada highway patrolman, because they were mission-directed, but that they were not less than their fellow Category One peace officers. Because of the UNLV police department’s smaller force and resources, it had been policy to request assistance from LVMPD whenever confronted with a major crime. Correspondence had been sent to Sheriff Keller requesting revision and formalization of an interlocal agreement identifying specific incidents of crime wherein the UNLV police department would immediately request assistance. That process was currently under way.
Chairman Anderson voiced his concern that all three witnesses had cited NRS statutes for the basis of their authority. The jurisdictional question of the various agencies had been an ongoing discussion since the 1991 session. He remarked that there were those agencies that seemed to continually desire to expand their scope of authority beyond their original intent. The entire issue had taken on the appearance of a “turf war” and made no sense to those on the outside. He specified that non-police individuals wanted to be safe within the knowledge that, if a crime was committed, they were going to be protected and the district attorney would have the material necessary for a clean investigation and prosecution.
Chairman Anderson discussed receipt of a letter from the Washoe County Investigators Association (Exhibit I) before calling Ronald P. Dreher, President, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN), forward. Mr. Dreher testified in opposition of A.B. 220 as the president of PORAN and as a representative for the Professional Peace Officers of the State of Nevada. He also referenced his Position Paper (Exhibit J) and the statement from Deke DiMarzo, President, Washoe County School Police Officers Association (WCSPOA) (Exhibit K). Mr. Dreher advised that he was a retired Reno police officer. He had served the last 12 years of his time on major crimes in Reno and had investigated some of the most heinous crimes in Reno. He listed a number of varied policing agencies with which he had worked and voiced his respect and admiration for them all. Mr. Dreher believed that the other policing agencies possessed the same professional peace officer capabilities to handle crimes committed within their jurisdictions. He concurred that A.B. 220 was not a labor bill and stated he was not testifying in a labor capacity.
Mr. Dreher advised that the bill would require peace officers to report their Class A and Class B felonies. Referring to a book in his possession that listed all felonies in Nevada from 1995, Mr. Dreher stated that there were approximately 155 Class A and Class B felonies. He used that as an example of what school police would need to consider if they were required to stop in the middle of an event. One reason the current system worked was that law enforcement officers received standard training under Nevada Administrative Code 289. A.B. 220 attempted to separate jurisdiction and investigation of crimes. “A crime is a crime for investigative purposes.” Peace officers were trained on how to perform a preliminary crime scene investigation. Section 1 of A.B. 220 transferred investigation of a felony to a primary law enforcement agency. Separation would break up the team concept of law enforcement. All law enforcement agencies had made mistakes when investigating crimes. Lessons were also learned through mistakes. Mr. Dreher said that publicized events such as Columbine and San Diego provided law enforcement with a glimpse of what to expect if existing skills and knowledge were not utilized in a team-like fashion.
Mr. Dreher stated that to require certain, but not all, limited jurisdictions to relinquish their investigations, was an insult to the agencies singled out. It was also a poor utilization of police manpower and destroyed the team concept of crime solving. Although A.B. 220 purported to have no fiscal impact, there would be a significant cost to the primary jurisdictions taking over the investigation of all felonies, as required under Section 1. Further, A.B. 220 would prevent school police agencies from fulfilling their stated purpose under NRS 391.275. It would create division and eliminate communication between law enforcement agencies. In closing, with regard to a primary administrator impacting a crime scene, police officers were aware of the “thundering herd” syndrome. Frequently when a major crime scene was ascertained, commanders, chiefs, and others attempted to influence the manner in which an officer handled that crime scene. As difficult as it may be, officers were being trained to instruct others to remove themselves from the crime scene.
Chairman Anderson added that there were 34 Category A felonies to which A.B. 220 would apply and 157 Category B felonies, and that the list ran to 23 pages.
Mr. Carpenter questioned Mr. Dreher with respect to his previous police department experience. Mr. Dreher responded that he was with the Reno Police Department for over 26 years and spent the last 12 years in Homicide. Mr. Carpenter then hypothecated that if Mr. Dreher was at a crime scene when a crime was committed, he would be required to call in Reno P.D. Then, when they arrived, he would need to immediately transfer the investigation to the primary law enforcement agency. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Dreher “how would you feel” if, with his extensive experience, the officer from Reno was obviously very new. Mr. Carpenter inquired whether Mr. Dreher would feel right in transferring the investigation considering the discrepancy in relevant knowledge and experience. Mr. Dreher responded that, no, he would not. No law enforcement officer would. Officers recognized their limitations and routinely notified other jurisdictions when it was out of their league.
Chairman Anderson called on testimony from the south in opposition of A.B. 220. He addressed Ron Cuzze, State Peace Officers Council and NCOPS, and asked if his testimony had already been presented. Ron Cuzze concurred with prior testimony but stated that the committee needed to look at the impact on the victims. It impacted victims whenever police officers were limited as first responders and were required to call in other jurisdictions to handle emergency cases. He reiterated that every police/peace officer in the state needed to meet the same requirements.
Chairman Anderson then called Anthony York forward to speak in opposition to A.B. 220. Mr. York advised that he was a police officer with the school district police department but did not represent that organization. He agreed that A.B. 220 was not a labor issue, it was a cooperation issue that was better handled through interlocal agreements. Mr. York discussed October 2000 where there were a series of bomb threats in regard to a specific high school. Out of cooperation, the school police did contact the agencies that would be impacted. Although they contacted the commander of the southeast area, the highest operational commander for that area, no one was sent out during the four days of investigation.
Chairman Anderson confirmed that Mr. York was the last person who indicated a desire to speak in opposition to A.B. 220. The Chair reiterated that if someone’s testimony had been covered by another, to advise that they did not need to speak. He then called on Gary Wolff who stated “me too” in opposition to the bill. Chairman Anderson then called forward Chief Tamara Evans, Washoe County School District Police Department (Exhibit L).
Chief Evans advised that many of her points had already been discussed. The local police agencies in the Washoe County area currently had a memorandum of understanding. She also attended a monthly chief, sheriff and district attorney meeting and was never faced with the subject matter of A.B. 220 prior to its introduction. She agreed with Mr. Carpenter that it was a communication issue, and with Commander Murphy that it was a policy issue.
Chairman Anderson advised Chief Evans and the audience at large that discussion had been ongoing as early as a year ago. The Chair then called for questions before addressing Mr. Tiran, Mr. Gillins, and Ms. Yada from NCOPS. They offered a joint “me too” with respect to opposing testimony that had gone before. Chairman Anderson requested a representative of NCOPS come forward and identify themself for the record. Richard M. Tiran identified himself as a northern representative and Vice President for the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs as well as a parole and probation officer in the Reno area. NCOPS supported the comments placed on the record.
Chairman Anderson then called James Kidder forward.
James Kidder, Associate Vice President for Planning, Budget and Analysis, for the University of Nevada, Reno, testified in opposition of A.B. 220. He stated that the bill did not recognize that university police officers were Category One peace officers. He stated that the selection procedures and standards for university police were the same as for municipal police officers and sheriffs deputies. He pointed out that individuals who could best serve the unique university environment were selected and trained as university police officers. Mr. Kidder agreed that universities cooperatively employed interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to best make use of the limited resources of both agencies. A.B. 220’s automatic transfer of investigative jurisdiction of any suspected felony would refute the current practice of cooperation and collegiality. A.B. 220 would require university police officers to notify the appropriate city or county jurisdiction of any felony offense that occurred on university property and transfer jurisdiction to that agency.
Mr. Kidder agreed that agencies in both jurisdictions would be impacted as the university police officer or officers would be required to wait at the crime scene until an officer or officers from the other jurisdiction arrived, thereby tying up resources of both agencies. He stated that A.B. 220, if enacted, would have a significant impact on the university police department’s abilities to recruit and retain qualified police officers. It would send the message to current and prospective officers that, despite their training and education, their roles as police officers were limited.
Mr. Collins pointed out that some of the police issues had been handled in three different committees over the last three sessions. He then inquired whether UNR police currently carried handguns. Mr. Kidder confirmed that, yes, UNR police did currently carry handguns.
Chairman Anderson then called on Raymond McAllister, a professional firefighter, who, being neutral, deferred his opportunity to testify on A.B. 220. He then called on Michael Meese of the UNR police department who offered a “me too” for the record in opposition of A.B. 220. The Chair then called forward Mary Phelps Dugan.
Ms. Dugan introduced herself as Assistant General Counsel for University and Community College System of Nevada. She advised the committee that NRS 396.325 was enacted years ago. That statute empowered the Board of Regents to create a police department for the University and Community College System of Nevada. It also authorized that department to enter into interlocal agreements with other law enforcement agencies, which had taken place. NRS 396.325 did not limit the jurisdiction of the UCCSN police or their powers or authority. UCCSN police had, as their jurisdiction, the campus of the system institutions. No other law enforcement agency had jurisdiction over those state properties although another law enforcement agency might be permitted to come onto those state-owned properties by virtue of the interlocal agreements. She confirmed that almost all law enforcement agencies had interlocal agreements with the system institutions. However, on campus, the UCCSN police department was the primary authority, secondary to no other agency.
Ms. Dugan advised that A.B. 220 would change that specification of primary authority. As currently written, A.B. 220 would conflict with the legislation enacted as NRS 396.325 and unreasonably limit the authority of the UCCSN police department. Not only would A.B. 220 limit the jurisdiction of the UCCSN police department but would create and expand the jurisdiction and authority of other law enforcement agencies, county and city agencies, over the state-owned property that formed the campuses. She assured the committee that interlocal agreements that could address those issues were already in place. Regular meetings and more discussion could also help the problem. Ms. Dugan could not help but suggest that the issue might be back next session because of the nature of the subject matter.
Chairman Anderson brought A.B. 220 back to committee. He allowed that the bill might be reposted or assigned to a subcommittee if it proceeded. He voiced concern over a number of legitimate points relative to issues raised with respect to certain types of crimes. He allowed that if legislation was needed to clarify the matter that may take place, but opined that jurisdictional fights were “no win” fights. Chairman Anderson stated very clearly that he did not want any agency present to feel that they had less than 100 percent of his support for the jobs they did.
Mr. Collins referred to last session where school district police wanted to merge with Metro, and were now opposed to the same proposal. He also referred to problems in Clark County that were not being addressed in the monthly meeting. He was concerned over several issues relating to growth in Clark County and how the LVMPD had not been manned accordingly.
Mr. Carpenter acknowledged that A.B. 220 did not apply to his district although they also had campus police. It was his belief that communication needed to improve or, if put into law, the matter would be revisited every session by someone wanting to change it further.
Mr. Nolan agreed with the Chair, his focus being the best interest of the citizens. He advised that he had been contacted over the last three weeks by two constituents whose sons were assaulted on the UNR campus and how a botched investigation lead to an inability to prosecute the perpetrators. He felt it was a very timely issue and a very important one.
Chairman Anderson thereafter assigned A.B. 220 to Mr. Nolan. The Chair also requested Mr. Nolan review the bill and the amendments being considered, and that any interested persons contact Mr. Nolan on behalf of the committee. At Mr. Nolan’s question, Chairman Anderson requested findings at the work session scheduled for March 30, 2001.
Chairman Anderson then closed the hearing on A.B. 220.
Assembly Bill 240: Revises provisions governing unauthorized practice of law. (BDR 1-92)
Chairman Anderson advised that a quorum was not currently present but that one was expected momentarily.
The Chair then called Assemblywoman Sharron Angle to the witness table. Assemblywoman Angle introduced Libby A. Herlihy, a paralegal from Las Vegas, Nevada before continuing. She stated that A.B. 240 was drafted to amend ambiguous language introduced by A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session (revises certain provisions relating to unauthorized practice of law). She advised the committee that current language made several different professions very nervous because discussions had and actions taken within those professions could be construed as the “unauthorized practice of law.” Assemblywoman Angle presented examples of individuals representing others, but not intending to practice law, who could be charged with the unauthorized practice of law. The stated purpose of A.B. 240 was to craft a definition of what the unauthorized practice of law would constitute. She advised how A.B. 240 proposed that if someone represented themself as an attorney and they were not, then they were unlawfully practicing law. A.B. 240 was perceived as a clean up measure, as opposed to leaving the broad language in place. She then discussed the State Bar of Texas Task Force Preliminary Recommendation of a New Statutory Definition for the Practice of Law (Exhibit N) and pointed out the proposed revision on page 7 thereof.
Chairman Anderson recalled A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session and how those specific issues where addressed at the time and whether the bill would include those positions: resident agents, people who appeared before groups, graduates of law schools who were not licensed to practice law, and numerous administrative programs. The answer on the record was that A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session did not include those types of activities. The Chair noted the reference to Texas and addressed Texas’ very specific law relative to paralegals in addition to the Task Force recommendations. He stated that the issue of paralegals and how they perform might need to be raised separately.
Assemblywoman Angle confirmed her understanding of Chairman Anderson’s remarks but stated her belief that a definitive statement within the law, as opposed to an intention, should be provided.
Ms. Ohrenschall advised Assemblywoman Angle that she was concerned with the use of the word “attorney.” She asked what was intended with respect to the agency forms in circulation. Assemblywoman Angle confirmed her understanding of Ms. Ohrenschall’s statements and deferred the question to Ms. Herlihy, the author of the language. Chairman Anderson suggested the question be held pending Ms. Herlihy’s testimony. He then confirmed that Mr. Claborn’s question was best addressed by Ms. Herlihy also.
Libby A. Herlihy introduced herself and stated her intent as seeking the committee’s support on A.B. 240. She then read from her prepared statement (Exhibit C). She advised she was not against deletion of the words “arbitrator or other tribunals” from A.B. 240. Ms. Herlihy provided numerous examples where criminal action could be taken against an individual for discussion had or actions taken in the normal course of their employment. She reiterated that the current statute did not provide the Nevada state bar with a clear definition and understanding for the concept of “unauthorized practice of law.” She proposed that A.B. 240 provided that needed definition.
Chairman Anderson confirmed for Ms. Herlihy that, under NRS 41.637, truthful statements were protected. It was under NRS 218.5345 that misrepresentations caused problems.
Ms. Ohrenschall readdressed her question as to the phrase “attorney-in-fact” which appears in most power of attorney forms. Ms. Herlihy was unable to answer as her husband, who had taught law overseas, was not available because of illness.
Mr. Claborn stated that A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session related to the Nevada Supreme Court and penalties for paralegals that practiced law. He requested that she define the new language in Section 1. Ms. Herlihy confirmed her intent that someone representing him or her self as an attorney and misleading the public was the “unauthorized practice of law.” She referred to business cards that read “member of the bar” but did not specify whether they were an attorney, counselor, etc. She stated she would question some of those credentials and the manner in which some individuals were passing themselves off as being legal counselors. Mr. Claborn suggested language that went to “impersonating” an attorney.
Chairman Anderson then called Beth McAuliffe in Las Vegas (Exhibit P) to the witness table, who requested the committee’s support in the passage of A.B. 240. She stated that she was employed by one of the oldest resident agent firms in Nevada and was previously employed by the Nevada Secretary of State for nearly ten years. She advised that “rule one” had always been and would always be that you “do not practice law.” She only assisted her clients to ensure they were complying with the corporate laws of Nevada. He then confirmed with Ms. McAuliffe that she was not an attorney, nor a paralegal.
Chairman Anderson then called for further testimony in support of A.B. 240 before addressing those testifying in opposition. He acknowledged that a number of individuals had signed in and noted their opposition, but had no desire to speak. Chairman Anderson then called Steve Williams forward to the witness table. Mr. Williams, of the Washoe County School District, advised that the school board had not taken a position on A.B. 240. He had a question, however, as to the ability of other professionals within the district to represent the district in, for example, labor arbitration. He was concerned with the appearance of “arbitrator” in Section 1 and asked if that would constitute practicing law under A.B. 240.
Chairman Anderson asked Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, to respond. Ms. Lang advised the meeting at large that it did appear to state that you could not appear before an arbitrator if you were not licensed to practice. Chairman Anderson then interpreted her response to be a “yes,” that it would constitute practicing law under A.B. 240. He then polled the audience to determine how many in attendance were concerned with that same issue and most every individual responded.
Chairman Anderson then called Lucille Lusk to the witness table and questioned her as to her position on A.B. 240. Ms. Lusk advised that they would support the bill if it was amended. The Chair then requested her suggested amendment for the committee’s consideration. Lucille Lusk introduced herself as appearing on behalf of Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC) and confirmed that she would not read her prepared statement (Exhibit O). She stated that NCC believed the language of A.B. 240 actually expanded the definition of unauthorized practice of law to take into its sweep many things that the bill’s sponsor did not wish to involve. She then referred to her written statement only long enough to bring the committee’s attention to the proposed amendment in the last paragraph: deletion of “or appear before a … [court], magistrate, arbitrator or other tribunal in this state on behalf of another person” from Section 1, lines 5 through 7. She stated the amendment was intended to bring the bill back to its sponsor’s intent: that a person may not represent him or her self as an attorney if he or she were not one.
Chairman Anderson then called forward “the writer of the bill,” the State Bar of Nevada. He addressed Mr. Crowell, Mr. Clark and Mr. Bare.
Robert L. Crowell of Crowell, Susich, Owen & Tackes, Ltd., appeared on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada. He introduced Rob W. Bare, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada, and David A. Clark, Assistant Bar Counsel responsible for unauthorized practice of law activities, State Bar of Nevada. Mr. Crowell commended Chairman Anderson on his recitation of A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session in pertinent part as to “what is and is not” the practice of law and reiterated that commitment on the record. Mr. Crowell confirmed that, under the law, lobbyists were not made up of lawyers alone.
Chairman Anderson stated for the record that, while the State Bar of Nevada appeared on A.B. 240, the Bar was required to remain neutral on such an issue. Testimony of the Bar was necessary relative to the implementation of how the law actually worked, why it was initially requested, and why the Chair so acted in that previous session. Mr. Crowell confirmed the Chair’s comments.
David A. Clark of the State Bar of Nevada introduced himself and confirmed that he was Assistant Bar Counsel and that his main duties included handling complaints with respect to the unauthorized practice of law. Approximately 100 complaints were received each year. In looking at the bill and the amending language, the Bar did not have a problem with the language as written because it restated activities that were already well accepted as constituting the practice of law. If one did not have the authority to do so, it was the “un”authorized practice of law. However, as an all-inclusive definition, there were problems with A.B. 240. The language omitted the main activity that constituted the practice of law: the giving of legal advice. If all one had to do to avoid practicing law was to say that they were not an attorney, one could hang out a shingle that said “I’m not an attorney” and give advice, draft pleadings and contracts, without penalty. He advised that, broadly speaking, “the practice of law is giving … your independent legal judgment about someone else’s rights upon which they relay.”
Mr. Clark advised that the Bar had had very good luck, in the most egregious cases, with enforcing the legislation passed last session. He continued that the Bar had obtained injunctions in both Washoe and Clark counties against various organizations that were committing the unauthorized practice of law and “committing real harm to the public.” He provided an example where people were met in parking lots and provided with forms for a fee, which ultimately did not protect them or handle their problems. “It was bad legal advice, it was the practice of law, it caused serious public harm, yet under this statute it would not be a crime.”
Mr. Clark then addressed difficulties with the changes to the language that said one could not appear in front of a court, a magistrate or an arbitrator. The rule was that one could not commit the unauthorized practice of law. Aside from the Nevada Supreme Court, other agencies and organizations authorize certain representative functions. Mr. Clark then provided examples, including the worker’s compensation system, labor union grievances, and immigration courts system, where non-lawyers may represent others to a certain level. He advised that the Bar did not have a problem with “authorized” practices of law. Mr. Clark stated that he believed the current law worked well and that the Bar only responded to complaints of public harm. For him to obtain an injunction, he would need to show the court real and ongoing public harm.
Chairman Anderson called for questions for Mr. Clark. He then asked if Mr. Bare had additional testimony to be heard. The Chair then called forward Danny Thompson, Nevada AFL-CIO.
Mr. Thompson introduced himself as representing the Nevada State AFL-CIO. He stated his previous belief that A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session had “put all the worms back in the can last session” and that he had supported that bill. He advised that the Nevada State AFL-CIO was comprised of 120 unions throughout the state. Each union had different names for their representatives. Mr. Thompson stated that his organization was very concerned about A.B. 240 and believed that the bill “opened up such a can of worms” that they were opposed to the bill, regardless of amendment. He felt the bill would promote litigation over qualifications. Nevada State AFL-CIO saw no reason to change the current law and they believed A.B. 18 of the Seventieth Session was a good change.
Chairman Anderson solicited questions for Mr. Thompson before calling on Juanita Cox. Ms. Cox introduced herself as testifying on behalf of People to Protect America (PPA). She advised that PPA opposed much of the language in A.B. 240. She provided her own examples as to titles and public assistance. She addressed Ms. Ohrenschall’s question on power of attorneys. Chairman Anderson then requested Ms. Cox provide her statement (Exhibit Q) to the committee secretary before calling for questions.
Chairman Anderson then addressed Ronald P. Dreher, a representative of the Professional Peace Officers of Nevada, representing the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada. He offered a “me too” with respect to Mr. Thompson’s testimony and that they also opposed A.B. 240 in its entirety. He then withdrew his handout, specifying that it not be included as an exhibit.
The Chair then indicated to the audience that Ms. Cahill had wished to testify on behalf of the Nevada State Education Association in opposition to A.B. 240. Chairman Anderson also acknowledged that a number of other witnesses were skipped over, including professional firefighters, May Prosser-Strong, Stephen Turner, Fred Hillerby, Cheryl Blomstrom, and Chris Bayer. He noted that Chris Bayer’s position on A.B. 240 was unknown. He then advised the audience at large that if they had some specific information that needed to be included in the record, to indicate such and provide it to the committee secretary. He would then make certain it was included with the official record for the day. In that regard, Michael E. Langton, Esq.’s correspondence of March 7, 2001 (Exhibit R), Sandy Coyle’s written testimony (Exhibit S), and Margaret McMillan’s correspondence of March 8, 2001 on behalf of Sprint (Exhibit T) were included in the official record. Chairman Anderson then provided the opportunity for anyone who felt the needed to address the committee to do so, as he was not going to cut off any necessary discussion.
Chairman Anderson then closed the hearing on A.B. 240 and adjourned the meeting at 10:54 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: