MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 15, 2001
The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:35 a.m., on Thursday, March 15, 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
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. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Sharron Angle, (Excused)
Mr. Dennis Nolan, (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Elizabeth “Betsy” Gonzalez, Clark County Legal Services, Gonzalez & Associates, Ltd.
Beverly Salhanick, Member of the Board of Directors, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Terry Bratton, Clark County Legal Services
Estelle Murphy, Executive Director, Temporary Assistance for Domestic Crisis, Inc., a.k.a. Safe Nest
Liliana Loftman, Attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project, Clark County Legal Services
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer
Michael Capello, MSW, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services
Frances M. Doherty, Court Master, Family Division, Second Judicial District Court, Member of the Board of Directors, Washoe County Legal Services
Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Gemma Greene Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer
Marjorie L. Walker, MSW, LSW, Social Service Specialist, State of Nevada Department of Human Services, Division of Child and Family Services
Nancy Angres, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Human Resources Division
Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, State of Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services
Liz Breshears, Family Programs Officer, State of Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services
May Shelton, Consultant, Human Services
Ed Irvin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Human Resources Division
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Chairman Anderson noted there was a quorum present and opened the hearing on A.B. 239.
Assembly Bill 239: Authorizes board of county commissioners to impose additional fee for filing certain actions and responses thereto in district courts and justices’ courts to offset costs of providing legal services without charge to abused or neglected children, victims of domestic violence and other needy persons. (BDR 2-298)
Ms. Buckley disclosed that due to her position as Executive Director of Clark County Legal Services, which could benefit from A.B. 239, she would be abstaining from voting. Chairman Anderson inquired if despite Ms. Buckley’s abstinence from participation in the active discussion of the bill, she could answer questions from the committee. Both Ms. Buckley and legal counsel concurred that Ms. Buckley would not be violating any conflicts of interests by answering the committee’s questions. Chairman Anderson called upon Ms. Elizabeth “Betsy” Gonzalez, Clark County Legal Services, Gonzalez & Associates, Ltd., as the primary sponsor of A.B. 239.
Ms. Gonzalez read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Ms. Gonzalez mentioned that one of the attorneys, who volunteered to represent victims of domestic violence, was present. She then continued to read from her prepared testimony (Exhibit C), which explained the increases in filing fees for the funding of legal services for the indigent, made by A.B. 248. Chairman Anderson indicated he was concerned that the monies generated from the increased filing fees to fund legal services for the indigent, might not be disbursed properly.
Mr. Gustavson requested Ms. Gonzalez to describe the policy, guidelines and qualifications for persons seeking a waiver of fees. Ms. Gonzalez explained the approval of the application of a waiver of fees would be subject to the judge assigned to the case. The judge would make the determination if the person was indeed indigent, and then decide whether or not to grant the waiver of fees.
Ms. McClain commended Ms. Buckley for her contributions to the Children’s Attorney’s Project (CAP), and cited her own participation in the program. She indicated the purpose of the program was to represent the child’s best interests in court. She inquired approximately how much money would be generated for the programs (CAP, Legal Services, et cetera) from changes made by A.B. 239. Ms. Gonzalez stated that approximately $200,000 would be generated for the programs through the proposed raised fees from the bill. Chairman Anderson requested that Ms. Gonzalez present any proposed amendments to A.B. 239, which she had indicated to him at an earlier time. She introduced Ms. Beverly Salhanick, Member of the Board of Directors, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), who would present the proposed amendments. Ms. Gonzalez announced that her department was “in agreement in principal of the proposed amendments by the NTLA.”
Chairman Anderson recognized Ms. Salhanick. She indicated that A.B. 239 would be a viable bill after amendment. She stated her concern was for the person who sought an increase in child support; that they would be charged to do so. She explained that such a person would already be deficient in funds, which would be the reason they sought the increase. She informed the committee that a statutory provision, which provided for revision of a child support order every three years, placed a burden on the custodial parent. She advised the committee that there should not be a fee imposed on persons seeking an increase in child support. She added, the issue of custody remained open until the child reached the age of 18, and requested the committee to exclude change of custody requests from the reopening fee as well. She expressed that the NTLA would support A.B. 239 with the proposed amendments.
Chairman Anderson inquired if Ms. Salhanick had the proposed amendments in writing. Ms. Salhanick responded she did not, but that she could quickly draw up the written amendments in cooperation with Ms. Gonzalez.
Mr. Carpenter asked what the financial impact of the proposed exclusions would be if they were added to A.B. 239. Ms. Salhanick stated that she did not know. She did explain that the exclusions would not impact the initial filing fee. Mr. Carpenter opined that research was needed before they could make a final decision regarding the proposed exclusions.
Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Salhanick and Ms. Gonzalez to submit their proposed amendments in writing by March 21, 2001. He then called upon Mr. Terry Bratton, Clark County Legal Services, to testify on behalf of A.B. 239. He summarized that Ms. Gonzalez sufficiently expressed their position in regards to the bill.
The Chair then called Ms. Estelle Murphy, Executive Director of Temporary Assistance for Domestic Crisis, Inc., also known as Safe Nest, to testify. Ms. Murphy informed the committee that Safe Nest was the primary service provider for domestic violence victims in Clark County. She explained one of the largest difficulties battered women faced in Clark County, was the lack of access to legal assistance. She then read from her prepared testimony (Exhibit D). She continued to describe cases where noncustodial parents kidnapped children and crossed state lines, which left the custodial parent with “no legal recourse or resources to pursue legal remedies.” She then resumed reading from her prepared testimony.
Ms. Murphy recognized that Safe Nest relied heavily on Clark County Legal Services and pro bono projects to assist victims they referred. She stated that they referred 855 victims to Clark County Legal Services and the pro bono project, but that only a small percentage were helped due to limited funding and resources to the programs. She expressed her emphatic support of A.B. 239. Chairman Anderson thanked the witness.
Chairman Anderson inquired if there were any other persons who wished to speak from Las Vegas. Ms. Gonzalez responded there was no one, but a representative from the Children’s Attorney’s Project (CAP) who would remain to answer any further questions the committee might have.
The Chair recognized Ms. Liliana Loftman, Attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project, Clark County Legal Services, who identified herself for the committee. Chairman Anderson requested that Ms. Loftman remain at the witness table to be available for any questions. He then called upon Ms. Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer. She stated her concerns had already been addressed and she had no further testimony.
Chairman Anderson then called upon Mr. Michael Capello, MSW, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services, to testify. Mr. Capello stated the department’s support of A.B. 239. He described that the Department of Social Services received approximately 700 children a year into protective custody. He mentioned those children, with rare exceptions, did not have access to legal representation. Mr. Capello indicated the department hoped A.B. 239 would create a mechanism that could, in turn, create a program in Washoe County, like the Clark County Legal Services and CAP. He noted his agency’s continuous review of the programs in Clark County. He expressed that Washoe County, and the Washoe County Department of Social Services, would support an amendment to waive fees, or exclude from the bill, cases where a change in child support was being sought.
Chairman Anderson then called the next witness. The Honorable Ms. Frances M. Doherty, Court Master, Family Division, Second Judicial District Court, testified in support of A.B. 239, after an amendment. She disclosed her position as a Member of the Board of Directors, Washoe County Legal Services, but that she was speaking in her capacity as a judicial officer. She also informed the committee of her past experiences as a paralegal, legal services attorney, and legal director, in which she bore witness to several children in need of legal help in family court.
Judge Doherty referred the committee to Exhibit E, a letter from Mary Herzik, Executive Director of Washoe County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which expressed their full support of A.B. 239. Judge Doherty emphasized their support for appointment of attorneys to children involved in child abuse and neglect cases. She cited her experience of chairing a research committee that studied the unmet legal needs of children who were involved in child abuse and neglect cases (Exhibit F). She stated the research committee unanimously concluded, “Representation of children in child abuse and neglect cases, both by assistance of a CASA and by a licensed attorney is critical to that child’s best interests in ensuring that the child’s permanent placement is the most appropriate for that child’s well being.”
Judge Doherty stated that she witnessed many situations where the children were sexually abused by one parent, and the other parent knew about the abuse but were abused themselves in some way by the perpetrator. She noted that in those cases, both parents were abusive or neglectful parents. She emphasized the need for legal representation and assistance for those children, such as requesting depositions, et cetera, in order for their voice to be heard in court and afterward. She informed the committee that as a Court Master, she appointed attorneys to represent children in such cases, but since there was no funding for it, occasionally representation was not available.
Mr. Carpenter inquired if the fee for the change in child support would be appropriate. Judge Doherty assured the committee that the court always made sure that individuals had access to the courts, regardless of their financial situation. She stated that fee waiver forms were widely available at every point of entrance to the court system. She expressed that if the fee was exempt in such cases, it would decrease the funds generated for legal assistance programs. She opined that waivers of fees should be left to the judge’s discretion. Mr. Carpenter clarified that judges already had the ability to waive fees to persons in need, and did not need the amendment to A.B. 239, to automatically waive the fees for persons seeking changes in child support cases. Judge Doherty reiterated the availability of fee waiver requests throughout the court system to ensure accessibility to court despite any inability to pay fees.
Judge Doherty relayed to the committee the opinion of Second Judicial District Court Judge, the Honorable Scott T. Jordan, whose position was similar to hers. She explained that he was committed to ensuring that victims of domestic violence had competent and adequate representation in court throughout their times of need. She indicated that he recognized the continuous need of legal representation and assistance to the victims of domestic violence beyond the family court. She stated to the committee that she and Judges Scott Jordan, Barbara McCarthy, and Victoria Van Meter, of the Second Judicial District, encouraged them to provide more support to the victims of domestic violence, both children and adults, to ensure that their needs and problems would be completely addressed, and that they did support A.B. 239.
Chairman Anderson announced the admission of the letters of support for A.B. 239, from Mary Herzik, Executive Director of Washoe County CASA (Exhibit E), and Amber Batchelor, Director of Special Programs, Safe Nest (Exhibit G), into the record. He then inquired if Mr. Capello had any further information to supply to the committee. Mr. Capello indicated that he did not. Other letters of support were accepted without testimony from Cam Ferenbach, of Lionel, Sawyer, & Collins Attorney’s at Law (Exhibit I), and Robert Dickerson, of Dickerson, Dickerson, Consul & Pocker, Corporation of Attorneys at Law (Exhibit J). Also, Assemblywoman Buckley submitted without testimony, the Annual Report of Clark County Legal Services’ Children’s Attorneys Project, dated December 2000 (Exhibit K).
Chairman Anderson called Ms. Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, to testify. He informed her that there would be a five-minute time limit to her testimony.
Ms. Meuschke referred the committee to her written testimony (Exhibit H). She emphasized their strong support of A.B. 239. Chairman Anderson called the committee’s attention to her written testimony, and indicated that it would be admitted into the record.
Chairman Anderson recognized the presence and indication of support for A.B. 239, of Ms. Gemma Greene Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, and Ms. May Shelton, Consultant, Human Services. He then called upon Ms. Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, who chose not to testify. He inquired if there were any further witnesses who wished to speak in regards to A.B. 239. There being no further testimony or discussion, he closed the hearing on A.B. 239.
Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Gonzalez and Ms. Salhanick to maintain the judicial discretion to waive fees while maintaining the generation of funds for programs, in the language of the proposed amendment. He recognized the lack of funding for programs for senior citizens and the indigent. He also requested them to separate the administration of the two programs, to ensure the integrity of the distribution of moneys collected so one program’s funds would not supplement the others. Ms. Gonzalez acknowledged the Chair’s request, and informed the committee they would draft such an amendment.
Assembly Bill 248: Requires adoption of regulations governing provision of certain information to foster or adoptive parents and revises certain provisions governing procedures for protection of children from abuse and neglect. (BDR 38-356)
Chairman Anderson then opened the hearing on A.B. 248, and called Ms. Marjorie L. Walker, MSW, LSW, Social Service Specialist, State of Nevada Department of Human Services, Division of Child and Family Services, to introduce it to the committee.
Ms. Walker read from her prepared testimony (Exhibit L). She indicated the changes made through A.B. 248, were necessary to keep Nevada in compliance with the federal Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). She stated the compliance with ASFA and CAPTA began with the passage of A.B. 158 of the Seventieth Session, which brought Nevada into compliance with their requirements at that time. She indicated the final rules of ASFA were not released until after the last legislative session. She also stated it was important for the revisions contained in A.B. 248 to be made to remain in compliance with the federal acts. She also noted that the provisions made in A.B. 248, would continue the provisions that were contained in A.B. 356 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which “improved the investigation practice of child abuse response time frames, and allowed the referral of a child when there was a low risk of harm, to a community-based service provider to have a family assessment for appropriate services.” She then continued to read from her prepared testimony.
Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Walker for the thorough preparation of her testimony. Mr. Carpenter inquired if he should ask questions now or after her prepared testimony was completed. Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Walker to address the first three sections of the bill, and then pause for questions.
Ms. Walker referred the committee to her Exhibit M, which compared key provisions of A.B. 239, the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and applicable federal or state laws. She then resumed reading about Section 1 of her prepared testimony (Exhibit L), which allotted the provision of synopsis of certain information to foster care providers. She then read from Section 2, that added a section to NRS 432B, which regarded “reasonable efforts” to meet requirements of the ASFA. She noted that she mistakenly did not include Section 45 CFR 1356.21(i), which dealt with the termination of parental rights. She continued to read from her testimony, and paused to mention that 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(i) was governed by NRS 128.109.
Chairman Anderson expressed his concern that adoptive parents and foster care providers might not receive all of the necessary information to make thorough decisions. He asked if the synthesizing of information would add to the public’s fear that they weren’t receiving information they could need. She responded that A.B. 248 would not stop adoptive parents and foster care providers from viewing the complete case record, and that the synopsis would be an added resource. She indicated that the intention was not to restrict the information available, just to simplify it.
Ms. Buckley inquired about Section 2, lines 20-34, which dealt with the termination of parental rights. She expressed her concern that she did not want the parent to be penalized if a case plan was going to take longer, but still believed the child should come first. She inquired about lines 25 through 27. She asked if there could be circumstances not covered by the case plan, and if changes would be made to the case plan after the 12 to 18 months?
Ms. Nancy Angres, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Human Resources Division, testified to answer any legal questions. She stated that the language in Subsection (b) was taken directly from the ASFA statute, which regarded the termination of parental rights. She advised the committee that the intent of the section was to cover when case plans were progressing and would take more than a year to complete. She indicated the court could review the case plan every six months, and would be well aware of the progress, if it would take more than a year, and could make any changes it felt were necessary.
Ms. Buckley expressed her wish to have that section of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) researched, to assist the committee in concluding if inclusion of the terms for termination of parental rights as recommended would indeed be necessary. Ms. Angres offered her assistance in the research of the issue. Ms. Buckley voiced her concern that overwhelming circumstances could arise that would not be covered by the case plan. She asked if the plan would be modified at the time of need, or after the 12 to 18 month timeline.
Mr. Carpenter stated his concern of the interpretation of “synopsis.” He recognized the potential helpfulness of a synopsis, but indicated the language of A.B. 248 could be confusing with regard to the availability of the entire record when a synopsis was provided. The language of “synopsis” could be interpreted to limit the availability of the entire records, so that adoptive parents and foster care providers would not be able to view information needed. He also voiced his concern that “reasonable efforts” was too broad of a term to be included in order for the best interests of the child to be maintained.
Chairman Anderson then requested Ms. Walker to continue to read sections three through five. Ms. Walker read from Section 3 of her prepared testimony (Exhibit L), which added provisions for regulations through NRS 432B.190. She then explained that the necessity of this section of the bill was to retain the authority to create regulations with regard to the family assessment process, which was obtained through A.B. 356 of the Sixty-Ninth Session. She continued to read from Section 4, which clarified the language of NRS 432B.260, Section 2, subsection (c), to include “or another child living in the same household.” It also made grammatical corrections for changes made for the clarification.
Ms. Walker then read from Section 5, which amended NRS 432B.290, for the retention of differential response as was provided in A.B. 356 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which had a sunset date of June 30, 2001. It also added the public disclosure requirement per the federal Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act (CAPTA).
Chairman Anderson called for questions from the committee. Mr. Carpenter stated his concern of allowing three days to pass from notification that an investigation was necessary before an investigation would be started. Chairman Anderson then called Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, State of Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), to respond to the concern.
Mr. Shaw explained cases that involved children under the age of five years, the potential for serious harm, or sexual abuse, would be investigated immediately, as a result of the committee’s concerns that were expressed in A.B. 356 of the Sixty-Ninth Session. The three-day time period only referred to lower level cases. He then responded to Ms. Buckley’s questions with regard to “reasonable effort.” He stated that it only mimicked federal law. It gave the DCFS the authority to terminate parental rights unless DCFS made mistakes, and/or did not provide services as they were supposed to as specified in the case plan. He stated DCFS “never intentionally withheld services, but that it did happen occasionally.”
Chairman Anderson clarified Mr. Carpenter’s concerns were satisfied in previous legislation. He then inquired if any committee members had further questions. The Chair then requested Ms. Walker to continue reading from her prepared testimony. Ms. Walker then read Section 6, which addressed placement and “reasonable efforts.” She then read from Section 7, which added civil sanctions for volunteer child protective services citizen review panel members, to NRS 432B.396. The purpose of Section 8 was to add “and Section 2 of this act” to NRS 432B.440, as a reference correction.
Mr. Carpenter inquired upon whom the civil sanctions would be imposed. Ms. Walker explained the sanctions would be imposed upon members of the panel that repeated confidential information. Mr. Carpenter asked if it would make it more difficult to find people to serve on the panels. Ms. Walker replied that she hoped it wouldn’t, but wanted the people who served on the panels to keep the information confidential. Chairman Anderson inquired if Section 7 was necessary to comply with federal law. She responded in the affirmative, that it was a requirement of CAPTA, in order to receive funding.
Ms. Buckley asked if the federal statute required a specified amount for the penalty of the sanctions. Ms. Walker responded in the negative. Ms. Buckley clarified that the committee had discretion in that section of the bill.
Chairman Anderson called upon Ms. Liz Breshears, Family Programs Officer, State of Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services, to respond to Mr. Carpenter’s earlier question. She advised the committee that the volunteer child protective services citizen review panel heard confidential information that should not be shared outside of the panel hearing. Chairman Anderson referred the section of the bill concerning the volunteer review panel pertaining to the level of sanctions, to research as a concern of A.B. 248. He then requested Ms. Walker to continue with her prepared testimony.
Ms. Walker read from Section 9, of her prepared testimony, which made changes to NRS 432B.480 that concerned ASFA and Title IV-E Foster Care Maintenance Payment Program compliance with court hearings. She then read from Section 10, which would amend NRS 432B.530, concerning “reasonable efforts” of prevention of removal from home. She stressed the necessity of the technical amendment to ensure eligibility for foster care payments under Title IV-E for a child residing in a foster home. If the determination with regard to reasonable efforts to prevent removal would not be made prior to such removal, the child would never be eligible for Title IV-E funding during their foster care stay.
Ms. Walker then read from Section 11, which deleted subsection 3, of NRS 432B.540, which regarded permanent placement and planning. She stated the reason for the deletion was because it would be covered in Section 2 of A.B. 248, and added to NRS 432B.590.
Chairman Anderson informed Ms. Walker that A.B. 248 would be referred to a subcommittee. He indicated some mention of potential small amendments to the bill had been made. He reiterated the committee’s appreciation of Ms. Walker’s preparation of her testimony. He then requested any persons who wished to provide the committee with any further information for the record with regard to A.B. 248, to do so at that time. Ms. Breshears requested the committee to remember when reviewing Ms. Walker’s written testimony, that she did stress and indicate where amendments were critical.
Chairman Anderson then called upon Ms. May Shelton, Consultant, Washoe County Human Services. She expressed her concern regarding the sunset date specified in S.B. 288 of the Seventieth Session. She stated that she would like there to be an elimination of the sunset date to the pilot program. Ms. Buckley informed Ms. Shelton that the sunset date was handled yesterday by A.B. 343, by granting the authority to enter into interlocal agreements.
Chairman Anderson then called upon Mr. Ed Irvin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Human Resources Division to testify. Mr. Irvin stated that he had no testimony. The Chair then called for any other persons who wished to testify in support of A.B. 248.
Ms. Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of A.B. 248. She expressed her concern with lines 20 through 24, on page 2. She explained the lines stated both sides of the plan had to be carried out by both sides. She referred the committee to line 18, which stated, “If the agency determines.” She then referred to line 23, which she said “services as the agency determines.” She suggested the committee consider an amendment that would clarify the language. She offered the alternate language, “Unless the agency has not completed services which the agency deems necessary for the safe return of the child to its home.” She summarized that the language indicated the case plan was in process but would take longer then anticipated, was still under the agency’s control, and would provide the protection to both the agency and parents that both sides of the plan would be carried out.
Chairman Anderson requested the proposed amendment be put in writing and available for the subcommittee to review.
Ms. Beverly Salhanick, Member of the Board of Directors, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, voiced her concerns that the language in two sections of A.B. 248 appeared contradictory. She asked the committee for clarification of the final statute before she could state their position on the bill. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang to explain the impact of A.B. 248, on the final statute. Ms. Lang explained that it was the drafting style for the state of Nevada. Ms. Salhanick reiterated her concern about the confusion of what language was to be removed and what language was to be added. Chairman Anderson clarified that Ms. Salhanick was confused with page 14 of the bill draft. He assured Ms. Salhanick that the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) would provide a clear rendition of the statute before it would be implemented. He then requested Ms. Lang to respond to the concerns. Ms. Lang clarified it was a common confusion, but that it was a standard drafting style. She stated that all of the language that appeared under “Text of repealed sections” was to be removed by A.B. 248.
Chairman Anderson inquired if Ms. Salhanick had any further issues with regard to A.B. 248, on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. Ms. Salhanick responded she did not. Chairman Anderson thanked the witness for her testimony. He then called for any further testimony in support or against A.B. 248. There being no further testimony, he closed the hearing.
Chairman Anderson appointed himself and Mr. Carpenter to the subcommittee for A.B. 248, with Ms. McClain as the chair. He then informed Ms. McClain of his concerns with the new language on page 2, Section 1, subsection 4. He wanted to ensure that the drafting of a synopsis would not preclude full access to information in records. He added Mr. Carpenter’s and Ms. Buckley’s concerns with several parts of Section 2 of the bill.
Chairman Anderson called upon Mr. Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst. Mr. Anthony referred the committee to a handout regarding inmate phone charges. He noted it was in response to the committee and Ms. Buckley’s request for further information. Ms. Buckley expressed her astonishment at the high public pay phone rates.
Chairman Anderson described the schedule for the next day. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sandra C. Albrecht-Johnson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: