MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 20, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:06 a.m., on Tuesday, March 20, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Ms. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman John Marvel
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Harvey Whittemore, Legislative Representative, Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association, Reno, Nevada
George Flint, Owner, Chapel of the Bells, Reno, Nevada
Allen Lichtenstein, Representative, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada
George Cotton, Assistant Pastor, Pentecost Temple, Churches of God in Christ, Las Vegas, Nevada
Shirley B. Parraguirre, County Clerk, Clark County, Nevada
Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, Nevada
Alan Glover, Clerk-Recorder, Carson City, Nevada
Barbara Reed, Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County, Nevada
Mark H. Fiorentino, Legislative Representative, Gordon Gust and Family, Las Vegas, Nevada
Madelyn Shipman, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Washoe County, Nevada
Charlotte Richards, Owner, Little White Wedding Chapel, Las Vegas, Nevada
John D. Foulk, Owner, Silver Bells Wedding Chapel, Pastor, Glory Temple Church, Reno, Nevada
Lucille Lusk, Legislative Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Las Vegas, Nevada
Daniel W. Fox, Superintendent of Schools, Pershing County School District, Lovelock, Nevada
Maureen Brower, Legislative Representative, American Cancer Society, Phoenix, Arizona
Samuel P. McMullen, Legislative Representative, Retail Association of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada
Mary Lau, Legislative Representative, Retail Association of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada
Peter D. Krueger, Legislative Representative, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, Reno, Nevada
Alfredo Alonso, Legislative Representative, Nevada Resort Association, Reno, Nevada
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson advised the committee members the Department of Prisons provided each member with a CD of the Nevada Department of Prisons Master Plan.
Chairman Anderson further advised the committee that he was in possession of a 125-page explanation of S.B. 29, which ratified technical corrections made to the Nevada Revised Statutes and Statutes of Nevada, which the committee would hear the next day. Committee members who wanted a copy of the explanation were advised to contact Chairman Anderson’s office.
Assembly Bill 166: Reduces concentration of alcohol that may be present in blood or breath of person while operating vehicle or vessel. (BDR 43-142)
Chairman Anderson reminded the committee testimony in favor of A.B. 166 was taken at an earlier meeting and the committee would be hearing only testimony in opposition to A.B. 166. Chairman Anderson indicated his intention to leave the record open until the end of the week for any person who did not have the opportunity to submit a document either in support or in opposition to A.B. 166. On March 23, 2001, Jim Holmes, Legislative Representative, Northern Nevada DUI Task Force, submitted a document entitled Case Study: Lowering the BAC to .08 which was distributed to the committee on March 26, 2001 (Exhibit C).
Harvey Whittemore, Legislative Representative, Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association, spoke in opposition to A.B. 166. Mr. Whittemore stated the testimony the committee heard over the years regarding drunk driving was, at times, tragic and compelling and it was not Mr. Whittemore’s purpose to revisit that testimony. However, Mr. Whittemore felt it was imperative in the context of a legislative debate to respond to issues with ideas that were well thought out, deliberative, fair and appropriate. In the instant case, Mr. Whittemore stated the response should not be an emotional reaction, but should be one that was rested upon sound ideas, statistics and data that compelled and supported an individual proposition. Mr. Whittemore asked the committee to continue to focus on innovative solutions that made a real impact on reducing incidents of drunk driving in the state of Nevada.
Mr. Whittemore stated lowering the blood alcohol content (BAC) to .08 would not reduce alcohol-related fatalities in Nevada. Mr. Whittemore referred to a study which evaluated the effects of North Carolina’s .08 BAC law and stated the study showed no clear effect on alcohol-related accidents (Exhibit D). Mr. Whittemore also referred to a blue ribbon panel comprised of representatives of law enforcement, the clergy, medicine and judiciary which reported the impact of .08 BAC laws was inconclusive. In 1998, the New Jersey Attorney General and that body rejected a .08 bill indicating the evidence supporting the lower threshold was not clear and convincing or definitive.
Mr. Whittemore continued by stating the Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association commended Mr. Manendo and others who supported A.B. 166, recognizing there were compelling arguments on both sides. However, Mr. Whittemore did not believe the committee should pass A.B. 166 simply because the federal government passed a law mandating a .08 BAC. He advised the bill did not have to be passed this session in order to prevent loss of federal funds; the bill could be passed next session. Mr. Whittemore indicated that if Nevada believed the dollars it would receive from the federal government by passing .08 legislation were more important than reaching a rational judgment as to whether or not Nevada believed .08 legislation was effective in reducing drunk driving, then Nevada should make that choice at the time a choice was necessary. Mr. Whittemore stated he was not opposed to passing .08 legislation with a trigger making the legislation applicable only in the event that the federal government did not change its law mandating .08 legislation or before Nevada lost federal highway funds. Mr. Whittemore felt making the law effective on the last date available before Nevada lost federal funds would satisfy the purpose of making an independent judgment with respect to pressure by the federal government, while giving those who oppose the bill time to effectuate change at the federal level. Mr. Whittemore observed there was no guarantee that the federal law would not be repealed and indicated a majority of states were declining to adopt the .08 BAC standard because the evidence was not clear and convincing.
Mr. Whittemore asserted that 75 percent of individuals convicted of drunk driving offenses had a BAC of .15 or higher. He suggested a better job be done educating people about the consequences of drinking and driving, and, more importantly, ensuring that individuals who were involved in accidents at higher BAC levels or those who were repeat offenders suffered the consequences. Mr. Whittemore felt, in a time of significant budgetary shortfall, considering the impact .08 legislation had, the best course of action would be to defer the implementation of the legislation until the last possible moment so that funds were not lost and funds were not expended on a continuing basis on a proposal that may or may not have the efficacy suggested by proponents of the legislation. Mr. Whittemore stated chronic drinkers and those with serious alcohol problems were the issue that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Whittemore indicated he did not want to turn this matter into a lengthy debate and would not present witnesses who would testify that the bill impacted their business and sale of a legal product because of what has happened at the federal level. Mr. Whittemore asked that the committee independently look at how to address this problem and to delay the implementation of the bill to the last day possible or defer the bill altogether this year in light of the federal legislation.
Mr. Whittemore concluded by stating he had substantial information which he would provide to the committee and indicated he did not feel it was necessary to engage in a debate which the committee had heard numerous times over the years (Exhibit E).
Chairman Anderson noted one of the issues raised at the initial hearing on A.B. 166 was the incentive dollars available to states that implemented .08 legislation by July 1, 2001. He also noted the full impact of dollar loss would not take place until 2007.
Mr. Whittemore stated the incentive dollars program was only guaranteed based upon certain funding levels and he suggested there was no way to know what was going to happen with the federal budget and whether the offered incentive program would be in place. Mr. Whittemore felt the legislature should evaluate the likelihood of receiving incentive dollars versus the impact and cost associated with reducing the BAC level to .08. Mr. Whittemore assured the committee the dollar loss to the state’s budget, which would result from lowering the BAC level to .08, was real. He indicated he would provide the committee with a schedule of what the likely effect would be with respect to the federal legislation and incentive dollars.
Mr. Manendo appreciated Mr. Whittemore’s testimony, but indicated the federal government allocated $55 million in 1998, $65 million in 1999, $80 million in 2000, and $90 million for 2001 for the incentive program. The projected allocation for 2002 was $100 million and the projected allocation for 2003 was $110 million. Mr. Manendo felt the federal government had established a pattern of funding the incentive program and asked why Mr. Whittemore believed the federal government would stop funding the program.
Mr. Whittemore believed the critical component was whether or not the change of administration and/or the change of leadership in Congress were going to give the incentive program as high a priority as previously given by the prior administration. Mr. Whittemore reiterated he was not suggesting Nevada should not seriously weigh the utilization of needed federal dollars against the independence to make a decision as to what was right or wrong for the individual citizens of the state of Nevada. He felt the federal government had put the legislature and each individual legislator in the unfortunate position of having to weigh the federal threat of loss of dollars against its right to make independent judgments. Mr. Whittemore believed it was inappropriate for the federal government to put the legislators in that position, but recognized the situation was a major factor and changed the equation. However, Mr. Whittemore stated the evidence on the merits of the bill still suggested the .08 standard did not deliver the promise of reducing fatalities.
Mr. Manendo understood and respected the concern regarding the threat by the federal government, but stated there was no threat until 2003, and if Nevada was responsible enough to pass the legislation now it could benefit from the federal incentive dollars. Mr. Manendo indicated Nevada already lost almost $200 million over the last several years by not passing .08 legislation which was not a penalty but a loss of incentive dollars. Incentive dollars could be used for many purposes including highways and drug and alcohol programs. Mr. Manendo felt the incentive program would be a good way to raise money without taxes.
Mr. Whittemore responded he did not believe there was any guarantee by the federal government until the penalty phase was reached and to suggest that substantial federal dollars were guaranteed was misleading. Whether or not the incentive dollars were available in the future was a question the federal government would respond to, not the state legislature.
Mr. Collins asked, if some of the federal laws regarding the incentive programs were not yet in place but were only proposed, could the situation be comparable to the threat of national deregulation. Mr. Collins recalled that many states took action responding to federal threats concerning deregulation and then the federal government changed its mind.
Mr. Whittemore suggested there was no guarantee that future dollars promised for adoption of .08 legislation would be available. Mr. Whittemore stated incentive dollars were available for the short term but felt the question was whether incentive dollars would be available in the long term. Mr. Whittemore indicated the bigger issue for Nevada was, if the federal government threatened a .04 standard or loss of all highway money, would Nevada succumb to that threat knowing it would be unfair and unwise for the state to adopt that standard. Mr. Whittemore asked where the state drew the line against federal threats. He stated the bottom line was the state could not count on anything at the federal government being there in perpetuity. Mr. Whittemore indicated the committee had to decide whether they felt it was worth giving up a little bit of Nevada’s sovereignty and independent judgment to receive uncertain federal dollars.
Mr. Carpenter noted the information the committee received from the proponents of A.B. 166 indicated some states that adopted .08 legislation had experienced a reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. Mr. Carpenter did not question that deaths had indeed been reduced, but he felt it might be due to all of the other actions taken in conjunction with lowering the BAC level, such as strong penalties and treatment programs. Mr. Carpenter stated the committee should look at everything else that had been done in those states and not just the adoption of .08 legislation. He asked Mr. Whittemore to provide the committee with information in that regard.
Mr. Whittemore stated Mr. Carpenter’s point was well taken and indicated he could provide many examples in which states with a .10 BAC standard experienced a reduction in fatalities due to the safety of the road system, speed limit factors, awareness, etc. Mr. Whittemore indicated New York’s statistical rank for fatalities went down from 33.4 percent to 24.4 percent from 1996 to 1998 and their BAC standard remained the same at .10. Mr. Whittemore stated he would be happy to provide the requested information to the committee.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 166 but noted the record would remain open until the end of the week for the submission of additional information.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 254 and indicated the sponsor of the bill would make his presentation, and then testimony in support of the bill would be taken, followed by testimony in opposition to the bill and the hearing would conclude with neutral testimony on the bill.
Assembly Bill 254: Makes various changes to provisions governing marriage. (BDR 11-95)
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District 18, primary sponsor of the bill, brought A.B. 254 by request and indicated he would like to turn over the presentation of the bill to George Flint and Allen Lichtenstein.
George Flint, Owner, Chapel of the Bells, indicated he was testifying on his own behalf but had the complete support of the Dream Maker Wedding Chapel in Incline Village, the White Lace and Promises Wedding Chapel in Reno, the Silver Bells Chapel in Las Vegas, the Graceland Chapel in Las Vegas, San Francisco Sally’s in Las Vegas, the Little Church of the Flowers in Las Vegas, and the Sister’s Chapel of the Chimes which would open in Las Vegas next year. Mr. Flint indicated he requested Mr. Manendo bring forth A.B. 254 in order to clarify and amend language to allow married couples that wanted to renew their vows or have a second wedding to buy a marriage license. He stated each day couples came into his chapel and wished to buy a new license, noting it was a particularly popular practice on an anniversary.
Mr. Flint continued by advising the committee of the extensive waits experienced by couples in obtaining a license, sometimes up to six hours, which caused frustration and anxiety for everyone involved.
Mr. Flint stated the provisions contained in each part of A.B. 254 would simplify the marriage process. Mr. Flint felt the provision to allow currently married couples to purchase a new marriage license before renewing their vows showed support for the institution of marriage and designated Nevada as a place to celebrate a second honeymoon. Mr. Flint indicated the provision to allow county clerks to authorize wedding chapels to issue marriage licenses was a dramatic step, but he thought the provision would help alleviate long lines at the clerk’s office and provide for expanded hours during which marriage licenses could be obtained. Mr. Flint noted the proposed changes streamlined provisions and removed antiquated language, which Mr. Flint felt improperly involved the government by attempting to determine which religious groups and leaders were legitimate.
Mr. Flint repeated his earlier comments regarding married couples wishing to renew their marriage vows and obtain a new marriage license. He indicated that up until a few years ago a couple that was already married could purchase a new marriage license but currently they could not. He told the committee he had married a couple seven times on various anniversaries until they stopped coming to Nevada because they could not obtain a new marriage license.
Mr. Flint requested Mr. Lichtenstein to present his area of the bill before continuing.
Allen Lichtenstein, Representative, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada, told the committee the particular area of the bill the ACLU was concerned with was the authorization of person to perform marriages or, more simply, who could be authorized to perform marriages and what was the process. Mr. Lichtenstein stated the ACLU became involved with the issue late last year when controversy arose over background checks performed by the Clark County Clerk. Mr. Lichtenstein acknowledged the county clerk was following the statute as it was written, however, he felt the current language created some constitutional issues in terms of authorizing background checks for ministers and authorizing the government to make determinations as to what constituted a congregation, which Mr. Lichtenstein believed intertwined government and religion in a way that was problematic.
The ACLU examined the existing laws concerning authorization to perform marriages in other states and learned that no other state performed background checks on ministers. Accordingly, the ACLU took language from other states, Utah, Oregon and Hawaii, and tried to streamline the process so that ministers and other people from religious societies could be authorized to perform marriages. Mr. Lichtenstein felt the proposed definition of who could be authorized to perform marriages was a more contemporary definition of what constituted a religion or a religious society. Mr. Lichtenstein pointed out there were many ministers who did not have traditional congregations but had hospital or prison ministries and noted religious activity was much broader than Sunday morning services.
Mr. Lichtenstein continued by stating the onerous rules that existed should be replaced by a simple affidavit by a religious society or church stating a certain person was authorized by that religious society or church to perform marriages. When such a person was no longer authorized to perform marriages, a similar document would be submitted to that effect. Mr. Lichtenstein suggested this practice would be similar to the practices of 49 other states and would allow ministers and other religious leaders to perform marriages without undue involvement with the government.
Mr. Lichtenstein concluded by directing the committee’s attention to Section 2 of the bill, which defined a person authorized to perform marriages, Section 11, which provided for the affidavit of authority by religious societies and Section 12, which removed burdensome language and provided for the affidavit of revocation.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Lichtenstein whether the ACLU felt the background check should be eliminated. Mr. Lichtenstein responded “absolutely,” and indicated the problem with a background check was the intrusion of the government in making determinations for a religious society or a church about who could be designated as a minister. Mr. Lichtenstein could not find another state that conducted a background check or considered a minister’s criminal past relevant. He cited several examples of historical figures that were ministers and had criminal pasts. Mr. Lichtenstein did not believe the state had any justification for claiming someone who committed a felony and then turned his life around and became a minister was unfit to perform a marriage or would have any effect on the solemnity or durability of a marriage. Mr. Lichtenstein reiterated 49 other states were able to successfully marry people without delving into the backgrounds of ministers and there was no reason for Nevada to be the exception.
Chairman Anderson observed Nevada had a marriage industry and wondered whether other states had a marriage industry similar to Nevada. Mr. Lichtenstein indicated other states did have a tourist/marriage industry but suggested Nevada was unique in many ways.
Chairman Anderson noted Nevada had not required a blood test for many years, which he felt was a major attraction to people coming to Nevada to get married. He also noted there was no time delay in Nevada between the time the license was obtained and the marriage was performed. Mr. Lichtenstein agreed Nevada was unique in that way and still had no history of any significant problem based on the background of the person who performed the marriage. He reiterated it was unwise for the government to be involved in such a constitutionally touchy situation.
Mr. Carpenter asked for an example of a religious society. Mr. Lichtenstein responded the Ethical Culture Society was a religious society which was not considered a church because it was not theistically based in a traditional sense. Other organizations were not what were normally thought of as a church because they did not have a monotheistic view of God or even a particular image of God.
Mr. Flint then reviewed his proposed amendments to A.B. 254 with the committee (Exhibit F). Mr. Flint made the following recommendations:
Mr. Flint provided and discussed a letter containing suggested amendments by William H. Stoddard, Chairman of the Las Vegas Multistake Public Affairs Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Exhibit G).
Mr. Flint also provided and discussed a letter from William E. Schultz, El Dorado County Recorder-Clerk (Exhibit H). Mr. Flint told the committee Mr. Schultz was the administrator of a program in California that sold confidential marriage licenses at chapels through notary publics.
Mr. Flint believed wedding chapels could do a better job of issuing marriage licenses than county clerks and would make fewer mistakes. He indicated couples often returned to the clerk’s office because of mistakes the chapel found in the marriage license. Mr. Flint felt employees of the wedding chapels were better trained than the deputy clerks, and claimed that inexperienced deputy clerks were one cause of the bottleneck at the clerk’s office in Las Vegas. Mr. Flint stated, however, the bottleneck in Las Vegas had been addressed and was not as bad as it had been.
Mr. Flint told the committee all of the couples that came to Clark County to get married had to come through one door into a little office where no more than four people at any one time could fill out applications. Meanwhile, family and guests waited at the chapel for the couple to return and everyone became frustrated. Mr. Flint felt if couples did not have to wait so long for a marriage license, wedding parties would be back in the casinos and resorts much sooner.
Mr. Flint felt counties could not lose under A.B. 254 because counties would still be paid for marriage licenses, the wedding chapels would be bonded, only notaries would issue licenses, applications would be filed daily with the clerk, and money would be saved in overtime hours. Mr. Flint did not see any compelling reason not to implement the program on a trial basis for 18 months. He stated there was no reason the chapels and the counties could not partner to issue marriage licenses. Mr. Flint hoped the committee would provide private enterprise with the opportunity to streamline the effort and treat the tourists better than they were currently being treated without any negative impact to the county.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether the provision that licenses must be purchased from the county in blocks of 50 would be burdensome to smaller chapels. Mr. Flint estimated that blocks of 50 would not be burdensome for any chapel and noted his belief that even the smallest chapels were performing 18-30 weddings a week.
Chairman Anderson inquired what the cost was and who would pay for training wedding chapel personnel in the proper issuance of wedding licenses. Mr. Flint stated that if the clerk wanted to charge a nominal fee for training he did not feel the industry would have a problem and added that the chapels wanted to eliminate expense to the county not increase it.
Chairman Anderson noted the proposed training course was only for three hours and asked whether three hours was sufficient time to conduct the necessary training. Chairman Anderson also noted he received a letter from Margaret Flint of Chapel of the Bells which offered examples of the mistakes commonly made by the clerk’s office and submitted the same for the record (Exhibit I). Mr. Flint believed three hours of training would be sufficient inasmuch as the individuals currently working at the chapels did a very careful job of completing applications prior to sending applicants to the clerk’s office for a license. He stated he had been told that some of the deputy clerks issuing licenses had not received much more than three hours of training and had no previous experience in the wedding industry. Mr. Flint felt the chapels were ready, willing and equipped to issue marriage licenses equally as well and more efficiently than the county.
Chairman Anderson indicated his experience that errors in daily student attendance were not uncommon and he was curious what kinds of checks and balances would be in place to prevent errors if applications and licenses were both completed in the same place. Mr. Flint responded the industry would not know what checks and balances would be put in place until it implemented the program and insisted the industry was dedicated to performing the job very well. Mr. Flint noted any error made by the chapel cost $17 to correct on the county’s records, but he pointed out that the county did not have to pay a fee if the mistake was made by the county.
Mr. Carpenter observed that A.B. 254 would apply statewide and he did not feel that chapels in smaller communities had the same experience completing applications and licenses as those people in larger communities. Accordingly, Mr. Carpenter felt there needed to be an educational process provided for in the bill so that people in smaller communities who were going to issue licenses would be properly trained. Mr. Carpenter believed many people would be issuing marriage licenses if the only requirement to do so was a notary public designation. He wondered whether there was a constitutional issue created by allowing people other than the county clerk to issue licenses. Mr. Carpenter also noted requiring affidavits to be filed with the clerk each business day would create a tremendous burden on chapels that were not located near the clerk’s office.
Mr. Flint stated the number of marriage licenses issued in Elko County had decreased dramatically in recent years and he felt the number of marriage licenses issued might increase if there were chapels closer to the population. He also stated that mistakes were going to be made and some problems were going to be experienced, but he did not feel those problems were insurmountable. Mr. Flint offered to be available to all wedding chapels for guidance on the process.
George Cotton, Assistant Pastor, Pentecost Temple, Churches of God in Christ, testified in support of A.B. 254. Mr. Cotton indicated he attended a meeting with the county clerk’s office to discuss the concerns that the ACLU brought forth regarding rules and regulations established by the clerk’s office which affected how ministers were designated. Mr. Cotton told the committee his church had over 600 members and 3 ministers had charge of the congregation. The church had 16 additional ministers that were assigned other duties such as prison ministry, home ministry, or hospital ministry, but those ministers did not have the charge of the congregation. Accordingly, the Church was concerned about regulations that required a minister to have the charge of a congregation in order to marry people.
Mr. Cotton was in favor of allowing chapels to issue marriage licenses and believed that public/private partnerships had worked in the past. Mr. Cotton noted the small steps the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had taken to reduce lines and waiting time to renew drivers licenses and registration and he felt that if the DMV could be trusted not to renew the registration on a smoking vehicle, the chapels could be trusted to issue marriage licenses without creating a problem. Mr. Cotton indicated there had been long lines at the clerk’s office in Clark County in the past, but stated the clerk had made a concerted effort to address the problem. He also noted there were less errors being made by the clerk’s office but indicated the sheer number of people seeking marriage licenses was so great it was time to find another way to alleviate the lines.
Mrs. Angle asked Mr. Cotton whether the language contained in the bill was offensive to ministers of the gospel since the previous language referred to a Christian faith rather than the current language which referred to a generic religion. Mr. Cotton believed the current language appropriately addressed all ministers and not just ministers of the gospel.
There were no other persons present to speak in favor of A.B. 254 and accordingly Chairman Anderson called on persons who wished to speak in opposition to A.B. 254.
Shirley B. Parraguirre, County Clerk, Clark County, testified in opposition to A.B. 254, indicating she wished to respond to some of the comments made in support of the bill (Exhibit J). Ms. Parraguirre stated that during the prior administration of the clerk’s office in Clark County there were often times when couples had to wait five to six hours for the issuance of a marriage license, noting these waits occurred mainly on holidays and weekends. Ms. Parraguirre indicated she addressed the problem when she took office and currently the normal waiting time was only 30 to 45 minutes. She was aware that on one recent weekend the waiting time had been one and a half to two hours, however, she told the committee that on that particular weekend her office was understaffed by seven people due to illness. Ms. Parraguirre asserted that occasional waits would occur regardless of who was issuing the licenses.
Ms. Parraguirre believed clerk’s offices were better trained to issue licenses than ministers or notaries working for wedding chapels. She noted Mr. Flint’s opinion that delays occurred, in part, because of minimal training provided to the clerk’s staff, however, she also noted that three hours of training was all that was proposed to be provided to employees of wedding chapels. Ms. Parraguirre told the committee it took much longer than three hours to learn what the statutes meant, let alone teach employees what type of documentation was required to show parental consent, age of children, etc. Ms. Parraguirre did not believe personnel could be trained in three hours and stated training would be an ongoing task and an enormous burden for the clerk’s office in light of the number of wedding chapels and employee turnover.
Ms. Parraguirre indicated she never made any statement to the effect that she did not trust ministers as Mr. Flint had stated. Ms. Parraguirre explained that current statute required ministers to notify the county clerk within a definite period of time when a minister left the church and she noted ministers often do not comply with that statute. Accordingly, Ms. Parraguirre felt she had no assurance that the same people who did not comply with the current statute would comply with the proposed requirements of A.B. 254 which would require them to deliver licenses to the clerk’s office each day.
Ms. Parraguirre advised the committee employees of the clerk’s office were put through a background check conducted by the Human Resources Department and applicants were not hired when the background check revealed anything which was believed to interfere with an employees’ honesty, integrity, handling of money or handling of legal documents. The clerk’s office would have no control over the employees issuing marriage licenses in wedding chapels. Ms. Parraguirre advised current statute stated all deputies would be hired by the county clerk and she felt in essence the clerk’s office would be responsible for employees issuing licenses in wedding chapels but would not have any control over those employees.
Ms. Parraguirre stated her office was trying to address the long waits in obtaining a marriage license. She advised that within two months everyone in her office would have a computer for the first time and noted the 120,000 licenses issued by her office last year were done on typewriters. Software was being developed to allow marriage license applications to be completed on-line and Ms. Parraguirre stated she intended to meet with the wedding chapels that wished to participate and show them how to complete applications on-line. Completed applications would be electronically transmitted to the clerk’s office where the application would be checked for accuracy and a number would be assigned to the application and electronically provided to the applicant. When the applicants arrived at the clerk’s office, they could proceed to an express window which would be established for people who had completed the application in advance. Ms. Parraguirre felt that when this service was implemented the wait at the clerk’s office would be reduced to no more than five to ten minutes. Accordingly, Ms. Parraguirre believed the argument that wedding chapels should be allowed to issue marriage licenses in order to reduce the waiting time at the clerk’s office was moot.
Ms. Parraguirre was concerned that the clerk’s office did not lose track of the licenses, noting her office was responsible for preserving the integrity of the records. She stated her office was requested everyday to locate and/or certify licenses, and she did not feel her office would be able to locate licenses if it had no assurance whatsoever that it was in receipt of all the licenses issued by the chapels. Ms. Parraguirre noted it was easy for the chapels to say they would provide the clerk with the licenses in a timely manner, but she also noted the chapels and/or ministers were not currently providing the marriage certificates to the recorder’s office which was a responsibility placed on ministers by the legislature. Ms. Parraguirre stated her office received calls from couples who inquired what they could do to force a minister at a chapel to record the certificate. Chapels had refused to assist these couples and advised them it was the minister’s responsibility to record the certificate. Accordingly, Ms. Parraguirre was concerned about the handling of the licenses and believed it was best to leave the issuing of the licenses in one place at the clerk’s office. Ms. Parraguirre stated the clerk’s office wished to continue issuing marriage licenses in sequential order and selling licenses to wedding chapels in lots of 50 would create problems for the clerk in its ability to conduct research on a license because the clerk would lose track of the month that licenses were issued. Additionally, licenses would have to be scanned out of date order by the clerk’s office.
Ms. Buckley stated she got married in Hawaii and all necessary and incidental services were provided to her in one place, within walking distance of the hotel, which made for “great one-stop shopping.” Ms. Buckley wondered, in terms of convenience for the tourist population, if other states like Hawaii could successfully broker a relationship to ensure the integrity of the records, which Ms. Buckley stated was paramount, yet be more accommodating to the tourist industry, why was Nevada unable to do the same. Ms. Parraguirre responded that when and if the proposed regional justice center was completed in Las Vegas, ample provision had been made for limo parking. Ms. Buckley noted not everybody had a limo to take them to get their marriage license and yet the wedding chapels were right across the street from many casinos. Ms. Buckley stated the process was still inconvenient even if there was limo parking and she felt it was a matter of balancing convenience against the record integrity which was the most important concern.
Ms. Parraguirre agreed with Ms. Buckley that it would be more convenient for the couples coming to Las Vegas if they could go directly to the wedding chapels, obtain their license and get married. However, Ms. Parraguirre believed the disadvantages to allowing wedding chapels to issue marriage licenses outweighed the advantages. She further believed there was a definite conflict of interest with the wedding chapels and stated her office turned away on a regular basis couples that were not of age, presented false documentation, or falsely presented themselves as parents giving parental consent. Ms. Parraguirre stated these people were advised to return with the proper documentation but were often never seen again. Accordingly, Ms. Parraguirre firmly believed that these people were trying to “pull something over” on the clerk’s office and those people would often be successful in the wedding chapels because the chapels had a definite interest in issuing a license in order to sell a wedding package.
Ms. Parraguirre stated employees at the clerk’s office were sent to a class to learn to determine whether a person was intoxicated. If a person who was applying for a marriage license appeared to be intoxicated, they were not issued a license by the clerk’s office. On the other hand, Ms. Parraguirre stated it was not uncommon for chapels to perform ceremonies for people who were intoxicated at the time of the ceremony and the couples later wished to have the marriage voided. Ms. Parraguirre told the committee the only recourse for those couples was a divorce or annulment and felt situations such as the one she described were proof that not everyone in the wedding chapels was adhering to the rules.
Ms. Buckley inquired how many states required licenses to be issued by county clerks and how many states allowed licenses to be issued by chapels. Ms. Parraguirre did not know.
Mr. Nolan asked who reviewed the background information obtained during a background check of a minister as part of the licensing process. Mr. Nolan also noted the information obtained on a marriage license application was very personal in nature and wondered what kind of damage could be caused by dishonest individuals who had access to that information. Ms. Parraguirre indicated the background check for ministers was conducted by the Clark County Human Resources Department. Ms. Parraguirre’s office interviewed and selected employees prior to the background check by the Human Resources Department. If human resources found something in the background investigation that made a selected individual unsuitable for employment, that person was not hired.
Ms. Parraguirre further indicated that the implementation of regulations requiring background checks on ministers was not, under any circumstances, to allow Ms. Parraguirre to determine who should be ministers and who should not be ministers. Ms. Parraguirre stated she was only trying to comply with statutes that required the clerk not to issue a certificate to perform marriages to ministers who had been convicted of a felony within the past ten years. Ms. Parraguirre saw no way of assuring that a certificate was not issued to a minister who had been convicted of a felony within the past ten years without conducting a background check. Accordingly, the same background check conducted for employees was conducted for ministers. Ms. Parraguirre indicated she did, on occasion, receive applications from ministers who indicated on the application that they had not been convicted of a felony when, in actuality, they had. Ms. Parraguirre said the practice of conducting a background check on ministers met with such opposition that she checked with the district attorney who advised her to have ministers sign an affidavit stating the information on the application, including whether or not the applicant had been convicted of a felony, was true and correct, and the affiant acknowledged that making a false statement under oath was a misdemeanor and could be punished accordingly.
Ms. Parraguirre stated another reason for implementing regulations which required background checks for ministers was to ensure that all applicants received the same fair treatment. She stated approximately 250 people worked in her office and 10 to 15 of those people issued certificates to ministers to perform weddings. The current statutes stated that performing marriages should be “incidental” to the other services that a minister renders to his congregation. If a minister indicates on his application that he has a congregation of 20 members and expects to perform 25 wedding ceremonies a week, a determination must be made as to whether or not performing wedding ceremonies was incidental to the other services the minister provided to his congregation. Ms. Parraguirre stated she might have one employee who would determine that, under the circumstances described, performing wedding ceremonies was not incidental and accordingly deny the application, while another employee might determine that, under the same circumstances, performing wedding ceremonies was incidental and grant the application. Accordingly, Ms. Parraguirre instituted measures to assure, regardless of which clerk a person dealt with, fair and consistent treatment of applications.
Mr. Nolan asked whether ministers were currently subject to a background check and, if so, who reviewed the information obtained during the investigation. Ms. Parraguirre responded Clark County was not conducting background investigations of ministers.
Ms. Parraguirre continued by addressing the matter of issuing new licenses for the renewal of vows. Ms. Parraguirre indicated Clark County did not issue a new license for renewal of vows and advised it was the Clark County District Attorney’s opinion that married couples already had a legal contract and did not need a new license, but those couples were not prevented from going to a chapel and obtaining a certificate from the chapel for a renewal of vows. Ms. Parraguirre saw no reason another license would be necessary.
Ms. Parraguirre concluded by reading an unsolicited e-mail she received from the owner of the Shalimar Wedding Chapel in opposition to A.B. 254 (Exhibit K). She also provided a list of 13 chapels in Clark County who called the clerk’s office to voice opposition to A.B. 254 (Exhibit L) and a memorandum from Mariah Witt to Ms. Parraguirre regarding opposition to A.B. 254 (Exhibit M).
Mr. Manendo indicated he had not been contacted by any wedding chapel in opposition to A.B. 254 although the bill had been out for some time.
Amy Harvey, County Clerk, Washoe County, concurred with the testimony given by Ms. Parraguirre. Ms. Harvey advised Washoe County conducted background checks for the licensing of ministers through the district attorney’s office, who in turn provided the information to the clerk’s office.
Ms. Harvey presented the committee with a memorandum from the Washoe County Department of Human Resources which provided a brief overview on the cost to train a deputy marriage clerk (Exhibit N). Ms. Harvey noted the history-keeping element of the training would not apply to the chapels, but pointed out the financial impact to the county if it was to provide training to chapel employees. Ms. Harvey did not feel the proposed three hours of training was anywhere near enough time to train a person to issue marriage licenses.
Ms. Harvey advised Washoe County would be implementing a program similar to Clark County for on-line marriage license applications and use of an express window at the clerk’s office. Ms. Harvey anticipated such a program would cut the time required to get a marriage license in half. Ms. Harvey also anticipated the implementation of acceptance of credit cards for payment of the license fee.
Ms. Harvey continued by stating it would be incorrect to represent that her office never made mistakes, but she felt that some mistakes would always be made even by the chapels. She stated the majority of the mistakes in her office were made when the computers were down and licenses had to be issued manually.
Ms. Harvey shared Ms. Parraguirre’s concern regarding the conflict of interest issue. She indicated employees of the clerk’s office did not stand to benefit financially from the issuance of a marriage license and felt there was a direct conflict of interest for a chapel that stood to benefit from the issuance of marriage license through the sale of flowers, services, etc.
Chairman Anderson wondered how Hawaii dealt with the issuance of marriage licenses. He also asked Ms. Harvey whether she experienced difficulty in identifying ministers. Ms. Harvey indicated Washoe County had a procedure in place for out-of-state ministers to be licensed in Nevada to perform a wedding in Nevada. The license was a one-time license and because it was for one-time only the clerk performed minimum checking to assure the person was a minister. Ms. Harvey indicated Washoe County had not experienced any problems with the procedure.
Mr. Gustavson asked whether out-of-state ministers were able to obtain a one-time license on the weekend. Ms. Harvey responded that a letter from the clerk’s office was all that was necessary in order for an out-of-state minister to perform a wedding in Nevada and the clerk’s office was generally able to issue the letter on very short notice. Mr. Gustavson asked if the clerk’s office could issue such a letter on a weekend. Ms. Harvey responded the clerk’s office was not available on the weekend for that service.
Alan Glover, Clerk-Recorder, Carson City, noted his position was unique as a clerk-recorder and indicated he had been able to combine both functions of selling the license and getting the license recorded into a one-stop shop that has worked out very well. Mr. Glover provided the committee with copies of the certificates issued in Carson City in order to give the members an idea of what kind of paperwork was involved with the process (Exhibit O).
Mr. Glover advised there were several things about A.B. 254 which deeply concerned him. He noted the bill called for county clerks to deputize employees of wedding chapels, essentially making these people deputy clerks with all the legal powers of the elected county clerk. Accordingly, it was Mr. Glover’s opinion that when these people screwed up, the county would get sued and he told the committee of an incident in which a deputy clerk failed to turn in voter applications. Mr. Glover added the $5,000 bond proposed by Mr. Flint was insufficient and he suggested the amount of the bond be substantially increased to cover the statutory amount for which local governments could be sued. Mr. Glover stated when the clerk’s office screwed up it took responsibility for the mistake and the employees were put through a background check prior to employment and were bonded.
Mr. Glover wondered what would happen to licenses after the licenses were sold in lots of 50 to a chapel. Mr. Glover asked whether the chapels would be allowed to sell the licenses to someone else or, if a chapel owner died, would the licenses become an asset of the deceased owner’s estate. Mr. Glover’s point was that marriage records were extremely important and were used for many purposes including social security, immigration, military benefits, or divorces, and if control over marriage records was lost people who needed access to the records could be severely damaged. Mr. Glover indicated the original marriage license application which was presently retained in the clerk’s office could be recorded at a later dated as evidence of a marriage if the other paperwork was lost or never recorded by a chapel, minister or justice of the peace. Mr. Glover noted if the clerk’s office lost control of the original marriage license application by allowing chapels to issue marriage licenses, the clerk could not reconstruct evidence of a marriage.
Mr. Glover stated the marriage license number was chronologically computer generated in Carson City and if chapels were allowed to issue marriage licenses, Carson City would be required to change its software. Currently, the clerk’s office could search for a marriage record by date, but Mr. Glover indicated that when the clerk’s office lost control over the marriage records it would no longer be able to search by chronological order.
Mr. Glover addressed the amendment that proposed clerks could revoke the license of a chapel after repeated warnings about the mistakes made by the chapel. Mr. Glover was concerned because the word “repeated” was open to interpretation and could be subject to litigation. Similarly, Mr. Glover noted the word “reasonable” contained in other proposed amendments was subject to interpretation and litigation. Mr. Glover suggested it might be reasonable for a chapel in Jackpot not to bring in licenses everyday as required because of a terrible snowstorm, but after a while the same chapel might start bringing in the licenses only once a week which might become once a month and Mr. Glover foresaw a major problem in this regard with every one of the chapels.
Mr. Glover compared the issuance of marriage licenses by wedding chapels to the issuance of marriage license by hotel check-in personnel and facetiously wondered why the bill limited the issuance of marriage licenses to just chapels.
Chairman Anderson advised the committee the statutes of Hawaii were currently being reviewed by staff.
Mr. Manendo asked Mr. Glover to explain the current bonding process. Mr. Glover responded a bond of $100,000 was carried as a blanket position bond.
Barbara Reed, Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County, stated she was in support of Section 5 of the bill, which provided for a new marriage license to be issued to couples that were already married. Ms. Reed was concerned about the authorization of ministers and stated the proposed amendment may be too lenient but did not feel strongly about the issue.
Ms. Reed felt the heart of the bill was the licensing issue and stated for the record that she was not adversely opposed to the proposed amendment nor was she strongly in support of the proposed amendment. Ms. Reed explained she arrived at her neutral position for several reasons.
Ms. Reed stated she had served the residents and visitors of Douglas County for over 27 years, during which time she spent 10 years pleading with the legislature to allow her to issue marriage licenses at Lake Tahoe. Ms. Reed believed marriage licenses should be issued at the destination of the tourist and she was finally allowed to do so in 1991. Ms. Reed told the committee California had been issuing confidential marriage licenses since the mid-70s and the confidential marriage licenses had an adverse effect on both Douglas County and Carson City, eroding sales considerably. Ms. Reed felt it was necessary for Douglas County to offer marriage licenses in the same proximity. Ms. Reed stated El Dorado County issued more licenses than Douglas County, noting El Dorado issued confidential licenses through the wedding chapels. Ms. Reed believed both Carson City and Douglas County were issuing far fewer licenses as a result of the California confidential marriage license.
Ms. Reed told the committee she would like to see this matter go to an interim committee because there were some areas that needed further study. She felt it would be appropriate to look at the processes, procedures and guidelines that were used by other states in order to avoid problems that had already been encountered by others. Ms. Reed stated the ability of California chapels to issue confidential marriage licenses had an impact on Nevada through loss of business.
Ms. Reed believed the three primary counties that would be impacted by A.B. 254 would be Clark, Washoe and Douglas and secondary counties that would be impacted would be Elko and Carson City. Ms. Reed stated her opinion that Carson City would lose revenue because couples that stopped in Carson City to obtain a license on their way to Lake Tahoe would no longer do so. Ms. Reed indicated she would hate to see Carson City loose the few licenses they had.
Ms. Reed continued by stating she did not think the proposed amendments made for a bad program but she felt the program needed some work. She indicated that Douglas County allowed for payment of property taxes over the Internet and had accepted credit cards for many years in an effort to find new ways to serve its constituents. Accordingly, Ms. Reed volunteered to conduct a pilot project in Douglas County so that if there were problems with the program they would not impact the whole state. Ms. Reed suggested she would return to the committee in two years and advise of the success or failure of the program. Ms. Reed’s willingness to conduct a pilot project was a result of living with the impact of California confidential license for a number of years. Ms. Reed advised she had not discussed the idea with any of the chapels at Lake Tahoe and did not know if there was any interest to participate in such a project by those chapels.
Ms. Reed concluded by reiterating her opinion that the issue should go to an interim study which could obtain a survey from all of the chapels throughout the state.
Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Reed to explain the California confidential marriage license. Ms. Reed explained that a California confidential marriage license allowed a couple to come to a chapel and sign under oath that they had been living together as husband and wife without stating how long the couple had been living together as husband and wife. The license was purchased and signed in the chapels and chapels were allowed to advertise that fact. After the ceremony was performed the confidential license was a sealed document which was sent to the county and could only be opened by a court order.
Chairman Anderson clarified that California confidential marriage licenses were sold by chapels providing that someone at the chapel was a notary. Ms. Reed added that the notaries at the chapels were not deputy clerks and stated she agreed with Mr. Glover and did not want to see chapel employees become deputy clerks.
Mr. Manendo noted Ms. Reed’s testimony was that Nevada, specifically Douglas County, was losing marriage license revenue to California and asked Ms. Reed whether she felt Nevada would be able to generate revenue by issuing licenses to couples that would have otherwise gone to California because of the ease in obtaining a license. Ms. Reed hoped so. Mr. Manendo noted the committee should look at every possible way of generating revenue and indicated government partnership with private enterprise was occurring more often.
Ms. Parraguirre followed up her testimony indicating that out-of-state ministers normally knew well in advance that they would be performing a wedding in Nevada and generally had ample time to obtain a certificate to perform the wedding. Additionally, Ms. Parraguirre indicated that certificates which were arranged for in advance could be picked up on the weekend.
Ms. Parraguirre advised that the Clark County Clerk had branch offices in Laughlin and Mesquite but experienced so many problems with a lack of control over the deputy clerk in Mesquite that the branch office had to be shut down. Ms. Parraguirre noted this was another reason why she did not want to see chapel employees become deputy clerks.
Mark H. Fiorentino, Legislative Representative for Gordon Gust and Family, told the committee Mr. Gust and his family owned and operated The Little Chapel of the West, one of the oldest and most successful chapels in Las Vegas. Mr. Fiorentino indicated the Gust Family had been very active for many years promoting legislation and regulations that governed the wedding industry and promoted the growth and stability of the wedding industry. Mr. Fiorentino did not have objections to the ACLU’s provisions in the bill, but joined in the opposition to the provisions of the bill that would allow wedding chapels to issue marriage licenses for several reasons.
Mr. Fiorentino felt there was no need to allow chapels to issue licenses and admitted Mr. Gust’s customers had experienced occasional delays at the clerk’s office. However, Mr. Fiorentino indicated that, for the most part, the county clerk did a wonderful job issuing and recording licenses in a convenient and efficient manner. Mr. Fiorentino pointed to the tremendous growth the wedding industry had experienced in the last 10 to 15 years and noted that the performance of clerk’s office played a part in that growth.
Mr. Fiorentino believed allowing chapels to issue marriage licenses created an excessive administrative burden on the county clerks and would make it very difficult for the clerk to ensure licenses were issued, tracked and recorded properly. Mr. Fiorentino thought that in the long run allowing chapels to issue marriage licenses would lead to a lack of confidence in the industry by the people who used the industry. He stated customers of the wedding chapels needed to have confidence in the system and know the license was issued and recorded correctly by professionals.
Madelyn Shipman, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Washoe County, noted one of the amendments proposed by Mr. Flint included an indication that there had to be a process for revocation of the right to sell licenses and Ms. Shipman noted such a process would include advice given by the district attorney’s office to the clerk’s office. Ms. Shipman indicated the proposal to allow only male/female coupling for the renewal of vows was not necessary since a legal marriage already existed prior to a renewal of vows. However, Ms. Shipman noted that marriages between couples of the same sex were illegal in Nevada.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Shipman what the result would be if the county clerk inadvertently issued a marriage license to people of the same gender. Ms. Shipman noted the mere issuance of a license would not legalize the marriage if the marriage was otherwise illegal in the state. Chairman Anderson wondered what the result would be if a license were issued, completed and recorded for people of the same gender. Ms. Shipman indicated a marriage performed in a state against the law of the state would be a void marriage. Chairman Anderson suggested the proposed amendment would not be necessary because a marriage between people of the same gender would not be a legal marriage and he felt an affirmative statement to that effect would be superfluous. Ms. Shipman believed such a statement was probably addressed towards people coming from other states where it was legal for people of the same gender to marry.
Charlotte Richards, Owner, Little White Wedding Chapel, told the committee she had been in the wedding industry for over 42 years and was opposed to A.B. 254. Ms. Richards stated a wedding chapel was in business to sell flowers, photographs, gowns, etc. and the people that worked in chapels were interested in sales. Ms. Richards believed it would take a great amount of time for chapels to oversee the issuance of licenses and to assure that records and licenses were not lost. As to issuing licenses, Ms. Richards thought human error would be more prevalent in a business such as a wedding chapel than it would be in the clerk’s office where the main function was to issue marriage licenses. Ms. Richards felt that legal documents should be handled by the county, not a wedding chapel. She noted the clerk’s office was running much smoother since Ms. Parraguirre took over and closed her remarks by stating she opposed marriage licenses being issued in wedding chapels.
Mr. Manendo indicated he knew Ms. Richards’ granddaughter, Misty, and had toured Ms. Richards’ chapel. Mr. Manendo further indicated he appreciated Ms. Richards’ testimony.
John Foulk, Owner, Silver Bells Wedding Chapel, Pastor, Glory Temple Church, told the committee he had been in the wedding industry for 34 years and was in favor of issuing a license to couples who wanted to renew their vows. However, Mr. Foulk was opposed to chapels issuing marriage licenses even though he felt it would be to his advantage to do so. He believed the current procedure for issuing marriage license was successful. Mr. Foulk responded to a comment made earlier regarding the integrity of chapels by stating his opinion that chapels were full of integrity and would not issue license for simple economic gain. Mr. Foulk felt that chapels did not need the responsibility of issuing licenses and was concerned that less than reputable people would apply for a commercial chapel license just so they could make money selling wedding licenses. Mr. Foulk concluded by reiterating that as a chapel owner he was opposed to allowing chapels to issue marriage licenses.
Lucille Lusk, Legislative Representative, Nevada Concerned Citizens, supported provisions of the bill revising language regarding who could perform marriages for a church. Ms. Lusk agreed that background checks and congregation requirements served no valid purpose with regard to marriage licenses. Ms. Lusk commented the reason the male/female couple amendment was suggested was to prevent same sex couples that were legally married in another state from obtaining a Nevada marriage license. Ms. Lusk liked the free enterprise component of the bill and believed that it could be made to work. She saw no purpose in the contest of determining who made the most mistakes, noting mistakes were made everywhere and the situation merely needed addressing with a cooperative effort.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 254 and indicated his desire to obtain additional information from research regarding the procedures utilized in other states prior to moving on the bill. He indicated he would not recommend an interim study on the bill and noted the committee would conduct further examination of the amendments and any further amendment should be provided to Mr. Anthony by Tuesday, March 27, 2001.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 362.
Assembly Bill 362: Revises provisions regarding smoking of tobacco in public areas. (BDR 15-1266)
Daniel W. Fox, Superintendent of Schools, Pershing County School District, also representing the city of Lovelock at the request of the Mayor, presented A.B. 362 for Assemblyman John Marvel. Mr. Fox indicated the bill was a collaborative effort between the school district, the county and the city. He stated the city of Lovelock recently proposed an ordinance that would prohibit minors from smoking in public but the district attorney advised that the city could not impose a more stringent law on the use of tobacco than presently existed in Nevada Revised Statute 202.2491 (NRS). Mr. Fox understood S.B. 258 was heard last week and noted it proposed to change the words “shall not” to “may impose” more stringent laws on the use of tobacco. Mr. Fox indicated there was strong opposition to S.B. 258 but stated he was in support of the bill. Mr. Fox commented he was not trying to outlaw smoking altogether, he was simply trying to limit smoking to certain areas. He indicated Lovelock was losing population and trying to attract more citizens and business to the area. He felt outside businesses were “put off” at the sight of minors smoking in public parks.
Chairman Anderson interrupted to note that Assemblyman John Marvel, sponsor of A.B. 362, had joined the meeting in support of the bill but did not wish to speak.
Mr. Fox proposed to add the following language to NRS 202: “Public area designated for use by children by a county, city or town.” The language would allow counties, cities and towns to decide for themselves whether they wished for children to smoke in public. Lovelock did not want children smoking in public.
Mr. Fox observed that minors could not buy alcohol, drink alcohol or buy cigarettes but, under existing law, minors could smoke in public.
Mr. Fox concluded by indicating he was not trying to impose the bill on the whole state but reiterated that the city of Lovelock wanted to do something about children smoking in public.
Chairman Anderson offered his interpretation that the bill as written applied to adults and not just minors. Mr. Fox indicated the language of the bill came from the bill drafters but the intent was only to apply to minor 18 years of age or under. Chairman Anderson wondered whether an adult at a little league baseball game in the city of Lovelock would be permitted to smoke if this bill passed. Mr. Fox indicated the bill was not trying to regulate adult smoking or use of tobacco in any way, only children under the age of 18.
Ms. Lang, Committee Counsel, indicated if the intent was to limit the bill to children, an amendment should be prepared to reflect that intent.
Chairman Anderson clarified that if the bill was passed as it currently existed, any area of a county, city or town designated for use by children would be off limits to smoking. He confirmed that Mr. Fox’s desired intent of the bill was to prohibit children from smoking in areas designated by the county, city or town.
Mr. Gustavson asked whether the bill would apply to any public place, both inside and outside, that was designated for children. Chairman Anderson indicated the desired intent of the bill was to prohibit children from smoking in certain areas either inside or outside as designated.
Chairman Anderson inquired whether Mr. Fox had any further information necessary for the committee to make a decision. Mr. Fox indicated he would leave the clarification of the bill to the committee but the bill should only apply to children and not to adults.
Chairman Anderson noted both adults and children could not smoke at educational facilities or on school buses.
Maureen Brower, Legislative Representative, American Cancer Society, stated the American Cancer Society supported A.B. 362 and the amendments to the intent of the bill as discussed.
Samuel P. McMullen, Legislative Representative, Retail Association of Nevada, stated there was a consistent need and desire to have one standard across the board and not to effect business operations with a different set of rules in each local government. Mr. McMullen explained the overextension of the bill as currently drafted was a problem from a business perspective similar to the problem posed by the issue of tobacco sales to minors because one set of rules was necessary to train employees, reduce operating burdens and make the program effective.
Mr. McMullen noted it was not illegal for minors to buy tobacco; it was illegal to sell tobacco to minors. He felt that what Lovelock would like to do was define penalties for certain behaviors, including use and possession of tobacco. As to the retail industry, Mr. McMullen observed the issue would be purchasing and he asked for some sort of balance to that issue because the entire burden fell on the business, which was subject to criminal penalties and potential loss of business license. Mr. McMullen noted there was no penalty placed on minors for attempting to purchase tobacco.
Mr. McMullen stated A.B. 362 was a simple bill but its impacts were very far reaching and would affect all of the tobacco statutes. He suggested the bill might affect gaming areas in a grocery store although there was no way to know what ordinances a city or county might put in place. Mr. McMullen indicated tobacco agreements that had already been reached were underpinned with the thinking that there would be a consistent policy statement across the state so that stores could be designed or modified in an appropriate manner.
Mr. McMullen concluded by stating that the bill was missing the most critical element which was that there was no penalty for children that attempted to use, possess or purchase tobacco. He stated that even if a city restricted a public area and the smoking restriction applied only to children, there was no enforcement tool for the local government to enforce the restriction.
Mary Lau, Legislative Representative, Retail Association of Nevada, was called on but did not have anything to add to Mr. McMullen’s testimony.
Peter D. Krueger, Legislative Representative, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, stated the bill did not address the issue of law enforcement at a local level. He indicated retailers that sold tobacco products fought unsuccessfully to put responsibility on underage smokers and hoped A.B. 25, which makes various changes concerning minor who falsely represents his age to purchase tobacco products, would be passed this session in order to take a small step toward achieving that goal. Mr. Krueger noted the reason local law enforcement conducted compliance checks, commonly called stings, was to maintain a centralized effective way of preventing youth access to tobacco from the point of sale.
Mr. Krueger was concerned that the bill was too broad and he felt the bill was crafted in way that would allow a local government to designate the entire outdoors as a restricted area. Mr. Krueger stated he would continue to work for some sort of responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of minors who attempted to buy, use and possess tobacco products but he did not feel this bill would prevent underage smoking.
Chairman Anderson was unsure how to proceed with A.B. 362 indicating it may be necessary for the committee to take a closer look at the question of children smoking in public statewide.
Alfredo Alonso, Legislative Representative, Nevada Resort Association, reiterated concern about the broadness of the bill and what a city, town or county could designate as a nonsmoking area, which could include portions of resort casinos. He felt the real issue was the problems which arise through inconsistent policies. Mr. Alonso stated much of the current law effected what a school district could do and he suggested Pershing County could choose to make state buildings and public buildings smokeless. As to the public park, Mr. Alonso was concerned that the message would be sent to minors that it was all right to possess tobacco as long as minors did not smoke in the park. He felt that message was inconsistent and offered assistance to address that issue on a statewide level.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 362 and indicated his desire to work out amendment language and determine if there was a desire by the committee to process the bill. He asked Mr. Manendo to discuss this matter informally with the committee members during the week.
Mr. Manendo requested committee members to respond to his previous informal inquiries by today.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: