MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

February 13, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:03 a.m., on Tuesday, February 13, 2001.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.    Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr.    Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms.   Sharron Angle

Mr.    Greg Brower

Ms.   Barbara Buckley

Mr.    John Carpenter

Mr.    Jerry Claborn

Mr.    Tom Collins

Mr.    Don Gustavson

Mrs.  Ellen Koivisto

Ms.   Kathy McClain

Mr.    Dennis Nolan

Mr.    John Oceguera

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.   Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

N. Jolene Jones Miley, Committee Secretary

 

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

            Maria Canfield, Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA)

            Alex Haartz, Administrator, Health Division

            Theresa Lemus, Treatment Provider, BADA

            Dorothy North, BADA Advisory Committee

            Catherine Blake, Provider, BADA

            Kevin Quint, BADA Advisory Committee

            Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Department

            Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, Nevada Sheriff’s/      Chiefs

 

Gary Crews, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) presented the audit of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) (Exhibit C).  Mr. Crews introduced staff member, Jane Bailey, Deputy Legislative Auditor.  Mr. Crews reported that the 1999 Legislative Session moved the division into the Health Division to administer.  Yvonne Silva, Administrator of the Health Division, requested an audit when the bureau was transferred back to the Health Division.  

 

Chairman Anderson asked if that was the first baseline audit done for BADA?  Mr. Crews replied “no.”  It had been audited while under the Department of Human Resources, but not while it had been a part of the Department of Employment and Training and Rehabilitation (DETR). The Chair asked when LCB last audited BADA.  Mr. Crews replied the last audit occurred in 1991. 

 

Mr. Crews noted that in 1999 the bureau had awarded grants to 90 different organizations.  The grants totaled approximately $2.2 million.  Treatment grants totaled approximately $11.3 million.  He said that in 1999 the state had 165 accredited treatment programs, 56 accredited prevention programs and 800 certified counselors.  Mr. Crews showed diagrams from Exhibit C illustrating the source of revenues to the bureau, $3.2 million from appropriations and approximately $7.8 million from federal grants. 

 

Chairman Anderson inquired of the source of revenue for BADA.  He asked if 27 percent of the revenue was derived from state funds, did those funds come from the general fund or a tax on alcohol?  Mr. Crews responded that the 27 percent came from a general fund appropriation.  Chairman Anderson had concern that the liquor tax was not paying all the appropriation.  Mr. Crews explained that the liquor tax was distributed to other areas.  Chairman Anderson asked what programs received those funds and he added that Washoe County received no funds relative to this program. 

 

Ms. McClain asked if monies were spent on schools.  Ms. Bailey responded that she could not remember but assumed funds were spent in accordance with the grant. 

 

Ms. Bailey further testified to the “Findings and Recommendations” section of the audit, which found that BADA had not complied with state and federal laws. This was significant to the administration of programs for prevention and treatment, of alcohol and drug abuse.  She said that BADA had not adequately planned for development and distribution of prevention and treatment services.  Also, the liquor tax had not been awarded according to statutory priority.  Ms. Bailey noted that at the bottom of page 9 of Exhibit C the bureau’s comprehensive state was discussed.  The bureau has not developed a plan that included all the elements that were required by state law.  The plan should include a survey of the need for education, prevention and treatment for alcohol and drug abuse.  Liquor tax funds awarded only five grants, and federal and state monies had been co-mingled. 

 

Ms. Bailey, using Exhibit C, demonstrated where grants for HIV and drug abuse were not awarded, nor were those programs monitored adequately.  It was feared that drug users were not receiving appropriate treatment.  Overall there was no documentation that providers were doing their jobs. 

 

Ms. Bailey continued her testimony and referred to Exhibit C, noting that BADA had not properly managed the group home revolving loan fund in compliance with federal regulations.   She said that since 1990, 11 of the 14 loans made for the group homes had defaulted, and 7 of the 14 homes were closed.  Three of the fourteen loans had been paid in full.  Information and background on borrowers for the group homes were not documented.  The fund administrator had not tracked the borrowers repayments of loans or contacted borrowers when payments were not made. 

 

Ms. Bailey said that peer reviews were not done in compliance with federal regulations.  Regulations provided for an independent peer review of providers within the state to assess the quality and appropriateness of treatment services. 

 

The bureau allowed three of the ten providers that were tested to charge unallowable audit costs to their grants.  Ms. Bailey explained that because of provider statements, the bureau could not determine the monies spent because figures were misleading.  There was also a problem with receipt processing and proper accounting.  The bureau had not sought reimbursement for personal long distance calls.  It had not offered timely evaluations for employees and had not complied with all aspects of open meeting laws. 

BADA could not provide legislative auditors with complete, current and approved copies of policies and procedures related to most of the problems noted in the audit report. 

 

Mr. Crews stated that BADA was a troubled agency and had had problems with two prior audits.  However, the bureau had accepted the 19 recommendations from the audit and was addressing those recommendations in order to implement them. 

 

Chairman Anderson said he hoped that BADA acceptance of the recommendations was the “bright light” at the end of the tunnel. 

 

Ms. Bailey said that 12 of the 22 recommendations were from a prior audit and had been revisited.  Nine of those twelve were repeated and included in the current audit. 

 

Mrs. Koivisto said she was concerned that federal funds had not been expended appropriately and would the state be forced to repay those funds.  Mr. Crews replied that could happen.  Health and Human Services (HHS), the primary federal oversight body could conduct an audit and require a payback. 

 

Ms. Angle said she was very concerned with the noncompliance.  She asked what ramifications could be imposed on the state.  Mr. Crews responded that the sooner it was resolved the better for the state.  He added many times the federal government would waive actions if corrective actions had been instituted by the state.  Ms. Bailey pointed out the audit could not document the monies spent by the bureau. 

 

Alex Haartz, Deputy Administrator, BADA introduced Maria Canfield, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.  Mr. Haartz informed the committee that Ms. Canfield had been appointed as the Chief of BADA in December 2000.  Mr. Haartz requested that he be allowed to respond to Ms. McClain’s question concerning what drug-free school funds were used for and that he felt they were used appropriately.  Mr. Haartz said the purpose of those funds were to provide after-school or latchkey-type activities where drug-free alternatives or other enhancement activities were approved for school-age children.  He also responded to Ms. Angle’s and Mrs. Koivisto’s questions regarding the probabilities that the state has been placed in financial jeopardy because of the audit.  He said the federal substance abuse and mental health services recognized the audit and they have a response and plan of action to correct the findings.  They have assured BADA there would be no penalties.  Mr. Haartz said that the federal government recognized the bureau was in a transitional period. 

Mr. Haartz added the Division of Health had requested an audit because it suspected problems within the bureau.  The bureau had appointed an interim chief and had appointed an advisory committee.  In February 2000, Kafoury Armstrong & Company, Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) that contract with LCB, conducted a single audit review of the BADA Budget Account 101-3170. There were no findings or recommendations noted from the audit completed by Kafoury Armstrong.  Budget Account 101-3170 was the same budget account the Legislative Audit Division had audited. 

 

Chairman Anderson asked if the Kafoury Armstrong audit had recommendations relative to procedural questions?  Mr. Haartz responded that the audit of Kafoury Armstrong was limited to program compliance with the Federal Office of Management and Budget in regard to the appropriateness of expenditures. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked how Kafoury Armstrong could audit and find nothing and the LCB Audit Division found so many deficiencies.  Mr. Haartz could not respond to Mr. Carpenter’s question.  Chairman Anderson described the limited scope of the Kafoury Armstrong audit.  He suggested the LCB Audit Division should respond to that question. 

 

Mr. Haartz continued his testimony stating that in March 2000, after the LCB Audit Division completed its audit in April 2000, the audit report was submitted to the Legislative Commission with 19 findings detailing what BADA described as systems deficiencies.  He said the Health Division accepted all 19 deficiencies.  The committee said that in June 2000, the Health Division submitted its corrective action plan.  As of June 2000, the bureau’s internal controls were developed and documented and were in compliance with Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 353.  Also, during the fundamental review ordered by Governor Guinn, BADA was selected for a base budget review of Budget Account 3170. 

 

Mr. Haartz said that all recommendations made by the LCB Audit Division would be fully implemented by June 2001.  He continued and stated BADA was still lacking some documentation.   The division was attempting to integrate all policies, procedures and funding procedures into one master document. 

 

Mr. Gustavson asked what the dollar amount was on the funding issues.  He asked what the figure was on monies the state received from the federal government.  Ms. Canfield replied that currently the award from the federal government was $9.6 million:  Remaining funds were state funds totaling budgets approximately $14.5 million.  The state, she said, was not in jeopardy of losing any of those funds. 

 

Ms. Canfield stated the figures as illustrated in Exhibit C, page 7 are from FY 2000.  Chairman Anderson asked if BADA could anticipate a $2 million higher grant level because two thirds of funding for overall treatment came from federal services.  Ms. Canfield replied “yes.” 

 

Mr. Haartz stated only 12 of the full-time positions transferred to the bureau when it was transferred into the Health Division.  He said that turnover had been high, especially in administration.  

 

Chairman Anderson said he had not seen a dramatic difference in alcohol and drug abuse.  He asked if there were a problem using alcohol-driven monies for drug treatment programs.  Mr. Haartz replied that those were public health issues.  NRS required alcohol revenue for alcohol treatment.  Chairman Anderson said another issue was the ratio administration of payments as indicated by the federal government, which should be 45 percent administrative, and 55 percent treatment.  He referred to Exhibit C, page 20, where it stated that statewide BADA used 83 percent of the funds for admissions for drug treatment and 17 percent for admissions for alcohol treatment.  He asked why there was such a disparity.  He pointed out that Washoe County did not receive alcohol treatment monies and he was concerned about that.  Ms. Canfield responded the methodology was used in the past and that BADA no longer uses that formula for federal funds.  She continued that the audit issue was a past issue and the funds were now going to communities with highest needs. 

 

Chairman Anderson said there was a certain level of frustration, because of the many times the bureau had been moved between departments there was no historical memory in the BADA program.  He wanted to know if that would be a continual problem.  Mr. Haartz replied that the Health Division was dedicated to fixing the problem.  Chairman Anderson said the Health Division had made significant accomplishments: However, he was concerned that BADA could stand on its own merits and ensure that treatment providers could do their jobs.  Mr. Haartz responded that BADA would be fully integrated into the Health Division to comply with NRS 233B. 

 

Chairman Anderson said having to wait from February to June was not acceptable.  Monies needed to keep flowing so providers could do their jobs.  Mr. Manendo was asked to proceed as Vice Chair for the committee.  Mr. Haartz continued his testimony.  Actions that had been defined in the audit had been corrected.  Grants were being awarded, and the bureau was changing and redesigning procedures per audit recommendations. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked about A.B. 181 of the Seventieth Session, which implemented the family resource pilot project. 

Ms. Canfield replied A.B. 181 of the Seventieth Session requested that BADA award funds to three family resource centers for a one-year project to test integrating primary intervention activities into family resource centers.  That was done with awards being granted in April 2000; the project would end in May 2001. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if Classroom on Wheels (COW) was one of the programs funded.  Ms. Canfield said COW had not received funding under the program.  Mr. Manendo asked what projects were funded.  Ms. Canfield stated she would provide that information to the committee.  She stated the pilot program provided prevention counseling for families on substance abuse programs. 

 

Mr. Haartz explained that pursuant to S.B. 210 of the Seventieth Session BADA, had transferred its certification of alcohol and drug abuse counselors to the Independent Board of Examiners for alcohol and drug abuse counselors.  Additionally, he said, A.B. 161 of the Sixty-Ninth Session provided halfway houses for alcohol and drug abusers.  Per the legislative audit, the BADA had revised and implemented bureau budgets and federal grant tracking procedures. 

 

Ms. McClain asked that Mr. Haartz refer back to A.B. 161 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, stating that the Governor had signed the bill on May 25, 1999, and regulations were to go into effect January 1, 2000.  She asked if the regulations had been written and were they in effect on January 1, 2000.  Ms. Canfield stated the regulations for halfway houses were not in force on January 1, 2000.  However, the regulations were filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and went into effect on January 1, 2001.  Ms. McClain requested a copy of the regulations.  She further commented, there were nine halfway houses in one residential area in Clark County.  Mr. Haartz said BADA had not approved or certified any halfway houses to date.  He said a Bill Draft Request (BDR) had been requested to address halfway houses regarding the regulations and what the function of the state should be. 

 

Mr. Haartz said that an advisory committee had been formed and the Health Division believed there needed to be long-term planning.  He said that BADA was working closely with the provider group and the advisory committee and other interested individuals to chart out a plan they could follow over the next 10 years.  

 

Mr. Haartz went on to say they must first complete the integration of the bureau into the Health Division.  As noted there was BDR 40-538 which would place the bureau into the Health Division. 

 

• BDR 40-538 – Makes changes necessary to complete the transition of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse into the State Health Division. 

 

The BDR would firm up and finalize all the actions that were taken in integrating BADA into the Health Divisions internal controls, policies and procedures.  It would also remove BADA from a statutory bureau and place it under the jurisdiction of the state Board of Health; that action provided another layer of critical review that did not exist prior to the bureau transfer into the Health Division. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked that the committee return to “Part B” of Exhibit D where it showed the restructuring of Tuberculosis- (TB) and HIV-related services funded by rural Nevada.  What did BADA do, he asked. 

 

Ms. Canfield said that BADA had entered into an agreement with the Bureau of Community Health Services (BCHS), which was a “sister”, agency within the Health Division.  They (BCHS) had been providing access for clients and treatment for TB and HIV testing and counseling. 

 

Ms. Angle asked about defaults on loans.  She asked Ms. Canfield if there was a program in place to handle those problems.  Ms. Canfield said there had been an extensive review as to the status of the loans.  It was determined that there were no unrecoverable dollars available to the division.  She continued, stating there had been no loans granted to the revolving loan fund.  The program would be discontinued as soon as possible. 

 

Chairman Anderson said that BDR 40-538 concerning drug abuse questions was a judicial question as well as a health issue.   

 

Ms. North, a provider and member of the BADA Advisory Commission, gave testimony stating she was pleased with the changes under the current administration.

 

Chairman Anderson asked if moving the bureau into the Health Division created a more enlightened view of the drug and alcohol treatment programs.  Ms. North replied that the move to the Health Division was a positive act because drug and alcohol abuse were health care issues.  Chairman Anderson offered a follow up question to Ms. North asking her if federal guidelines were followed pertaining to written documentation, and were they artificial and necessary?  Ms. North replied that if provider’s care was not documented in writing it didn’t happen.  She continued stating there was never a question that adequate services were not being provided by the treatment field.  She said it was a process issue that is reflected in the audit.  She said she believed the process issue could be corrected.  Chairman Anderson asked if the providers complied with required paper work.  Ms. North said providers were more than willing to become full partners in the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked about the delivery of services of TB and HIV to rural Nevada.  Ms. North repeated that the bureau had arranged to have community health nurses in the rural areas to administer those tests.  Mr. Carpenter asked about A.B. 181 of the Seventieth Session.  Ms. North replied that she could not address family resources, however she could speak to the adolescent treatment funds.  Adolescent treatment funds had been awarded specifically for adolescent treatment.  A significant amount of that money was flowing into the Elko area.  Mr. Carpenter continued, asking Ms. North if she felt that treatment monies were being apportioned appropriately.  She replied yes, however, more money was needed for services. 

 

Catherine Blake, a provider for BADA, representing Ridge House spoke positively of the changes in the BADA program.  She said all the providers were excited about the changes and their renewed participation in the bureau.  Referring to the use of monies, she explained that the BADA grant she had received in August and September was at first confusing.  However, after reviewing the grant she realized the providers were being given an opportunity to recognize where those dollars should be spent.  It also helped with the documentation.  She said she had always had to document treatment to pregnant women and different programs.  She spoke to the importance of documenting the use of multiple drugs and alcohol.  The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) study showed the lack of awareness of alcohol and how pervasive alcohol is as a drug.  Nevada was rated 50^th in the Union in funding for treatment of drugs and alcohol.  She closed her testimony by praising the work of the new administration of BADA and the community interaction with BADA. 

 

Theresa Lemus, Executive Director, Northern Area Substance Abuse Council (NASAC) stated she was the vice chair of the advisory committee.  She said the integrity of BADA directly affected NASAC.  It was imperative that the committee was made aware of the changes that had taken place since BADA transferred into the Health Division.  The changes, she said, had affected the programs in a positive way.  

 

Kevin Quint, Chairman of the BADA Advisory Committee, testified as a character witness for BADA.  Mr. Quint read from prepared text (Exhibit E).   Mr. Quint referred to the needs assessment; there was a massive effort with providers to present plans for preventions. 

 

Chairman Anderson commented that taxpayers want to know where their tax dollars were being spent, and if they were being spent wisely.  Mr. Quint responded that BADA wanted to be held accountable. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if there were more monies needed and was any headway being made with the monies available?  Mr. Quint stated nationally drug and alcohol treatment was high, generally treatment was successful.  He said there had been limited studies in Nevada as to the success of the programs that had shown some promise, although the numbers were small.  He continued, stating part of the evaluation plan was to embark on a more complete study on outcomes of prevention and treatment in Nevada. 

 

Chairman Anderson closed the hearings on the audit.  Chairman Anderson recessed the committee for 10 minutes. 

 

In reconvening the meeting, Chairman Anderson recognized the Boy Scout Troops from Carson City and Dayton that were visiting the legislature. 

 

Chairman Anderson passed the gavel to Vice Chair Manendo so he, himself could testify on A.B. 24. 

 

Assembly Bill 24 - Prohibits person from directing light emitted from laser pointer into or through certain places and at certain persons under certain   circumstances.  (BDR 15-16)

 

Chairman Anderson began his testimony by referring A.B. 541 of the Seventieth Session, which prohibits certain acts relating to sale, distribution, possession or use of laser pointers.  The Judiciary Committee on behalf of Assemblyman Nolan introduced that bill.  He said the bill had passed out of the Assembly.  However, the bill as it came back from the Senate, had some changes that he felt needed reexamination.  He continued, referring to the 120-day time limit of the legislature that prohibited the committee from acting on A. B. 541 of the Seventieth Session.

Referring to A.B. 24, Chairman Anderson stated there was a legitimate use for the laser pointer, he used one in his classroom, but the illegitimate use of the device was the question.  Such a device when directed at a person could make them a target.  He said Section 2 of the bill defined the laser pointer and included a laser scope on a firearm.  Section 3 made it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly direct light from a laser pointer in an inappropriate manner.  Section 4 made it a gross misdemeanor to direct a laser pointer light at a uniformed police officer, firefighter, or other uniformed public servant.  This bill did not prohibit anyone who had a legitimate reason for using the laser pointer from using it. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked Chairman Anderson what changes were made to the bill since last session.  Chairman Anderson responded that the bill, as originally submitted, was relative only to police department and emergency medical technicians.  Chairman Anderson said there was a need for the committee to address the distractions at intersections and mischievous use of laser pointers.  The Senate wanted to remove that language during conference.   It appeared the bill would not prevail so the Assembly allowed the bill to die. 

 

Mr. Nolan, Assemblyman District 13, Clark County, testified regarding the tenets of the bill and reasons for the introduction.  He said the misuse of laser pointers could cause retinal eye damage.  There were no prohibitions about who could purchase them, i.e., children were allowed to purchase them. 

 

Ms. Koivisto asked if children could still purchase laser pointers and should that be addressed by the committee.  Chairman Anderson responded they could and should address A.B. 24 to correct those problems, which could help raise awareness of the dangers of laser pointers. 

 

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Department Legislative Liaison, spoke in favor of A.B. 24, he displayed a police officer pistol with a laser scope and demonstrated the similarities between the laser scope and the laser pointer and stated there was no distinction between the two.  He pointed out that if an officer thought a laser pointer was siting him, he most likely would respond by drawing his weapon. 

 

Lt. Stan Olsen, Metro Police Department, Las Vegas, spoke in support of the bill.  He said their helicopters had been “painted” with laser pointers.  He explained that “painting” was the term used when a person was being tagged with a laser pointer. 

 

MR. CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 24

 

MR. CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. 

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

There being no further business the committee adjourned AT 10:30 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                

N. Jolene Jones Miley

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: