MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 9, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, February 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
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Collins (Excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
N. Jolene Jones Miley, Committee Secretary
Gary Crews, Director of the Legislative Audit Division
Steve Woods, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor
Rocky Cooper, Audit Supervisor
Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS)
Dave Kickbush, Deputy Director, DMV/PS
Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation
Kathy Thompson, Management Analyst, Division of Parole and Probation
Chairman Anderson opened the meeting at 8:04 a.m. He requested that the secretary call the roll. Chairman Anderson noted there was a quorum present. Following the roll call, Chairman Anderson requested a motion to introduce a Bill Draft Request (BDR).
MR. MANENDO MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 3-989.
MR. GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson noted for the record, that Mr. Oceguera was not wearing a jacket. He also noted that the jacket would be delivered to Mr. Oceguera soon.
Chairman Anderson informed the audience that if their intent was to testify before the committee they needed to sign in and present their business cards to the secretary. He continued stating that if they had other materials to be distributed they should ensure they had at least 20 copies. He also reminded the audience to direct all their questions through the Chair.
Chairman Anderson noted for the record the presence of Richard Kirkland, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS).
Gary Crews, Director of the Legislative Audit Division, was the first to testify. Mr. Crews began his testimony with the introduction of his staff, Steve Wood, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor, and Rocky Cooper Audit Supervisor. Mr. Crews stated those two gentlemen would be making a detailed presentation. Mr. Crews referred to his handout of the audit report (Exhibit C) stating that the Legislative Audit Division had submitted the report to the audit subcommittee of the Legislative Commission in October 1999. He said there were some concerns raised by the Legislative Commission regarding restitution collections and other issues that dealt with the audit.
Steve Woods, Chief Deputy Legislative Auditor began his testimony by referring the committee to page 8 of his exhibit (Exhibit C). He stated the division’s mission was to protect the public, effectively supervise criminal offenders, and to provide objective sentence recommendations to the courts. In order to fulfill its mission, the division provided two major functions; offender supervision and court services. The division was responsible for supervising and monitoring more than 10,000 parolees and probationers. The division arranged and conducted educational programs and assisted offenders in obtaining employment and counseling services. Court services personnel conducted investigations of persons convicted of gross misdemeanor and felony charges and made sentencing recommendations to the courts.
Mr. Woods stated the number of positions in the division during the audit for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 was 421 authorized full-time equivalent positions; half were sworn officers and one-third were support staff and about 16 percent was comprised of management positions.
Mr. Woods continued explaining Exhibit C, as it illustrated annual expenditures; in FY1993 through FY2000 the division had a budget that approached $30 million. He stated the scope and objectives of the audit were to evaluate the division’s processes for supervising criminal offenders and the process used to collect supervision fees in FY1998.
Mr. Cooper, Audit Supervisor, informed the committee that as page 12 of Exhibit C indicated, the Division of Parole and Probation has had difficulty in meeting its responsibilities to protect the public because of significant management control weaknesses.
He stated that the division supervised in excess of 10,000 criminals. However, offenders were not being supervised according to division’s standards. He also said that the division had many problems in its classification process that was used to place offenders at the appropriate level of supervision. That resulted in little assurance that offenders were supervised according to the risk they posed to the public. Mr. Cooper explained that an officer had to perform five contacts per month on a maximum-supervision offender each month. He said the officer had to verify that all special conditions had been met. All contacts must have been made to meet minimum supervision standards. Mr. Cooper informed the committee that of the 62 offender files that were reviewed, the division made only 60 percent of those required contacts.
Mr. Cooper stated because many contacts were not made, the division rarely met its monthly supervision standards. Home visits, he said, were important to ensure public safety, but the division made only 36 percent of the required home visits. Also, he noted, home visits were not made on a timely basis. Mr. Cooper said that officers were required to make the initial visit within 10 days; on average it took the division 123 days to make the initial home visit and for some offenders it took in excess of 250 days. Mr. Cooper said that of the 62 offender files the audit division reviewed, seven were sex offenders and seven were intensive supervision unit offenders (ISU). These offenders posed a unique and increased risk to public safety.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was a statistical relationship between the number of employees who are there and their ability to do the response work? Mr. Cooper replied there was a statistical relationship; however, he said priorities needed to be established. The division was not in a position to tell how well it was being supervised, especially at the formula-funded levels.
Ms. Koivisto asked how those numbers were formulated. She asked if there was discussion with the Parole and Probation Officers or was there information from reports submitted by the officers while compiling these statistics on the home visits.
Mr. Cooper responded there were 62 offenders selected from a population proportionate to each district and they tried to identify offenders that were under supervision for a period of three years. He said they took those cases and proceeded monthly for 1,400 months and looked at all the chronological information which had been recorded. Approximately 200 cases were eliminated because documentation was not clear.
Mr. Cooper stated that only 45 percent of required reassessments were completed. He said more monies could have been collected. Inconsistency on granting exemptions and duplication of payments was due in part to inaccurate record keeping. Including exemptions, Mr. Cooper said the division could have collected $900,000 in supervision fees during 1998 by achieving an 80 percent collection rate. Mr. Cooper stated that increased staff couldn’t fix internal controls. He said that if district offices would follow the internal control policies and procedures developed by the central office and they were properly implemented, the problems that existed within those offices would be eliminated.
Mr. Wood said that there were long-standing management weaknesses that were noted during the audit. There were problems with vacancy and turnover. He said there was sufficient funding to ensure supervision of offenders at the formula funded levels. However, control weaknesses in the hiring process hampered the agency’s ability to manage its turnover in a timely manner. When the inefficiencies were addressed, as suggested by the audit, there could be a $2.57 million savings.
Chairman Anderson asked for questions from the committee. Ms. Koivisto, referred to page 45 where Exhibit C addressed savings of $300,000 and asked where the savings would come from. Mr. Wood said the savings were related to the training of the officers.
Chairman Anderson asked if the response to the audit was received under the administration of Mr. Carlos Concha, former Chief, Division of Parole and Probation. Mr. Wood replied that it was.
Mr. Nolan asked if there was any documentation of the correlation on recidivism rates and those individuals that were not being monitored? Mr. Gary Crews responded there had not yet been any analyses on that issue.
Chairman Anderson questioned if the hiring practices of the state tend to hold positions open for salary savings within various departments. He asked if, in the terms of the audit, they found this to be any different in this department than other departments. Mr. Crews responded that was not the situation in this department. They did not have the management systems in place to even know the department was down in positions in some situations. Those problems were caused internally.
Chairman Anderson asked if there was a practical application which, from the officer’s point of view, needed more attention? Was it because category 3 training was longer and more costly and thus less time for them to get on the street. Was that where the department was losing efficiency? Mr. Crews said that Mr. Kirkland could address that. However, training was unrelated to costs.
Richard Kirkland, Director, DMV/PS, introduced two of his staff members, Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation and Dave Kickbush, Deputy Director of Public Safety. Mr. Kirkland was the first to testify for the division. He stated that the department did not disagree with the audit report; however, he said, things were changing and issues were more complex. Mr. Kirkland said they had taken the audit report as a guideline. Mr. Kickbush was completely reviewing the audit report. He said the issues were more complex, essentially managerial problems, high turnover in management, employee problems with high turnover.
Mr. Kirkland said Parole and Probation had 480 authorized positions and in the past four years there has been a 350 loss in personnel. He said he didn’t think that was a normal turnover rate in state employment. Mr. Kirkland stated he disagreed with the way the state had previously evaluated the success of the division. He didn’t think it was connected to how many home visits were done. The most important question was what was the recidivism rate? He continued stating the category 1 and category 2 training issues were perhaps a good idea at the time; however, it was not provided for in the legislative directive nor in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) as created by the POST committee. Category 1 training was a “street police officer” training program, not for parole and probation officers.
Chairman Anderson spoke to the committee regarding Mr. Kirkland’s credentials. He also encouraged committee members to accompany a parole and probation officer on what they call a “ride-along.” Mr. Kirkland responded that he was very proud of the division’s status. However, the system was currently in the process of being completed.
Chairman Anderson said he was concerned with the safety of officers. He asked Mr. Kirkland if radio communications had been improved whereby the officer could use it as physical backup and as a management tool.
Mr. Kirkland responded he had seen some improvement and that he appreciated the comments about the dangerous aspects of parole and probation. He continued stating that with the legislature’s help things would improve. Over the past two sessions the legislature had approved a statewide communication system that would be interoperable where the officers could communicate with each other, regardless of the radios they had, or the frequency of the radios. He said the communication system was currently in different stages of operation. The system should be fully operational within the next few months.
Chairman Anderson asked what the times were on actual visitations and paperwork. Mr. Kirkland responded that Governor Guinn had stepped in regarding the budgeting process and had increased the request to ensure that there be one computer for every parole and probation employee. That has been a funding issue in the past.
Chairman Anderson asked what the timeline was for pre-sentencing. He said another concern was the offenders not paying their restitution. Are judges kept informed with non-compliance? Mr. Kirkland responded those were very good questions, and extremely complex. The division was working very hard to respond to Judge Adams’ questions. They were not doing a good job; however, the process was getting better. The division needed to be realistic on restitution. The timeline was 90 days to work out a schedule for restitution. The violators were being returned to the judge if they did not meet their responsibility. Mr. Kirkland stated there were other avenues to obtain restitution, one of them was converting to a civil judgment.
Ms. Buckley asked when the issue of converting to civil judgments was implemented? Mr. Kirkland responded it was four months ago.
Ms. Buckley stated she spoke with an 82-year-old constituent. He said it had taken 60 days to get his first check. Ms. Buckley said her constituent was told that after the parolee was off parole the victim could have the lawsuit converted to a civil judgment. Can Parole and Probation assist individuals convert these lawsuits? Mr. Kirkland replied no, they could not. However he would work with the victims to try to accommodate their needs.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Kirkland for the specific statute prohibiting the assistance to victims. We can inform constituents of this option. Mr. Kirkland said he would get the statute to the analyst.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there were special problems in Elko and was there something special needed for Elko? Mr. Lutzow responded that he did not know why the statistics were low for Elko but that improvements had been made.
Mr. Nolan asked what formula was the best in evaluating and supervising people on parole. He asked if the formula currently being used was established within the boundaries of Nevada or if it was a national formula with respect to initial and number of visits that are made.
Mr. Kirkland responded that parole and probation was operating on a combination of different things. The legislature brought in experts to conduct a study and they came up with recommendations. Mr. Kirkland continued by asking what was the core of the problem? He stated that the division must challenge the “status quo”.
Warren Lutzow, Chief, Division of Parole and Probation introduced his staff, Clay Thomas, Deputy Chief, and Kathy Thompson, Management Analyst. Mr. Lutzow stated they wanted to show a short presentation of some of the improvements that had been made since the legislative audit. Mr. Lutzow continued by illustrating the flow chart of the division.
Mr. Lutzow stated that in the area of finance, Parole and Probation was authorized to collect supervision fees that were utilized to offset their operating costs which equated to $30 per month per offender. He said that Parole and Probation was also authorized to collect restitution from the offender for the victim and distribute those monies. One of the primary functions of Parole and Probation was preparing the pre-sentence investigation report for the courts. He said this was done on all individuals who were convicted with either a felony or a gross misdemeanor in the state of Nevada. Mr. Lutzow stated these reports would be just under 10,000 pre-sentencing reports being prepared.
Chairman Anderson asked how much time it took to create the reports? Mr. Lutzow responded approximately 35 to 45 days from plea to actual sentencing. Mr. Lutzow continued displaying the charts and graphs (Exhibit D).
Chairman Anderson asked what the ratio of supervision was for sex offenders. Mr. Lutzow answered 45 to 1. Chairman Anderson reiterated stating that maximum, medium and minimum supervision was 70 to 1 ratios. Intensive supervision was 30 to 1 and residential confinement was at 30 to 1, and 45 to 1 for sex offenders. Mr. Lutzow replied that was correct.
Mr. Lutzow referring to a previous question, stated the recidivism rate in the state of Nevada was 70 percent. By way of clarification, 70 percent of the parolees who exited their paroles did not return to incarceration during the term of supervision.
Chairman Anderson asked what happened when a parolee left the state - would Nevada surrender control? Mr. Lutzow said that the offender would complete their sentence in the other state then be returned to Nevada for completion of the sentence.
Mrs. Koivisto asked if there were 450 sex offenders in Las Vegas? Mr. Lutzow said yes. Mrs. Koivisto asked if the officers supervising sex offenders supervised only sex offenders. Mr. Lutzow again replied yes.
Kathy Thompson, Management Analyst demonstrated the database now being utilized by Parole and Probation (Exhibit D) and (Exhibit E).
This program could supply all information such as social security numbers, also known as “aka”. She stated the system could store photos of offenders.
Mrs. Koivisto asked about the problems dealing with a computer server – what was the capacity and were there slow downs?
Ms. Thompson responded there were limitations. However, no major slow downs or problems. The program was backed up every night so the data was safe.
Chairman Anderson asked what the officer to computer ratio was. Ms. Thompson replied that there was a 2-to-1 ratio. She said that the Governor had funded a 1-to-1 ratio for this year.
Chairman Anderson asked if changes could be made in contacts and audits, and was the officer going to have a problem when errors were made in input. Ms. Thompson responded that only the administrator could make corrections, however, those corrections would take only a minute or so to complete.
Mrs. Koivisto asked if the system was currently online on all the officers’ computer equipment. Ms. Thompson responded yes.
Chairman Anderson commended the division on its progress. He asked for further questions from the committee. There being none the hearing was closed.
Chairman Anderson reminded committee members that Monday, February 12, 2001 was the last day to request a Bill Draft Request.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned until Monday,
February 12, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
N. Jolene Jones Miley
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: