ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

March 9, 2001

The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:09 a.m., on Friday,
March 9, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Doug Bache

Assemblyman David Brown

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Brian Krolicki, Treasurer, State of Nevada

John E. Adkins, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada

Stephen D. Hartman, Esq., of Allison, MacKenzie, Hartman, Soumbeniotis & Russell, Ltd.

Theresa Malone, Member of Nevada State Board of Education & Nevada State Board for Occupational Education

Andres Ramirez, Resident of Las Vegas, Nevada

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, State of Nevada

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada

Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney

Thomas E. Haider, Vice President – Government Affairs and Associate Corporate Counsel, of Travelers Express Company, Inc.

Robert R. Barengo, Travelers Express Company, Inc., Member of National Conference of Commissioners

Jack McClary, President of Nevada Association of Automotive Service Professionals

Eldon Hardy, Founder, Past President and Member of the Board of Directors of Nevada Association of Automotive Service Professionals, Owner of Hardy’s Automotive Shop

Rick Dahl, Owner of A-Allied Service

Chris Ferrari, Issues Manager, The McMullen Strategic Group, Representative of Retail Association of Nevada

Daryl Capurro, Managing Director of Nevada Motor Transport Association

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

Vicki D. Newell, Executive Director of Northern Nevada Literacy Council

Penny Brock, Director, Nevada Division of The National Right to Read Foundation

Herbert Chandler, Teacher of Action Reading, Washoe County Jail, Retired Captain of the United States Marine Corps

Marta Hall, Education Consultant, Northern Nevada Correctional Center

Assembly Bill 77: Revises provisions governing unclaimed property.
(BDR 10-410)

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 77 at 8:11 a.m. He called upon Assemblyman Doug Bache, Assembly District 11 and Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, to introduce their bill (A.B. 77).

Assemblyman Bache gave a brief summary of the bill, which would reduce the timeline that unclaimed property could be held and converted to cash. It would accelerate the time schedule to provide the state with more money.

Mr. Brian Krolicki, Treasurer, State of Nevada, summarized that A.B. 77 would accelerate some holding periods related to unclaimed property laws in Nevada. He stated that it was not the unclaimed property division bill, nor was it the treasurer’s bill. However, he did recognize that it accomplished much of their goals with regards to unclaimed property.

Mr. Krolicki noted Bill Draft Request (BDR) 18-360 (S.B. 489), which transferred the division of unclaimed property to the Treasurer’s Office and made various other changes related to the state treasurer and included the Federal Uniform Act of Unclaimed Property of 1995, was requested by the Unclaimed Property Division of the State Treasurer’s Office. He indicated that it was still only a BDR, and hoped it would be heard soon.

Mr. Krolicki noted the holding period would only be a part of the bill, and he hoped it would not delay it. He indicated the state of Nevada had substantially different standards and holding periods than other states. He also informed the committee that BDR 18-360 (S.B. 489) attempted to set a uniform standard based on the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995. He explained the treasurer’s plan presented early last year to the fundamental review committee, which involved changes that would produce a one-time contribution of $10 million to $12 million, to the state General Fund, would be included in their legislation (BDR 18-360/S.B. 489). He recognized the merits of A.B. 77, and was interested in how it would interact with the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995, and their legislation (BDR 18-360/S.B. 489).

Chairman Anderson expressed his concerns with regards to how much A.B. 77 could deviate from the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995. He recognized the unique and peculiar needs of Nevada in comparison to model legislation nationally, and asked Mr. Krolicki to assist the committee in determining how to make A.B. 77 meet both the needs of the state and still comply with the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995. Mr. Krolicki recommended that the committee not change the current hold times on money orders and travelers checks, which were 15 years and 7 years respectively.

Mr. Carpenter asked how the process of unclaimed property actually worked. Mr. Krolicki stated that unclaimed property always belonged to the original owner, regardless of holding periods. He described it would be returned to the original owner upon proper identification. He explained when unclaimed property was identified in various locations such as bank accounts, savings accounts, et cetera, the unclaimed property would be transferred to the state General Fund. He indicated the state General Fund gained the benefit of the moneys while it remained unclaimed. He said it would be reverted to the owner once they were located and identified. He clarified that both A.B. 77, and
BDR 18-360 (S.B. 489), did not change any property rights of the original owners of the unclaimed property; they always maintained their right to their property.

Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Krolicki to clarify whether the interest of the unclaimed property would become the property of the state or become part of the general funds to be utilized for other purposes. Mr. Krolicki responded, “While the property remained unclaimed, the state would accrue its benefits.”

Chairman Anderson inquired where the bill dealt specifically with money orders and traveler’s checks. Mr. John E. Adkins, Chief Deputy Treasurer, State of Nevada, answered Section 1, Subsection 3 of page 2, which began with
line 26, was the portion of the bill that pertained to money orders and travelers checks.

The Chair then called Mr. Stephen D. Hartman, Counsel, of Allison, MacKenzie, Hartman, Soumbeniotis & Russell, Ltd., to testify on behalf of American Express. Mr. Hartman explained that in 1979, the debate began with regard to the formation of a uniform unclaimed property act. He indicated his concern with the attempt to reduce the holding period of money orders and traveler’s checks. He informed the committee that over the 15-year period of abandonment for money orders, and the 7-year abandonment period for traveler’s checks, 80 percent were claimed by the owner. Those claims generated significant administrative costs. He noted the cost outweighed the income generated by the unclaimed property.

Mr. Hartman indicated his support of the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995. He explained that money orders and traveler’s checks were not typically identified by name, but rather by number, which generated a report distributed to all of the states and then in turn to their state treasury. He stressed the necessity of uniformity with regard to the process for companies who dealt with multiple states. He then indicated that American Express would prefer the committee to consider alternative language or legislation, which would conform to the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995.

Mr. Hartman referred the committee to Exhibit C, which demonstrated the patterns and habits of consumers with regards to money orders and traveler’s checks. He summarized that if the committee held to the uniform act, all would be better served.

Chairman Anderson clarified that the committee would not cause irrevocable harm if the particular section of the bill referring to money orders and traveler’s checks was removed. Mr. Hartman responded in the affirmative, stating the language in that section should be left out.

Chairman Anderson thanked the witness and recalled Mr. Krolicki to testify.

Ms. Buckley inquired how much money the state would receive from the changes made by A.B. 77 and BDR 18-360 (S.B. 489). Mr. Krolicki responded that according to a report by Steven McDonald, the state would receive approximately $14.2 million from the changes. If Nevada were to pursue the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995, and not pursue money orders or traveler’s checks, the state would compress the timeline for banks, insurance companies, et cetera, which would result in approximately $10 million to $12 million dollars that would be generated for the state.

Ms. Buckley then inquired if the $10 million generated from implementation of the suggested changes, was factored into the Governor’s budget. Mr. Krolicki answered that it had not. He indicated the $10 million was identified in the Fundamental Review as a potential result of recommended legislation.

Chairman Anderson recognized the greater financial importance of A.B. 77. He then called Ms. Theresa Malone, Member of the Nevada State Board of Education and Nevada State Board for Occupational Education, to testify on behalf of A.B. 77. Chairman Anderson indicated to Ms. Malone that he had spoken with Mr. John W. Gwaltney, Member of the Nevada State Board of Education and Nevada State Board for Occupational Education, who was very ill and informed him that Ms. Malone would cover all of the pertinent points of the bill with regard to the Department of Education, on his behalf.

Ms. Malone began her testimony by identifying herself as a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, and a Member of the State Board of Education. She sought the committee’s consideration of an amendment to A.B. 77, and requested a
rereferral to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She described that her ideal amendment would provide for 50 percent of the revenues derived from investments of the state’s unclaimed property and of interest-bearing unclaimed property held by the state to be used to match federal funds of education grants to students in need of English proficiency in Nevada. She indicated the grants included in her proposal would be available through the Department of Education until the year 2010. She read from the first page of her Exhibit D, and then referred the committee to the second page. She quoted, “In Clark County, the majority of minority students comprise 50.1 percent of total enrollment, now the 6^th largest school district in the United States.” She then summarized the next paragraph, which indicated that of the 50.1 percent, “Hispanics accounted for 28.8 percent, by far the largest of any of the minority groups.” She noted the increase of minorities in the general population over the last ten years.

Chairman Anderson informed Ms. Malone that her testimony would be better served before the Ways and Means Committee rather than Judiciary, because it would not be under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee to appropriate the funds generated by the bill. Ms. Malone thanked the Chair for his clarification and allowing her the opportunity to speak.

Chairman Anderson called Mr. Andres Ramirez, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, to testify. Mr. Ramirez expressed his support of the proposed amendment to A.B. 77 (Exhibit D), as described by Ms. Malone. He requested the committee to refer A.B. 77 to a committee that would have the jurisdiction to accept the proposed amendment.

The Chair then recognized Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of the State of Nevada. Ms. Del Papa expressed her appreciation to the committee for their consideration of legislation with regards to domestic violence prevention. She noted that every nine seconds someone in the United States was battered. She indicated the importance of the issue and stated the Attorney General’s Office had a long-time statewide coordinating committee (Domestic Violence Prevention Council) to study and prevent domestic violence.

Ms. Del Papa informed the committee that on August 23-24, 2001, there would be statewide conferences held on issues relative to immigrant women in Nevada. She introduced several members of the Domestic Violence Prevention Council who accompanied her. She then recognized Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, for his efforts against domestic violence.
Mr. Gammick then introduced his student shadows for the day, Steven Doyle and Marcos Franco, who were from Sparks Middle School and were part of the Reno Rotary Career Coach Day.

Chairman Anderson informed Ms. Del Papa of upcoming legislation to be heard by the committee with regards to domestic violence. He specified that
A.B. 259, which further defined domestic violence and arranged for warrantless arrests in cases involving domestic violence, sponsored by Ms. McClain, was scheduled to be heard on March 19, 2001. He noted the unfortunate, continuous need for legislation with regards to the prevention of domestic violence.

Chairman Anderson then introduced Ms. Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Secretary for the Assembly Judiciary Committee. He then thanked Ms. Del Papa for her presence and continued assistance to the committee through her testimony.

The Chair then called Mr. Thomas E. Haider, Vice President of Government Affairs and Associate Corporate Counsel, of Travelers Express Company, Inc., and Mr. Robert R. Barengo, who represented Travelers Express Company, Inc., and member of National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, to testify before the committee. Mr. Barengo acknowledged that the majority of their concerns regarding A.B. 77 had already been addressed. He specifically noted their concern to Section 1, Subsection 3, lines 29 and 30, of the bill pertaining to money orders. He asked that the entire paragraph, lines 24 through 36, including money orders, be removed from the bill to let the current law stand regarding unclaimed money orders. He indicated the money that would be raised from money orders in A.B. 77 would be insignificant. He informed the committee that 99 percent of money orders were cashed within the 15-year abandonment period.

Ms. Buckley inquired if the changes from A.B. 77, or from BDR 18-360
(S.B. 489), produced the possible $4 million increased income to the state.
Mr. Barengo responded that the total resulted from all of the changes between both bills.

Chairman Anderson thanked and dismissed the witnesses. He noted that he had called all persons who wished to speak regarding A.B. 77.

Chairman Anderson then recalled Mr. Krolicki to clarify how A.B. 77 would compare to the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995, after the removal of Section 1, Subsection 3, page 2, lines 27, 30, and 31. Mr. Krolicki referred the committee to Exhibit E, which contained information regarding the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995. He stated that BDR 18-360 (S.B. 489) “would slightly amend and go beyond the Unclaimed Property Act of 1995.”

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Krolicki if he would prefer the committee to hold onto A.B. 77 until his bill (BDR 18-360/S.B. 489) was introduced so that they could be reviewed together. Mr. Krolicki responded in the affirmative. He felt it would be more advantageous to the committee to review the two bills at the same time so that they could be compared throughout the examination process.
Chairman Anderson stated that he intended to hold A.B. 77 in the committee until it could be reviewed with the legislation from Mr. Bache, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. He stated that if the bill would be processed, it would be done with the removal of Section 1, Subsection 3,
page 2, as it applied to traveler’s checks, money orders and like instruments.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 77.

Assembly Bill 162: Makes various changes to provisions governing theft.
(BDR 15-900)

Chairman Anderson then opened the hearing on A.B. 162. He called Assemblyman David Brown, Assembly District 22, to introduce his bill.
Mr. Brown introduced Mr. Jack McClary, President of Nevada Association of Automotive Service Professionals (NAASP), who would assist him in answering the committee’s questions. He indicated it would amend the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 205.0832, actions which constituted theft, by further defining theft of services in subparagraph 6, and adding a subparagraph 10. He then read from the bill and described the changes the bill would make to the law as it stood.

Mr. Brown informed the committee that automotive professionals had no recourse from NRS 205.0832 as it stood. He explained that auto parts affixed to an automobile became part of the vehicle, and therefore became part of the personal property of the owner. He noted that when and if an automobile would be removed from a repair shop intentionally without payment, the person would be deemed as removing his or her own property. The statute left a substantial loophole, he said.

Mr. Brown indicated that auto shops were left with only civil remedies when people who entered into agreements for parts and services, would intentionally remove their vehicle without payment for such parts and/or services. He contended that no threat of criminal liability was posed to the person.
Mr. Brown explained that if a person were to walk in and take a large auto part such as a transmission without payment, the action would undoubtedly be deemed as theft. However, if the part was installed, and the person intentionally removed the vehicle without payment, they would not be guilty of theft under the statute as it stood.

Mr. Brown indicated that A.B. 162 followed the lead of many other states with regards to parts and products related to services, as indicated in subparagraph 6 of A.B. 162, and specified automobile parts to include fuel. He listed some of the supporters of the bill, which included the Nevada Franchise Auto Dealers Association, Nevada Motor Transport Association, Nevada Retailers Association, and the Nevada District Attorney’s Association.

Chairman Anderson inquired why parts, products, and services were enumerated. Mr. Brown responded that subparagraph 6 pertained to all services that were available. The Chair then asked if marine and aircrafts, et cetera, needed to be included. Mr. Brown indicated that he did not feel they needed to be specified, that any type of service provided would be included under subparagraph 6, whenever people contracted for services, which could include parts or products.

Mr. Brown proceeded to explain that the “hole” in the statute (NRS 205.0832) was in Section 1, paragraph 6, which read, “Obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so.” He noted that it did not include parts or products, which would become the property of the original owner once installed. Chairman Anderson clarified whether other services, which the person knew were available only for compensation, were already protected under the current statute. Mr. Brown answered yes.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if the portion of A.B. 162 that pertained to gasoline and other fuels intended to cover the gasoline or other fuel that would be added to the vehicle at the time of repair? Mr. Brown responded that it would indeed be covered under the bill. He indicated that when large truck repairs required long idle times, it would be necessary to add fuel which would be included in possible prosecution and claims by the state under A.B. 162.

Mr. Collins asked if A.B. 162 would possibly place a person in double jeopardy. He posed the example of a person accidentally not paying their bill, or unintentionally writing a bad check. Mr. Brown stated that A.B. 162 did not duplicate bad check laws or any type of possessory lien. He clarified it made it criminal if it was intentional, and made such theft prosecutable by the state.

Mr. Gustavson asked if this statute covered drive-offs from gas stations.
Mr. Brown answered that the statute could include such situations to allow for misdemeanor action similar to shoplifting. Chairman Anderson inquired if
A.B. 162 removed such situations from civil remedies and placed them into the criminal misdemeanor category. Mr. Brown responded that the category of misdemeanor or felony it would be prosecuted under would be dependent upon the dollar amount of the theft.

Ms. Buckley inquired why more specificity was necessary when Section 1 of NRS 205.0832 seemed to already encompass such theft or deprivation of property and compensation. Mr. Brown responded that the problem was that an automobile was considered a person’s personal property. He explained that when a part would be affixed to the automobile, it became a part of the automobile and therefore the original owner of the automobile’s personal property. He said that the current statute referred to the property of another person, which is what created the loophole and the inability to prosecute. He noted that the legal argument that such theft was encompassed by that section had not succeeded. Thus, the need for A.B. 162 was created.

Chairman Anderson stated the District Attorney’s Association wished to speak later with regards to the need for the bill. He then called on Mr. McClary to testify.

Mr. McClary, President of NAASP, explained the issue of interpretation of personal property, which created the inability of auto shop owners to recover stolen property. He informed the committee that he had brought several auto shop owners to testify regarding actual losses they sustained due to the loophole in NRS 205.0832. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 162, to close the loophole in the law so that business owners could recover their lost property.

Mr. McClary cited that according to a survey conducted by NAASP of their membership, approximately 21 percent of their members experienced economic losses related to the loophole in NRS 205.0832. He indicated that the percentage represented approximately 500 out of about 2,400 automotive repair and service shops throughout Nevada. He noted that the estimated losses totaled approximately $1.1 million annually. He stated the average loss to the individual shop owner was approximately $2,200. He emphasized the economic losses were not insignificant amounts, and that the losses usually occurred when the person’s bill for parts and services was rather large. The automotive service and repair shops not only lost their profit, but they also lost the cost of the part and time spent to install it, he said.

Chairman Anderson thanked the witness, and inquired if the pursuit of A.B. 162 was because civil remedies were not sufficient, and the association felt the criminal liability would be more effective in detouring such theft. Mr. McClary posed the example that if a person stole an alternator off of the counter of a shop, that person would be guilty of theft. However, if the alternator was installed in the person’s vehicle, and they took it without payment, it would not be theft under the current law, because it became their personal property when it was installed on their car, and the police would have no jurisdiction to arrest the person for theft. He indicated that the described situation had occurred on several occasions, which prompted the Nevada Association of Automotive Service Professionals (NAASP) to seek A.B. 162, to prevent future occurrences of theft.

Chairman Anderson informed persons who wished to testify that there was a five-minute limit to their testimony if they were not the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Eldon Hardy, Founder, Past President and Member of the Board of Directors of NAASP, and Owner of Hardy’s Automotive Shop, testified in support of
A.B. 162. He cited personal losses in profits of approximately $50,000 over the last three years, from the loophole in NRS 205.0832. Mr. Hardy indicated that of the five examples of theft of parts, products and services that he would present to the committee, he still had keys to three of the vehicles. He stated that if he were to take those vehicles back to his shop to recover the money lost, he would be arrested for auto theft.

Mr. Hardy stated that in attempts to prevent losses of parts, products and services, he locked cars inside his shop. He then described an instance when a man came in the front office to pay the bill for his car and sent his wife around to the back to pick it up. Mr. Hardy described that she had told the service manager that her husband was paying the bill at the front desk. She then drove the car and picked up her husband and continued to drive away without paying the bill.

Mr. Hardy then cited another instance where an out-of-state customer from California brought her car in and approved some extensive repairs that took approximately two weeks to perform. She arranged to pick up her car on a Saturday, when they weren’t open, he said. He stated that he had arranged for his service manager to be there to get her car. She never came, instead, Mr. Hardy contended that her husband came with three of his friends and requested to take it for a test-drive to make sure it was fixed. He stated that the service manager went with them on the test drive, and when they returned, he went inside with the woman’s husband to settle the bill. Upon their entrance, the husband’s friends drove off in the car, and he refused to pay the bill and left in the car he came in with. Mr. Hardy then said when he called Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, they came and concluded that the theft was not within their jurisdiction. He described that their only recourse in the described situation was to seek civil remedies through the small claims court in California, which was unsuccessful. He stressed that there was blatant theft and they had no recourse.

Chairman Anderson informed Mr. Hardy that he successfully made his point through his examples. The Chair then accepted questions from the committee.

Ms. Buckley acknowledged that the examples provided were obviously theft and felt the persons involved should be prosecuted. She questioned how A.B. 162 would balance situations where written estimates were not provided as was required by law against cases of obvious theft. Mr. Hardy recognized that written estimates were indeed covered by law, and that some shops occasionally did not provide the written estimate. He assured the committee that in his garage, their policy was to abide by the law and provide the written estimates. He stated that A.B. 162 would cover obvious cases of theft, where the repairs were approved before they were performed, and the customer deliberately intended not to pay. He noted that cases where written estimates were not provided would not be covered under this provision. He described that they could easily avoid payment for the repairs by removing their vehicle from the property after they were performed, despite their signed approval for the repairs. Mr. Hardy asserted that there was no further recourse from that point.

Chairman Anderson noted that there was a possibility that A.B. 162 would be amended. Ms. Ohrenschall asked what would happen to a person who accidentally wrote a bad check in good faith? She questioned would that person be subject to criminal prosecution, even though they were acting completely in good faith. Mr. Brown responded that if they were genuinely acting in good faith, they would not have the required intent. He stated that he believed if the person wanted to work out the situation and properly settle their debt, that criminal prosecution would not be sought. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired whether the person would be given the opportunity to satisfy the debt before criminal prosecution was sought without their knowledge. Mr. Brown answered that he believed there were already statutes in the NRS that would govern that situation. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Hardy if he had anything to add to
Mr. Brown’s answer. Mr. Hardy responded that Mr. Brown sufficiently answered the question.

Chairman Anderson called Mr. Rick Dahl, owner of A-Allied Service, to testify. Mr. Dahl referred the committee to his proposed amendment to Section 1, paragraphs 6 and 10 of A.B. 162 (Exhibit F). Chairman Anderson advised
Mr. Dahl that legislative bill drafters were the people who drafted the language of bills and their amendments, and wanted him to understand that the language he submitted would be accepted as a suggestion and would likely be revised. Mr. Dahl informed the committee that he wanted the words “automobile repair” to be specified in A.B. 162, to assure that prosecution of theft of parts, products and services could be sought. He read the proposed amendment (Exhibit F). He noted that he left out the phrase “he knows.” He indicated that he felt the phrase was ambiguous, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the person knew the parts, products or items related to services were available only for compensation.

Mr. Dahl then read from his proposed amendment, which added the language of “by the terms of the service provider” to Section 1, paragraph 10, of A.B. 162. He explained that his addition of “by the terms of the service provider,” was because he felt the language left another ambiguity. He stated that he felt the parts and services performed were his, so he believed he should have the right to set the terms of payment. He did not want the situation to arise where the person who accepted repairs and services from him could take them without payment by simply stating later when approached by law enforcement, that they intended to pay for it, and thus avoided prosecution. He asserted that the stipulation of “by the terms of the service provider,” were similar to bank services, loan offices, et cetera.

Chairman Anderson informed Mr. Dahl of the concern about enumerating services. He explained that if certain services were specified, a problem would arise regarding the services that weren’t specified under the provisions of the bill. Also, he indicated the difficulty of determining which services would be specified and which would be left out. Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Dahl felt the enumeration of services assisted A.B. 162 in accomplishing his goals, or if it opened a greater problem by inadvertently leaving a service off of the list that should have been included. Mr. Dahl explained that his intentions were not to leave any service or profession out of the bill, but to be sure that automobile repairs were an obvious inclusion of the bill. He asserted that he felt other services would be included through the word “et cetera” at the end of the list of services. He stated his wish was for automobile repairs to appear in the language of the bill because of the many previous difficulties with attaining prosecution under the laws since their service was not specified.

Chairman Anderson indicated the ambiguity of the term “et cetera.” He informed Mr. Dahl that the committee would accept his proposed amendment as a suggestion of potential changes to A.B. 162. Mr. Dahl thanked the committee and Mr. Brown for their consideration of the automotive services industry in the drafting of A.B. 162.

Chairman Anderson then called Mr. Chris Ferrari, Issues Manager, The McMullen Strategic Group, representative of Retail Association of Nevada, to testify.
Mr. Ferrari informed the committee of their support of A.B. 162, that their concerns with the language had already been discussed to their satisfaction.

The Chair then called Mr. Daryl Capurro, Managing Director of Nevada Motor Transport Association to testify in support of A.B. 162. He explained that major overhauls on long-haul tractors could cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000. Parts would be more expensive as well, he said. He stated that several customers would request their vehicle be filled with fuel after the repairs were completed, which made Section 1, paragraph 10, line 19 apply to them. He supported the idea of adding repairs, since he felt there was a difference between service and repairs. He described that in his business, an example of a service would be a truck-wash with no repairs being done, and repairs would be overhauls, changed blowers, et cetera, on a truck.

Mr. Capurro requested the committee to consider changing the language of Section 1, paragraph 6, lines 1 and 2, to read, “Obtains services, parts or repairs, products or other items related to such services or repairs.” Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Capurro would object to the committee adding the contingency of a written estimate into A.B. 162. Mr. Capurro informed the committee that the written estimate law did not apply to commercial repairs because commercial customers were knowledgeable of the costs of repairs. He then noted that if there was to be a total overhaul and major repairs, his business would seek approval through a written estimate before performing such repairs.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Capurro to clarify that if the bill was to be amended, they should cross reference to the written estimate law, which would provide for the exception of commercial repairs, services, parts and products.
Mr. Capurro opined that a reference to the estimate law would be unnecessary, and that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) frowned on references to other laws. The Chair indicated that he would be reluctant to pass A.B. 162 without a reference to that law to protect those people who did not receive a written estimate and had no knowledge of the higher cost of repairs from being prosecuted under A.B. 162, should it pass. Mr. Capurro advised the committee that the auto service and repair shop would not be able to pursue prosecution under this bill if they did not follow civil procedures to assert their lien, nor would they be able to impose provisions from the bad check law if they did not comply with the written estimate law, therefore they would definitely not qualify to assert this law, should it pass.

Ms. Buckley indicated that Section 1, paragraph 6, could be amended to include authorization, in recognition of services that did not require written estimates such as getting a haircut, et cetera. However, she noted A.B. 162 did not refer to those other sections of the law. She explained that if they could add another section for automotive services, which would include the authorization, then written estimates could be avoided for commercial vehicles. She then stated her support of the intent of A.B. 162.

Mr. Capurro responded that NRS 205.0832, began as “a person commits theft if without lawful authority he knowingly…” He added that he would not object to a reference to another law, if the LCB would accept it.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mr. Capurro for his testimony. Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, testified before the committee in support of A.B. 162. He advised the committee that from a criminal law standpoint, the main purpose of a law would be to give notice of what violations would and would not be. He indicated that A.B. 162 would be helpful to law enforcement because it was more specific than current law, and that he supported it.

Chairman Anderson cited the example that prosecution could be sought if the transmission was stolen from the counter of the auto shop, but could not be sought if the transmission was stolen after it had already been installed.
Mr. Graham acknowledged the possibility of the situation, and indicated that he felt A.B. 162 would close the loophole in NRS 205.0832. However, he advised the committee that the intent of criminal law was not to recover money or property, but to prosecute for crimes against the state. He noted that restitution could be sought through the criminal process, or property could be recovered, but that was not the intent of criminal law.

Mrs. Koivisto inquired if the auto shop would want their property back, in the example of a stolen installed alternator, if it was used. Mr. Graham informed the committee that once the party entered into negotiating a civil remedy case, the criminal case was usually dissolved.

The Chair then recalled Mr. Jack McClary, who stated that their intent through A.B. 162 was to deter people from stealing the described property and services. He indicated that if the penalties existed, they would act as a deterrent and a reduction in economic loss would naturally occur.

Mr. Collins then asked Mr. Graham if the state did not have criminal law to retrieve people’s property/money, then why did the state pursue bank robbers. Mr. Graham responded, “So that they don’t rob another bank.” Chairman Anderson clarified that it was to protect society from such persons through imprisonment.

Chairman Anderson indicated that his intention was to place A.B. 162 into a work session. He then closed the hearing on A.B. 162.

Assembly Bill 241: Requires Director of Department of Prisons to establish pilot program to improve literacy of offenders. (BDR S-653)

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 241, by calling its sponsor, Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, of Assembly District 21. Mrs. Angle indicated that A.B. 241 addressed illiteracy, which was in her opinion, the most important issue in America. She explained effective teaching methods that were concluded by the National Reading Panel in April of 2000, after reviewing over 100,000 studies of how students learned to read. The teaching methods she described were:

q Phonemic Awareness - Instruction of how to break apart and manipulate sounds in words;

q Phonics – Instruction of sounds that were represented by letters of the alphabet that were combined to form words;

q Guided Oral Reading – Practice of techniques learned by reading aloud with guidance and feedback; and

q Application of reading comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension.

Mrs. Angle stated that A.B. 241 would implement a curriculum based on scientific findings into the prisons as a pilot program. She indicated that the program would assist both beginning readers as well as the functionally illiterate. She announced to the committee that A.B. 241 was a bill to teach beginning reading skills.

Mrs. Angle referred the committee to Exhibit G, page 1, a letter from
Ms. Angela Stack, Literacy Specialist, Lovelock Correction Center, State of Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP). Mrs. Angle stated that approximately one percent of the people in Ms. Stack’s program were nonreaders. Mrs. Angle asked the committee to keep in mind that statistically, 7 out of 10 prisoners could not read (both completely illiterate and functionally illiterate). Mrs. Angle then read from Exhibit H, which was a letter of recommendation of the Action Reading Program, from a former inmate of the Colorado State Prisons. She also indicated there were two other letters of recommendation (Exhibit I and
Exhibit J) that she would not read. She then referred the committee to page 12 of the report from Texas titled, “Impact of Educational Achievement Of Inmates in the Windham School District on Recidivism” (Exhibit K). She noted that the recidivism rate dropped as the people became more educated in prison. She also cited that the younger the people were when they received the education in prison, the greater the drop in recidivism rates. As a result of those statistics, she felt it was the responsibility of Nevada to test pilot the program proposed in A.B. 241. Mrs. Angle then referred to a second part of the program proposed in her bill, which was tailored to suit the needs of English as a Second Language (ESL) students.

Mrs. Angle advised the committee that the current form of testing at the prisons was the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), which was criterion based, similar to tests performed at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
(Exhibit L). She then called the committee’s attention to her Exhibit M, a basic reading competency test she downloaded from the Internet that was designed for the testing of a nonreader. She indicated the simplicity of administration of the test. She opined that testing should be done throughout the educational process to catch students early that were falling through the cracks. She asserted that the test could be used as a tool with WRAT.

Mrs. Angle explained that the first section of A.B. 241 dealt with the actual program that would be implemented in the prisons, and that Section 2 dealt with the money aspect of the bill to cover some of the expenses that were to be reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. She informed the committee that most of the instructors and tutors were already in place for the program. She added that part of the expense would be for a clinical research to gather and compare the information from the Action Reading and ESL programs and their effectiveness under controlled situations over two years, and a person to train the literacy specialists and tutors how to teach the two programs.

Ms. Buckley inquired about the letter from Angela Stack (Exhibit G), which expressed that a successful literacy program based on the Laubach method (phonics-based) was already in place, but that they were interested in learning more about the programs offered in A.B. 241. She said they were concerned about the demographics of their population, which included only one percent that were nonreaders. She added further that they didn’t feel they had enough participants for the pilot program. Ms. Buckley opined that before the program would be instituted, more communication with the prisons was needed to be sure that it would be appropriate for their institutions and integrate with the programs they already had in place.

Mrs. Angle responded that she had spent time speaking with the literacy specialist from Lovelock. She indicated the reason for Ms. Stack’s conservative comments were due to their concern that the money to support the programs from A.B. 241 would come out of their budget. She also stated the program was discussed with relation to Laubach, which was not designed for the nonreader. She expressed her concern that completely illiterate and functionally illiterate prisoners were difficult to identify because they compensated for their inabilities, which was why she included mandatory testing of prisoners upon entrance to the facility where the program was to be instituted to find those persons who could not read.

Chairman Anderson indicated that the letter from Ms. Stack could be interpreted a number of ways. He stated from an educator’s standpoint, the letter could be read to say they want all tools available to reach every student, however they didn’t want to be dictated to use just the one tool. From a legislative standpoint, he recognized the large percentage of the prison population that had a drug and/or alcohol problem began their addiction at approximately ten years of age, which resulted in delayed development and in turn, recidivism. He voiced his concern that the program would be forced upon the prison system. He inquired if the intent of A.B. 241 was to add the program as a tool or if it was to be used solely in certain situations.

Mrs. Angle responded that the intent of A.B. 241 was to offer another tool and test the validity of the program for the prisons in Nevada. Chairman Anderson asked if placement of persons into a test group precluded the inmate to that program or if they had the opportunity to seek another program that would be more suited to them if they were not satisfied with the program. Mrs. Angle advised the committee the program was voluntary and the inmate could leave the program at any time. She explained that the literacy specialist and tutors could also determine whether the program was effective for the inmate and recommend a change as well.

Chairman Anderson thanked Mrs. Angle for presenting the bill encouraging literacy to the committee. He then called upon Ms. Vicki D. Newell, Executive Director of Northern Nevada Literacy Council to testify.

Ms. Newell testified to “the effectiveness of phonics in teaching adult learners who had a low level of literacy proficiency.” She indicated the Northern Nevada Literacy Council created the ESL program Mrs. Angle had discussed. Ms. Newell explained that it was a combination of Action Reading and Laubach methodologies with the emphasis on phonics vocabulary. She stated their program used a competency-based reading assessment called the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). She noted that CASAS experienced a five-point gain on a national average whenever a student participated in 80 to 100 hours of competency-based instruction. She informed the committee that when a student entered the 96-hour phonics vocabulary pronunciation course, they experienced an average gain of 10.1 points. She described that the learners would have a second grade or below reading level upon entrance, and at the conclusion of the 96-hour course would have a fourth grade or above reading level.

Ms. Buckley inquired if Ms. Newell would appreciate if the legislature mandated which reading program should be used, or would they rather choose the program on their own. Ms. Newell informed the committee that she would not want the legislature to mandate the program in terms of curriculum and tools. She did, however, support the idea of piloting new tools to evaluate their effectiveness, she said.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if Ms. Newell had any prior experience with the Laubach program. She affirmed that her program was originally an exclusive Laubach program from 1978 until 1995. She explained that to comply with federal, state, and adult basic education mandates, the program needed to expand from one-on-one tutoring to a classroom environment, which was when they deviated from the Laubach method, which was designed for one-on-one instruction. She described that with the integration of the Laubach phonic method and Action Reading method, they reached higher results at a faster pace.

Ms. Penny Brock, Director, Nevada Division of the National Right to Read Foundation, Master Tutor of Action Reading, and former principal and teacher, expressed her appreciation of the committee’s consideration of A.B. 241, to lower the recidivism rate of prisoners by lowering the illiteracy rate. She cited that 50 percent of American adults could not read the newspaper. She also referenced a study of the juvenile population performed by the Justice Department. She explained the results of the study showed illiteracy was a causative factor of the juvenile’s criminal behavior. She pointed out that 80 percent of the juveniles and prison population could not read. She also described the theory formed by the study of how to induce rage and violence. It began with confining a person to a specific setting, requirement of an accomplished goal, then pressure them to accomplish the goal without providing them a way to do so. She acknowledged that one method of teaching people to read would not work for everyone. She emphasized the need of exposure to several different methods for all learners, children and adults.

Ms. Brock explained that any recommendation of the National Right To Read Foundation met research standards of the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD), which completed 30 years of scientific research about how people learned to read and concluded what programs should be used, which included Action Reading.

She informed the committee that Action Reading was developed by Dr. George Curetan in the mid-1960’s, who was a black educator. She cited that he had very few students that never learned to read. She then divulged that Oprah Winfrey challenged Jeanne Wellers to teach five illiterate adults how to read in two weeks. She advised the committee that Ms. Wellers had successfully taught all five adults to read the newspaper within the imposed two-week time frame by using Action Reading. She implored the committee to pass A.B. 241 to make a difference in the lives of the prison population.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged the expertise of Ms. Brock. Mr. Carpenter inquired if Ms. Brock was specifically referring to the program in the bill that was known as Action Reading. Ms. Brock concurred. Mr. Carpenter then asked if the Laubach program needed to be supplemented with Action Reading, and questioned if the two programs were compatible with each other. Ms. Brock advised the committee that she was not familiar with the Laubach method. She assured them that Action Reading was a different type of program. She suggested that Action Reading would be an additional method that could be used at Lovelock.

The Chair then recognized Mr. Herbert Chandler, Teacher of Action Reading, Washoe County Jail, Retired Captain of the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Chandler informed the committee that he had spent a day and a half with the “High Steppers,” Washoe County Jail’s Boot Camp Program. He explained that it was a voluntary program, which consisted of inmates from the general population. He described the program consisted of a 16-hour day of heavy exercise, training, and 8 hours of work, as well as a state-of-the-art General Education Diploma (GED) program. He indicated that 40 percent of the GED participants failed due to the inability to read.

Mr. Chandler announced the fundamentalism of the Action Reading Program. He demonstrated the phonetic sounds of the alphabet and informed the committee that it was how they taught the prisoners the fundamentals of the alphabet. He stated that they informed the prisoners from the very beginning of the program that it would appear childish in the beginning because it began the process from a kindergarten level, but to continue through it. It reinforced what they learned before or may have missed, he said. He referred to the earlier example where Oprah had five adults learn how to read within two weeks from participating in the Action Reading Program.

Mr. Chandler conveyed his motivational speech that he issued to the prisoners when starting the program. He emphatically urged the committee to pass
A.B. 241.

Chairman Anderson commended Mr. Chandler for his passion and enthusiasm. He clarified his intent that if the program was going to be an additional tool to be used with inmates, he would happily pass A.B. 241. However, he indicated his concern that he did not wish to restrict educators by mandating a single methodology to be used. He then thanked the witness for his testimony.

The Chair recognized Ms. Marta Hall, Education Consultant, Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Ms. Hall advised the committee that she developed, designed, and implemented the current reading program at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. She indicated that the Laubach method was used as the phonics portion of the program. She explained that the program was tailored to older men, that phonics was only a portion of the program, and that it included life and employability skills, et cetera.

She informed the committee that she was Ms. Stack’s supervisor, and that she also supervised three other literacy specialists at other prisons in the state. She noted that the percentage of prisoners at the Lovelock facility that were at or below the third grade reading level was one percent, and that it was two percent throughout the entire department. She explained that approximately six percent of the prison population was at or below the fourth grade reading level. She reiterated Mrs. Angle’s statistic that seven out of ten prisoners were illiterate. She then clarified that the statistic included functionally illiterate, not just nonreaders, and that the actual portion of the statistic that referred to nonreaders was unknown. She pointed out that the majority of prisoners in her program were between the third and seventh grade level, which was not at the nonreader level.

Ms. Hall expressed that her department welcomed new programs for possible implementation, and did not want to discourage any suggestions. She was interested about integrating the Action Reading program into their existing programs. She advised the committee that there were 14 literacy programs throughout the state, in the camps and major institutions.

Ms. Hall stated that if Action Reading addressed the phonics portion of the program better than the Laubach method, she would be very interested in using it. She voiced her concerns regarding the costs of the programs described in A.B. 241. She concurred with Mrs. Angle that most of the items suggested in A.B. 241 were already in place with the exception of the statistician. She also indicated a willingness to participate in a controlled study. However, she stressed the difficulty with setting up the program in one location because the two percent of nonreaders were disbursed throughout the state, and would not be able to be in the same institution due to custody restraints and security issues.

Ms. Hall acknowledged the success of the Action Reading program in the Arizona juvenile program (Arizona National Guard’s Project Challenge military youth corps program). She also recognized the results generated by the Northern Nevada Literacy Council’s program that was run by Ms. Newell. She stated that her program that was implemented in 1998 had shown phenomenal results as well.

She advised the committee that they did not have accountable statistics with regard to their results because of the short period the program had been in existence and the longevity of the average prisoners participation in the program. She did note that approximately 80 percent of the students in the program advanced to the next level throughout the program. She explained that her program consisted of four levels with the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) program. She then stated that 32 percent of the students were ESL learners, which was about the same as the general population.

Chairman Anderson clarified that the committee understood there were strong literacy and comprehensive educational programs in place already. He mentioned they wanted to be sure that enough was being done for educational programs throughout the state. He identified three purposes of the prisons, which were to:

q Protect the public;

q Punishment of crime; and

q Correction of behavior.

The Chair indicated that education played a key role in changing behavior, and that illiteracy impeded education, which made the correction of behavior almost impossible. He inquired if Ms. Hall would be satisfied if A.B. 241 was forwarded to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, with a stipulation that the program was to be used as an additional tool, not the only methodology to be used. Ms. Hall concurred with Ms. Newell, that she did not want the legislature to mandate the methods used to teach, but was interested in using the program as a component of her program.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 241.

Chairman Anderson expressed his concern to the committee that they provide their attention to all witnesses, not just the laptops. He thanked the Internet audience for their continued participation in the legislative process via e-mails, cards and letters.

Mr. Carpenter requested that A.B. 25 be scheduled to a work session. Chairman Anderson recognized his request.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting
at 10:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sandra C. Albrecht-Johnson

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: