MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 30, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:03 a.m., on Friday, March 30, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Collins - Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Anthony Cabot, author of The Internet Gambling Report and authority on Internet gambling legalities
Mark Falcone, Equity Research Analyst, Bear Stearns
Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association
Bob Faiss of Lionel, MGM Mirage
Daniel M. Wade, Vice Chairman, MGM Mirage
Anthony Max Goldstein, third-year student/gaming law policy class member, Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
DeeDee Molnick, Home Gambling Network, Las Vegas
Michael Jabara, New Holdings, LLC
Richard Fitzpatrick, President, Internet Business Alliance of Nevada
Brian Sandoval, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission
Dennis Neilander, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board
Scott Scherer, Nevada Gaming Control Board
Joseph Paravia, President and Chief Executive Officer, Virtgame.com Corp.
Samuel McMullen, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers
Jack Bulavsky, Executive Director, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association
Abbi Silver, Chief, Special Victims Unit, Carson City District Attorney’s Office
Sue Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Gemma Waldron, domestic violence team member, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association
Assembly Bill 296: Enacts provisions governing licensing and operation of interactive gaming. (BDR 41-706)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 296.
Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman introduced herself as representing Assembly District 2. She stated A.B. 296 would establish the framework for Nevada policy to govern Internet gaming. Assemblywoman Berman specifically chose “interactive gaming” so as to specifically incorporate Internet gaming as well as future forms of gaming that utilized communications technology. She felt Nevada should be at the forefront in establishing regulations as to Internet gaming. A.B. 296 was enabling legislation and allowed the widest flexibility for gaming regulators. Section 1, subsection 2, allowed for adoption of regulations only after the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) made certain determinations:
If licensed, A.B. 296 required that the gross revenue created would be taxed in the same manner as “brick and mortar” gaming establishments. A.B. 296 allowed issuance of an interactive license only to licensed resort hotels. Assemblywoman Berman advised that “licensed resort hotels” were specified because of their investment in Nevada’s entertainment infrastructure. They provided the majority of gaming industry jobs and they had the most liability. Resorts hotels would be the only ones with the incentive to couple the offering of interactive gaming with promotions that would bring visitor traffic to their premises. That additional traffic would enhance employment, sales and room tax revenue, as well as patronage for nearby or related businesses. Assemblywoman Berman introduced Anthony Cabot, the author of The Internet Gambling Report and the leading authority on legalities of Internet gambling. Assemblywoman Berman said revenues from Internet gambling had been estimated in the billions of dollars. Estimates had been made that, if Nevada captured 40 percent of the estimated international e‑gaming, Fiscal Year 2001-2002 would provide an additional $56 million in revenue. Fifty percent in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 might generate approximately $111 million.
Chairman Anderson advised there were three principles he felt would allow progress on A.B. 296 and allow Nevada to move into a new era:
Mr. Manendo inquired as to assurance that children would not be gambling. Anthony Cabot responded that technology currently provided a number of safeguards. He outlined access via registration and provision of classified information and how that information would allow the Internet gaming establishments to compare data to confirm identity and/or provide security barriers. He advised that when concerns were provided to technologists, they in turn provided solutions through technological evolution.
Ms. Buckley addressed the possibility of one person utilizing another’s identity and/or routing their gambling through a legal gaming state, when they were not located within a permissible state. Mr. Cabot stated that, as with mail, Internet source addresses and destination addresses were verifiable, down to a city. He reiterated that there were a number of ways to ensure that the person gambling was the registered individual and to confirm that they were in a state that allowed such gaming.
Ms. Buckley asked about the possibilities of “hackers” and of Congress allowing Internet gaming. She wondered if moving ahead too soon sent the wrong message where Congress’s interests were concerned. Mr. Cabot discussed “hacker” concerns. He stated that, with “e-commerce” being approximately $3 trillion within the next few years, security would be paramount. He stated that the security measures developed to date for the sake of e-banking, etc., would be easy to incorporate into e-gaming. As to Congress legalizing Internet gambling, pursuant to his research, he advised that Congress did not need to legalize Internet gambling. Under current federal law, if Nevada legalized Internet gambling, Nevada casinos could set up their servers in Nevada and take bets from Nevada and/or any place in the world where it was legal to take bets.
Ms. Buckley posed her last question that related to the collection of taxes for Internet business. Mr. Cabot clarified that although Nevada could not collect taxes from someone outside Nevada, they could collect taxes from the Nevada business whose server provided the gaming.
Mark Falcone, an equity research analyst with Bear Stearns of New York City, advised that Bear Stearns covered over 100 industries in the gaming industry. They felt the greatest impediment to Internet gaming was sufficient regulation and legal clarity. He discussed Native American gaming in California and how those establishments had attempted Internet gaming. He made the point that other jurisdictions, both within and outside the United States, would be actively pursuing Internet gaming and regulation ahead of Nevada. He estimated the industry’s size to be approximately 1,400 gaming Web sites from about 800 Web sites one year ago. Annual, worldwide revenue for 2000 generated by those sites was estimated at $1.5 billion. Annual revenues were expected to increase to $3.5 billion in 2002 and to approximately $5 billion in 2003. Strict regulations should increase operator credibility and ensure proper accounting of revenues. Most importantly, regulation would provide the most secure environment for consumers. Mr. Falcone enumerated several unregulated international jurisdictions that were claiming the largest portion of the annual Internet gaming revenues. Internet gaming would provide Nevada customers with new options and would introduce Nevada gaming to a wider, possibly unfamiliar, audience. It would also stimulate non-gaming revenue through other Nevada businesses.
Mr. Carpenter requested clarification regarding Nevada’s current position with respect to federal regulation. Mr. Cabot provided more detail on international and interstate bets processed through servers located within Nevada and how they were subject to Nevada taxes. Mr. Carpenter then inquired as to individuals attempting to gamble from a jurisdiction that did not allow gambling. Mr. Cabot responded that the federal law allowed acceptance of bets from within jurisdictions that allowed the placing of bets.
Mrs. Angle addressed A.B. 296’s restriction to resort hotels that held non-restricted licenses. She asked why resort hotels with non-restricted licenses were the only entities allowed to establish interactive gaming. Mr. Falcone responded that the larger, regulated gaming resorts provided a higher level of credibility to the overall Internet gaming industry. Mrs. Angle followed up that Reno was home to a number of credible establishments that were not resort hotels and wondered why those entities were excluded. Mr. Falcone then addressed the “brand name” and “cross-marketing” opportunities provided by resort hotels.
Mr. Nolan then inquired as to the time frame and process by which taxes were collected. Mr. Cabot responded that tax collection would be handled in the same manner as with land-based casinos. He then clarified that taxes would be collected on moneys received on lost bets, not moneys on account with casinos for use in wagering.
Harvey Whittemore of Lionel, Sawyer & Collins represented the Nevada Resort Association (NRA). He testified that A.B. 296 should be viewed as to whether it was a continuance of the partnership between the gaming industry and the state of Nevada’s business operations. He stated two contexts to be viewed were:
Mr. Whittemore’s answer to both questions was “yes.” He requested that the same standards be applied to others entering the industry. Also, short troubleshooting periods should be provided to resolve issues that might arise. The NRA felt an obligation to present options to the state of Nevada first since they could, of course, establish Internet servers within other gaming jurisdictions. He stated that there was never an attempt to exclude smaller Nevada gaming establishments. Mr. Whittemore discussed businesses in counties without a major resort hotel and confirmed the NRA was committed to reviewing the bill’s language for possible remedies.
Bob Faiss of Lionel, Sawyer & Collins represented the MGM Mirage. He understood that the proposed language enabled progress in Internet gaming, as opposed to specifying right or wrong in that area, at that time.
Daniel M. Wade, Vice Chairman of the Board, MGM Mirage, testified as a member of the NRA and the gaming industry that there were approximately 189 unrestricted gaming licenses in Nevada. Mr. Wade agreed that the language could require an amendment to take into consideration those entities outside the current definitions. He assured the committee that time had been expended working with and through regulatory bodies; the proposals were not worked up in a matter of weeks. He acknowledged and discussed Chairman Anderson’s three points of concern. He assured the committee that, with $9 billion invested in the gaming/resort industry, the MGM Mirage organization would proceed appropriately.
Mr. Carpenter agreed that many establishments did not meet the “200 room” definition and wanted to be certain that those smaller entities would be taken into consideration. Mr. Whittemore responded that the state’s legal definition only applied to Washoe County and Clark County but that he felt they would be able to develop a standard that met the committee’s approval.
Mr. Faiss introduced Anthony Max Goldstein, a third-year student and gaming law policy class member, Boyd School of Law (BSL), University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). He discussed the class’s research, their study of legislative discussions, and outlined Mr. Goldstein’s achievements and credentials.
Anthony Max Goldstein read from his prepared statement (Exhibit C) and stated that Nevada could become the first United States jurisdiction to regulate Internet gaming. He felt a survey of international jurisdictions providing regulation might offer guidance. He independently arrived at the same conclusions as Mr. Falcone with regard to Antigua and Queensland, Australia, regulatory procedure. He then discussed those regulatory processes.
DeeDee Molnick, Chief Executive Officer of i2corp.com (i2), introduced herself as also representing the Home Gambling Network (HGN) in Las Vegas (Exhibit D). Ms. Molnick confirmed that the proposed gaming would be the same as currently provided except that live games would be broadcast. She stated it would enhance the current industry because broadcasts would be of brand-name wagering service. She also confirmed that they had consulted worldwide with regulators, policymakers, and gambling establishments. She also confirmed that her corporation’s patented method of wagering would fit within the confines of A.B. 296.
Michael Jabara introduced himself as the principal owner of New Holdings, LLC (NH), an Internet investment company based in southern Nevada. He and his partners were strongly in favor of A.B. 296 and stated it would help diversify Nevada’s economy. He felt that Nevada needed to be and remain in the forefront of gaming regulation. Mr. Jabara stated that Nevada’s state revenue would be increased without tremendous investment in a new infrastructure. He then compared Nevada’s ability to broadcast gaming worldwide to the benefits California garnered from the film industry’s exportation of product.
Richard Fitzpatrick introduced himself as the president of the Internet Business Alliance of Nevada (IBAN), a statewide nonprofit association. He felt that A.B. 296 presented a technology issue and advised that there were over 700 high-tech Internet businesses in Nevada. A.B. 296 provided a draw for new companies to come to Nevada as well as opportunities for existing companies to grow. He discussed technological answers to questions such as age and location that currently existed or were being developed. Mr. Fitzpatrick felt a bridge was needed between the gaming world and the technological world. He advised that a newly established entity, the Interactive Gaming Institute of Nevada, provided that bridge and applied professional standards to Internet gaming.
Ms. Molnick added for the sake of clarity that the live wagering environment would provide more employment opportunities. Consequently, not only would current gaming be provided via live broadcast, but the broadcast itself would stimulate participation and the need for gaming employees to provide those services.
Brian Sandoval introduced himself as the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) and requested Mr. Neilander be allowed to speak first.
Dennis Neilander introduced himself as the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB). Mr. Neilander stated there were some impediments to Internet gaming and confirmed that it must be legal if it were to proceed. Also, that there were differences of opinion as to whether or not Internet gaming was legal. In closing, Mr. Neilander advised that he was not opposed to A.B. 296 as long as “may” was not changed to “shall.” Beyond that, he would continue to monitor and analyze the issue.
Mr. Sandoval viewed the proposed bill as enabling legislation and confirmed that the process should comply with all restrictions contained in A.B. 296.
Scott Scherer of the NGCB discussed various fees paid by licensees. He felt it appropriate that the commission have the authority by regulation to impose fees similar to those imposed on other licensees.
Chairman Anderson pinpointed Section 2 on page 2 as an area where amendment could clarify the question of setting fees.
Mr. Carpenter requested an estimate as to when Internet gaming in Nevada might be functional. Brian Sandoval was unable to respond beyond stating that the process required a high degree of thoroughness.
Mr. Brower addressed the issue of fairness of online gaming and regulators’ abilities to ensure that fairness. He requested the panel’s opinions. Dennis Neilander responded that his concerns were of the type that would be the focus of hearings. He stated that one of the benefits of computers was that they recorded everything and provided an amazing activity trail. He discussed current procedure on client disputes.
Mr. Neilander advised that the NGCB had looked at the technology and testing systems, and that the NGC had held a number of hearings and seminars. The proposals discussed in A.B. 296 were new and complex.
Mr. Sandoval added that the NGC had held hearings and could have gone forward to provide a level of information that Ms. Buckley requested, but he felt they should have the legislature’s authority to proceed before doing so.
Mr. Carpenter asked where Native American gaming was when it came to Internet gambling. Mr. Scherer responded that some tribes had shown an interest and attempted Internet gaming and lotteries. He stated that he did not know of any tribes currently engaged in Internet gaming. Mr. Carpenter then inquired where Native American gaming “fit in” with federal laws on gaming. Scott Scherer confirmed that Native American tribes were subject to federal law on the issue of Internet gaming. They had their own state laws, but they were prohibited from taking wagers over the Internet.
Joseph Paravia, President and Chief Executive Officer of Virtgame.com Corp., testified that they provided jurisdictional screening software, geographic location software, and border control software; those things necessary to make Internet gaming “doable” in Nevada. He confirmed their software prohibited proxy servers, logic board access, and resolved a number of different concerns discussed earlier.
Samuel McMullen, representing the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM), testified they were generally in support of A.B. 296 but felt the bill required amendment. He introduced Jack Bulavsky, executive director of the AGEM. Although they were not attempting to restrict progress as to interactive gaming, Mr. McMullen felt the issues addressed in the proposed legislation could unduly restrict Nevada business and revenue growth. They were also concerned with the “resort hotel” language on page 2 of A.B. 296 as to those who were allowed to conduct interactive gaming. They felt the bill had a fatal defect in that it lacked the collaboration of the proponents, sponsors, the NGCB and the NGC. He requested communication of all interested parties to develop language that provided for inclusion of the AGEM’s industry in interactive gaming. He acknowledged a level of fear involved in the bill: the gaming industry’s fear of losing ground on interactive gaming and the manufacturer’s fear of losing revenue to Internet gaming. Mr. McMullen discussed gross revenue issues and manufacturers’ compliance with internal control systems that related to them. At Chairman Anderson’s request, Mr. McMullen confirmed that the AGEM supported Nevada’s move into interactive gaming.
Jack Bulavsky, executive director of the AGEM, testified that the AGEM was an industry association representing nearly all key gaming equipment manufacturers. He then read from his prepared statement (Exhibit E). Slot win accounted for 64.5 percent of Nevada’s statewide 2000 revenue or approximately $600 million. Slot win was also the dominant source of casino profits. That meant $435 million to the state in 2000 or approximately 12 percent of Nevada’s state budget. He discussed the 6,000 Nevadans employed in high-tech, high-paying jobs and that vendors also paid taxes, adding to Nevada’s revenue. He felt enabling legislation on interactive gaming was appropriate. Mr. Bulavsky testified for the record that the AGEM and its members were opposed to A.B. 296 as currently written. He confirmed that the AGEM’s members were opposed to the restriction of interactive gaming licenses exclusively to “resort hotels.” He requested an expansion from that limitation simply for the provision of an equal opportunity within an emerging market. With the AGEM members occupying more than three million square feet of manufacturing space within Nevada, they too, had a firm commitment and investment in Nevada’s gaming industry. The bill as written excluded the main providers of gaming technology from participating in interactive gaming. If that exclusion became fact, it would account for businesses leaving Nevada, as opposed to the benefits of an influx of new businesses.
Mr. Nolan asked what percentage of gaming business currently provided by visitors would be deflected by online gaming. He inquired whether the AGEM had performed any in-depth market research as to what amount of customer base the Internet would draw from physical casinos.
Mr. McMullen felt they did not have the expertise to perform such research.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 296. He set a deadline for the interested parties to provide proposed amendments or agreements and other documentation for consideration on A.B. 296.
Mr. Whittemore confirmed that an emergency meeting of the Nevada Resort Association’s legislative committee would be convened as soon as the AGEM’s proposal was received. They would meet whatever deadline Chairman Anderson allowed.
Mr. McMullen confirmed the AGEM would work within the deadline set.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 400.
Assembly Bill 400: Revises provisions concerning crimes of harassment, stalking and aggravated stalking. (BDR 15-474)
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting and stated there was a quorum present. The Chair then called Ben Graham forward.
Ben Graham addressed the committee on behalf of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association (NDAA). He discussed the changing face of robbery and larceny and introduced Abbi Silver, Chief of the Special Victims Unit, Carson City District Attorney’s Office (CCDAO).
Ms. Silver confirmed there was confusion regarding stalking charges as there were three charges, two of which bore the same, identical title. Straight “stalking” was a misdemeanor. However, in cases where the parties were in dissolution or child custody proceedings, “aggravated stalking” was a gross misdemeanor. In cases where there was the threat of substantial bodily harm or death, “aggravated stalking” was a felony. It was a common problem since jurors were not advised on, and could not consider, punishment. Jurors often did not know which of the “aggravated stalking” charges was being applied and had been very upset to find out they applied a different sentence than they had intended. She confirmed A.B. 400 would remove the separate charge for stalking a spouse during a pending divorce or custody proceeding.
Ms. Silver confirmed that misdemeanor stalking and felonious aggravated stalking would remain. Aggravated stalking would remain for use in those cases where someone felt their life had been threatened or there had been substantial bodily harm. She advised that the gross misdemeanor was not being utilized at this time, except for defense counsels’ use of it to confuse a jury. She allowed that an “equal protection” argument could also be presented. She reiterated that it was impossible for jurors to tell the difference between the gross misdemeanor stalking and the felony stalking since they both bore the exact same name, “aggravated stalking.” She then read the actual language used in the jury instructions (Exhibit F).
Mr. Carpenter asked if the proposed changes would strengthen or weaken stalking laws. Ms. Silver responded that the proposed legislation would strengthen laws for prosecutors.
Ms. McClain questioned what language was to be removed by the proposed legislation. She discussed how “stalking” was a misdemeanor, unless the victim was the perpetrator’s wife or the mother of his child. She read from the bill that, in those instances, the first offense was a gross misdemeanor and was called “aggravated stalking.” She felt the language was very confusing and should be addressed.
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, proposed reclassifying the two “aggravated stalking” charges as “aggravated stalking” and “domestic stalking.” Ms. Silver pointed out that the additional, greater problem was that there were still two charges that applied to one crime.
Mr. Carpenter stated that, since the offending statute was recent legislation, there were probably good reasons for it being made law. Perhaps clarifying language was needed to retain both statutes.
Ms. Silver proposed that the punishment for both aggravated stalking charges be 2 to 15 years and that the titles be changed to end the confusion.
Chairman Anderson advised that the committee seemed receptive to an amendment to make the intent of the bill clear.
Ms. Lang suggested separating paragraphs (b) and (c) and changing the title of the charge to something such as “domestic stalking” and providing for a different penalty. She stated that language could be formulated that would specify that the punishment must suit the greater crime committed.
Ms. Silver confirmed that, as a prosecutor, she was very happy with A.B. 400.
Sue Meuschke introduced herself as the executive director of Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV). She understood some of Ms. Silver’s concerns and she supported the removal of the gross misdemeanor charge. Ms. Meuschke stated that the most dangerous time for someone in a violent relationship was when they were separating. She then advised that the courts continued the problem by making the victim accessible to the perpetrator when requiring both parties to appear at various court proceedings. She would support leaving the information in the statute and, if necessary, changing the penalty to a felony.
Gemma Waldron introduced herself as a member of the domestic violence team at the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (WCDAO) and also as representing the Nevada District Attorneys Association (NDAA). She agreed that threats during divorces often rose to a high degree of violence and that was why she used the felony charge. Although she had never had a defense attorney attempt to push for a gross misdemeanor, she could see how that could occur and how it would confuse the jury. Further, defense attorneys were allowed to submit their own jury instructions and might attempt to have acts committed “during dissolution” included in a lesser, gross misdemeanor charge of aggravated stalking. She agreed the situation could confuse a jury.
Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Waldron clarify and confirm that A.B. 400 would make prosecutors’ jobs easier. Ms. Waldron said she felt the language deletion was in order. Either a stalker was simply annoying, making phone calls, and showing up from place to place, or they were threatening substantial bodily harm or death. She agreed that it was very undesirable to have a situation where defense attorneys could push for a gross misdemeanor when a felony was available and appropriate.
Chairman Anderson advised that the committee’s choices were: they could take a Do Pass on the bill or, if they needed to request that the Legal Division make some clarification in the existing statute, that would leave in place a gross misdemeanor as a middle-ground area. The choices appeared to be: move that either the stalking was a misdemeanor or it was a felony and eliminate the question of “gross.” That would mean taking the bill as it was.
Mr. Carpenter felt that, if it would not create a different problem, he would like to see domestic stalking made a felony. He referred to the heightened violence prevalent in those situations.
Chairman Anderson echoed Ms. Buckley’s question of even “with no violence.” There was concern about charging someone with a felony in the area of family law when there was no violence involved.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED FOR A DO PASS ON A.B. 400.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS BEING ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson then assigned A.B. 400 to Mrs. Koivisto for introduction to the full Assembly on behalf of the committee on Judiciary.
Assembly Bill 305: Prohibits video voyeurism and distribution of product of video voyeurism. (BDR 15-118)
Chairman Anderson opened the work session. Mr. Anthony proposed addressing A.B. 305 and described the contents of the bill (Exhibit G, page 3 of the work session document). He discussed the proponents and lack of opposition to the proposed legislation. In closing, Mr. Anthony advised what the bill was intended to provide and that there were no proposed amendments.
Ms. Buckley advised she had heard something about the press’s concern that the bill would prohibit certain photographs from being printed. She perceived no opposition, but had missed the hearing. She concurred with the Chair and stated that as long as he had not heard those concerns addressed at the hearing, she was comfortable with a motion.
Chairman Anderson also voiced surprise that the press had not attended the hearing but specified that the bill had been duly noted and the appropriate opportunity to speak had been presented.
Mr. Oceguera advised he had concerns over the constitutionality of line 11. He stated he would vote in favor of the bill but reserve his right to vote no upon the full Assembly vote.
Mr. Nolan addressed some of the same concerns. He addressed the bill’s language where it stated that the videotaping was in a place where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and was for the purposes of sexual arousal and gratification. Mr. Nolan felt that the language and testimony provided answered those concerns.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON MOVED FOR A DO PASS ON A.B. 305.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT, ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS BEING ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson noted Mr. Oceguera’s right of reservation. He stated that he would communicate with Assemblywoman Cegavske on the presentation of A.B. 305 but he asked Mr. Gustavson to act as Ms. Cegavske’s backup in the event his services were needed.
Ms. Ohrenschall also registered her desire to reserve her right to vote no on A.B. 305 upon the full Assembly vote.
Chairman Anderson noted Ms. Ohrenschall’s request and Mr. Manendo’s reservation as well.
Assembly Bill 239: Authorizes board of county commissioners to impose additional fee for filing certain actions and responses thereto in district courts and justices’ courts to offset costs of providing pro bono programs and of providing legal services without charge to abused or neglected children, victims of domestic violence and other needy persons. (BDR 2‑298)
Mr. Anthony directed the committee’s attention to A.B. 239 and advised that the bill was addressed on page 3 of the work session document, Exhibit G. The proposed legislation authorized the Board of County Commissioners to impose an additional fee when certain actions and responses were filed to offset the costs of providing legal services to abused or neglected children, victims of domestic violence, and other needy persons. Again, a number of individuals testified in support of the bill, including representatives of Clark County Legal Services and Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. He advised there was no opposition to the bill and there were two proposed amendments, both of which were attached to the work session document.
Chairman Anderson inquired of Ms. Lang whether the amendments conflicted with each other in any manner.
Ms. Lang confirmed that the proposed amendments were not in conflict. She advised that one amendment encompassed the other amendment. The encompassed amendment included an exception under its paragraph (a) that was already addressed by NRS 19.035. The Legal Division therefore considered that amendment unnecessary.
Chairman Anderson confirmed with Ms. Lang which amendment was to be acted upon. He then advised that the Chair would entertain an Amend and Do Pass motion with the amendment.
Mr. Gustavson advised that he would be voting against the bill because it represented another fee to be paid by individuals filing civil cases.
Mr. Carpenter advised that it must be noted on the record that A.B. 239 did not represent an automatic fee. The fee must be put in by the county commissioner.
Chairman Anderson called for a hand vote to guarantee notation of Ms. Buckley’s abstention.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED FOR AN AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B. 239.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED BY THOSE PRESENT WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE IN OPPOSITION, ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY ABSTAINING, AND ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS BEING ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:56 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: