ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

April 4, 2001

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:40 a.m., on Wednesday, April 4, 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. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, District 2

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District 35

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Peter Ashman, American Immigration Lawyers Association

Carlos Cantu, Attorney with Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada

Robert Draskovich, Attorney practicing criminal immigration law in Las Vegas, NV

Ben Little, Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office

David Gibson, Legislative Team, Clark County Public Defenders Office

Karen Winckler, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Las Vegas

Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Lisa Rasmussen, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Las Vegas

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Reno

Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, Reno

David Mincavage, Henderson City Attorney’s Office

Mark Jacobs, Henderson City Attorney’s Office

John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and representing Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

Jim Lopey, Assistant Sheriff, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Reno

Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Carson City

Paul Lipparelli, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney, Reno

Kevin Robison, Board Member, Nevada Northern Railway, White Pine Historical Railroad Foundation, East Ely

Jim Avance, Cardivan Company, Former Board Member of the Gaming Control Board

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas

Robert Dickens, Director, Office of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada-Reno

Rick Bennett, Government Relations, University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Ann McCarthy, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, Carson City

Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 394.

Assembly Bill 394: Requires court to advise defendant of immigration consequences of plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (BDR 14-1088)

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District 8, was the sponsor of the bill. Assemblywoman Buckley informed the committee she had been part of a task force that included the law school, Senator Harry Reid and immigration judges to talk about the problems facing immigration court and specifically immigration problems in Las Vegas. A.B. 394 addressed one aspect of the chaotic immigration problem in Las Vegas by requiring a defendant who was not a citizen of the United States to be advised a plea of guilty or nolo contendere might result in immigration consequences including removal, deportation, and exclusion from the country. Nolo contendere had always meant the acceptance of a guilty plea but admitting nothing. The rules had changed for immigration purposes; if someone pled nolo contendere, it no longer meant there were no consequences. It had become an admission of guilt under federal law. What A.B. 394 attempted to do would be allow people to understand a ”more knowing consequence” before they made a plea. Minor crimes could now result in deportation. After further discussion, it was determined a standardized form should be developed to assist in the notification.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if pleading nolo contendere put the defendants at greater risk than pleading not guilty. Assemblywoman Buckley envisioned “black letter law” advice that might include “pleading guilty or nolo contendere will result in deportation” citing the federal law.

Peter Ashman was an attorney of immigration law in Las Vegas, past chairman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association-Nevada Chapter, and presently its advocacy director. Recent changes in immigration law had greatly expanded the consequences of a nolo contendere or guilty plea. Many petty and minor charges were now considered aggravated felonies where the sentence imposed would be a year or more. A.B. 394 would not sidestep the consequences of the crime, but it would impose a second penalty resulting in deportation; immigration judges would not have any discretion. Consequently, all that could be done would be to change the plea or change the sentence to 364 days. Many states (35) had already passed similar legislation. A.B. 394 would give defendants a knowing reading of their rights and the potential consequences of a plea.

Assemblyman Nolan asked how Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) got involved. Mr. Ashman said many times the matter was referred to investigators from the INS when the court was aware the criminal was an alien. Also as part of the application for citizenship, disclosures were required regarding any previous convictions; without understanding the consequences, the alien reported the information and would be deported when they arrived for their interview appointment.

Assemblywoman Angle asked why a person would want to plead nolo contendere instead of not guilty. Mr. Ashman deferred the question to a later witness.

Carlos Cantu represented Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada as a Public Interest Immigration Attorney, practicing in Las Vegas for six years. In 1996 the immigration laws changed drastically redefining aggravated felony. Since that time, numerous individuals had been convicted of aggravated felonies because the public defenders and private attorneys practicing in the criminal field were not aware of the immigration consequences when they advised their clients to enter into the plea agreements. A.B. 394 would assist the individual to make a “knowing, intelligent and volunteer decision” without feeling misled. As previously mentioned, many misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors were now considered aggravated felonies under immigration law.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked, “Is a felony not a felony” under immigration law? Mr. Cantu said federal laws supercede state laws; so the INS used the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which had been amended many times. In 1996, the Legal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act was passed, which redefined aggravated felony for immigration purposes.

Assemblywoman Koivisto asked if the law held immigrants to a higher standard. Mr. Cantu agreed. Since immigration proceedings were not considered criminal proceedings, there was no “double jeopardy.” However, he believed immigrants were subjected to a different standard and more penalties; consequences were greater for those who were not U.S. citizens. Chairman Anderson said that was exactly what A.B. 394 dealt with.

Assemblyman Collins questioned if old misdemeanors could now be considered aggravated felonies and jeopardized a person’s status in the United States, would it not have been possible for those records to be sealed? How did such cases go from the district or justice court to the attention of federal court?

Mr. Cantu answered after the law changed in 1996, the various law enforcement agencies began working in conjunction with each other and the district court worked closely with INS. INS would put a hold on an individual if he fell into the provision where he was a “deportable alien,” and the INS would issue a charging document against the individual under Section 239C of the Immigration and Nationality Act. For those with convictions prior to the change in the law, many had not been discovered by the INS; however, should there be another incident with law enforcement, INS would issue a “notice to appear” and the individual would need to answer the charges.

Assemblyman Collins clarified that INS was not searching through old records, just scrutinizing new cases or applications for citizenship. So it blocked anyone who might have had a conviction of any sort from becoming a citizen. Mr. Cantu replied, “That is correct.” INS would pick up many individuals who had suspended sentences or were given probation because those charges were considered aggravated felonies by immigration.

Robert Draskovich was a criminal defense attorney in Las Vegas practicing exclusively in the Latin American community. Mr. Draskovich believed only 25 to 30 seconds would be added to a judge’s plea canvas to clarify issues that could become problems later. Many criminal defense attorneys were unaware of the “higher standard” for immigrants; he believed it was always changing. Since deportation was not treated as a punishment, there were many constitutional protections that did not apply; the federal government could pass new laws and those laws could be applied retroactively to criminal immigrant defendants. For that reason, it should be very important that notification be made prior to entering a plea.

Assemblywoman Angle asked Mr. Draskovich why a person would want to plead nolo contendere or guilty with those types of consequences. Mr. Draskovich believed it was a matter of choosing a lesser evil. While nolo contendere used to be a common immigrant plea, immigration had changed the rules making nolo contendere and guilty mean the same thing. In some instances, those pleas might have made available a lesser charge and/or sentence based on a plea agreement. In a civil case, nolo contendere maintained the integrity of the case, even if the criminal case had been completed.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if A.B. 394 would stop the ability to search post-conviction relief. Mr. Draskovich agreed it was better to do whatever possible first-time around.

Ben Little, Las Vegas City Attorney’s office, asked the committee to consider exempting minor traffic offenses, which should not be affected by immigration law. Chairman Anderson asked for clarification from Risa Lang, Committee Counsel. Ms. Lang said signing a citation could be a consideration; she would need to review existing statutes. Chairman Anderson asked if that would involve reprinting all traffic citations. Mr. Little said when bail money was sent, acknowledging a nolo contendere or guilty plea, there was be no “litany” of the consequences.

David Gibson, Legislative Team, Clark County Public Defenders Office, supported A.B. 394 and any effort that made a client more aware. If someone could obtain a list of consequences for offenses, every effort would be made to allow clients to make an informed plea.

Karen Winckler, Criminal Defense Attorney in Las Vegas and a member of the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, was concerned about how A.B. 394 would be effectuated. For misdemeanors, considered aggravated felonies in the immigration system, public defenders were not appointed to assist in cases. How would the courts ask the appropriate INS questions, or would the court require an expert to be available? Ms. Winckler supported A.B. 394 because it gave more information to the defendant.

Risa Lang stated a written traffic citation should not be affected by immigration rules. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 174.035 was amended regarding a person who made an oral plea, which should only affect those who appeared in court. Section 2 pertained to a written plea agreement, which Ms. Lang did not believe applied to traffic citations.

Gemma Waldron, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, reported Washoe County plea agreements included a brief statement regarding adverse consequences to residency status if the defendant was not a citizen when a plea was entered. Ms. Waldron said the district attorney’s office had the electronic version of the plea agreement and prepared the agreement for signature; specific language could be input to change the form within the system. In justice court, pleas were usually not in writing; some education for the judges might be needed.

Assemblyman Nolan asked what the proper term for the federal hearing officer that investigated such cases…a magistrate or a judge? When in the process of an immigration hearing, do those administrative law judges contact the district attorney’s office for clarification and/or information on arrests or convictions of those people being detained? Or would those judges be solely responsible as to the disposition of that defendant? Ms. Waldron had only one case where the defense attorney was also an immigration attorney; the only case where Ms. Waldron knew what was going on in the U.S. court regarding deportation of the defendant. She usually knew when INS was holding a defendant in the jail. Only in rare instances did a criminal defense attorney know what happened in the immigration hearing. Most times, she did not know what was happening in the federal court regarding the immigration status of a defendant.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if anyone from immigration would appear to testify. Assemblywoman Buckley stated administrative law judges were prohibited from testifying under federal law unless it was cleared by the Department of Justice and they needed to be subpoenaed. Assemblywoman Buckley had asked them to be present and was amazed at the answer received.

Assemblyman Nolan asked Ms. Waldron if this would motivate more individuals to plead nolo contendere faced with the immigration consequences. When in court with the administrative law judge, would the defense attorney explain the nature and description of charges and convictions? Ms. Waldron was not sure how it worked in federal court. Assemblywoman Buckley said the administrative law judge had no discretion. If it were a conviction, whether nolo contendere or not, the judge must deport the defendant. Ms. Waldron provided a guilty plea memorandum (Exhibit C).

Assemblyman Carpenter remarked in an effort to be more specific, language regarding aggravated felonies should be amended to A.B. 394. Ms. Waldron said the guilty plea memo (Exhibit C) included language explaining the plea might have an adverse affect on residency status if the defendant was not a citizen of the United States. If anything more needed to be explained, someone who knew what would happen would need to verify the language included in the guilty plea memo. If more was said, more questions would be asked that might not be easily answered by district court staff; either it needed to be just a “heads-up” or very detailed.

Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, had taken the initiative to revamp the plea bargain agreements in Las Vegas. A 10^th Circuit Court decision overturned a prior decision on a felony DUI as to whether it was a deportable offense or not. With the situation constantly changing, affected people must be alerted that further inquiry was needed. Mr. Graham reiterated the plea agreement language needed to be generic or very detailed.

Lisa Rasmussen, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, was not opposed to the concept of A.B. 394 but to the way it was written. She specifically objected to the wording “may be” where the consequences included deportation. Without details about the offenses and consequences, the defendant could not make a decision. Immigration law was very complex and ever changing, highly administrative and very technical. Criminal defense attorneys did not understand immigration law; only those that practiced immigration law understood the “monthly” updates and changes.

Ms. Rasmussen said felony DUI, failure to appear in a felony case, pimping, pandering or operating a prostitution business would all lead to deportation; most people were not aware of that. Should a private practitioner call an immigration attorney on behalf of their client? What should be the responsibility of the public defenders office that represents the indigent? Ms. Rasmussen believed there would be a fiscal impact in regard to training in the public defender’s office or hiring an immigration specialist. Ms. Rasmussen continued saying the plea agreement needed to be highly detailed and specific regarding the consequences.

The final issue Ms. Rasmussen discussed was that public defenders did not represent clients in misdemeanor cases, which could be considered deportable offenses for immigration purposes. Such cases as misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance with a prior controlled substance conviction would be a deportable offense. Who would be representing those clients, who would be giving the information, who would be actually advising them?

Chairman Anderson said currently the immigrant knew nothing; he was not being informed at all. Even if he were given a clue, would that not be an advantage to him. The attorney would not know what the judge would do, whether he would accept a plea bargain or not. Would it not be an obligation of the attorney to warn the client there might be consequences? Ms. Rasmussen agreed it was an obligation. The obligation was not that it “may happen” but that it “will happen” … it needed to be real advice.

Chairman Anderson said it was a choice of “doing this or doing nothing.” State statutes were unable to control federal law; in fact, it was not possible to even control what the next legislature might do with the consequences to earlier crimes. Chairman Anderson did not understand why someone would not want the statement regarding immigration consequences. Ms. Rasmussen reiterated as a private attorney she would call an immigration attorney, what options would the public defender’s office have?

Chairman Anderson quoted “the law’s a river” and it was “a wolf by the ear.”

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony in regard to A.B. 394. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 394.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented that A.B. 394 raised the awareness of this problem. Each interested party needed to go back to their own jurisdictions and decide what would be best.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO “DO PASS” A.B. 394.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblywoman Buckley believed a flyer could be prepared so that “folks” could be more informed.

Assemblyman Brower reiterated the witness’ concern for the public defender’s office. It was Assemblyman Brower’s belief the public defender’s office might be better able to handle the issue.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS AND MR. NOLAN ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Buckley to present A.B. 394 on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 397 and recognized Assemblyman Brower, the sponsor of the bill, as he approached the witness table.

Assembly Bill 397: Provides for admissibility in evidence of certain statements made by unavailable declarants. (BDR 4-997)

Assemblyman Greg Brower, District 37, introduced A.B. 397 on behalf of the Washoe County District Attorney’s office. A.B. 397 proposed to create an exception to the general hearsay rule of evidence. The exception would assist prosecutors in successfully pursuing domestic violence cases. If an alleged victim made a statement to a police officer about the fact that she was battered, that clearly was an “out of court” statement, not under oath, and would probably could not be offered as “the truth of the matter asserted.” If the victim chose not to testify at the trial; the police officer would not be allowed to get on the stand and verify the statement, it would be hearsay. A.B. 397 would allow such a statement to be admitted in the court as a hearsay exception. Assemblyman Brower believed the hearsay question was not a simple issue; prosecutors who worked in the area believed A.B. 397 was important.

Chairman Anderson discussed a “briefing document” (Exhibit D) prepared by the Legal Division, which outlined five conditions that must be met in order for such hearsay to become admissible in court. Assemblyman Brower reiterated that A.B. 397 lines 12 and 13 clearly required the court to make a determination as to the worthiness of admission, a safeguard for the bill.

Ms. Waldron said the basis for A.B. 397 came from California law evidence code section. Often in domestic violence cases, victims refused to testify or testified differently than the written statement. Current hearsay exceptions sometimes fit and sometimes they did not. Was it an excited utterance when talking to the police? Was it a discussion about the physical condition for the purposes of medical treatment? City attorneys and district attorneys had issues with the bill as written; amendments were proposed to clarify the intent of the bill in regard to domestic battery cases.

Chairman Anderson understood the procedure as outlined in A.B. 397. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Brower if he had seen the proposed amendments. Assemblyman Brower stated recently sent proposed amendments from the Reno City Attorney’s office would be helpful and “enhance the utility of the change in the law.” Assemblyman Brower agreed with Ms. Waldron regarding limiting A.B. 397 to domestic violence cases and not making it too broad. Domestic violence situations had unique aspects that made it more likely a victim might not be as cooperative with the prosecution as liked.

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, supported A.B. 397 because it created an important exception to the hearsay rule that would enhance the prosecutors’ ability to hold domestic violence offenders accountable for their abusive behavior (Exhibit E). A.B. 397 would allow a statement taken from a victim at or near the time of the infliction of physical injury to be admissible during the trial for the “truth of the matter asserted.” When victims retracted previous statements to protect their batterers, jurors did not understand this. A.B. 397 would allow evidence of an earlier statement to show the victim was in fact battered or threatened during the alleged incident.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Hart if she had seen the proposed amendments. Ms. Hart said she had. Chairman Anderson asked if those amendments would diminish the power of the bill. Ms. Hart said there were some differences between what the city attorneys needed and deputy attorneys needed, some accommodations were needed.

Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, supported A.B. 397 (Exhibit F). Victims of domestic violence were not always available to testify at trial, either because they were dead or did not want to be located. But there might be other evidence or prior testimony that could be used if it were admitted at the trial. A.B. 397 would allow such evidence to be admissible.

Ben Little submitted proposed amendments to A.B. 397 (Exhibit G) that had been previously shared with the Reno City Attorney’s office. It was Mr. Little’s belief as many tools as possible should be made available to prosecute such offenses.

David Mincavage, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Henderson, supervised the prosecution division, specifically the domestic violence cases in Henderson. He believed A.B. 397 would greatly assist in prosecuting those cases. The trial really started before anyone entered a courtroom. Victims dodged service and might not appear in court even when serviced. A.B. 397 would allow statements made to police officers to be admissible at trial for the judge’s consideration. Mr. Mincavage submitted a proposed amendment to include “physician, nurse, or paramedic” to line 10. A number of red flags had appeared in California cases in regard to due process and the confrontation clause, but they had been tested and were successful.

Mark Jacobs was an investigator with the Henderson City Attorney’s Office, currently in charge of subpoena service for the investigative unit. His unit handled approximately one hundred cases of domestic battery each month. A.B. 397 would definitely assist the prosecution process.

Karen Winckler believed A.B. 397 was not needed. She said it was not a new exception, but an illustration. It appeared the prosecutors were telling the judges how to do their job. It should not be necessary to amend a law when the law was already there. Judges already had the discretion to look at other statements.

Assemblyman Brower believed if prosecutors felt A.B. 397 would help, and A.B. 397 was not unfair or unconstitutional; there should be no “downside” to making the law more specific to help prosecutions. Ms. Winckler believed “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” To include an illustration was not necessary to the legislation.

John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, felt compelled to endorse Ms. Winckler’s position. Mr. Morrow opposed “watering down” or qualification of the hearsay rules as currently on the books. The greatest “engine” for determining truth was cross-examination, which would be eroded by further exceptions to the hearsay rule. With hearsay testimony, the fact-finding process was undermined. If faced with a reluctant witness or the witness contradicted previous statements, prior statements would then be admissible and the witness could be cross-examined.

Chairman Anderson stated it was necessary to notify the court when that methodology would be used; reason must be shown to the court. The court must then make a determination based on the standards whether the evidence would be admissible. Mr. Morrow admitted there were safeguards included in the existing law.

A letter from Patricia Lynch (Exhibit I) was submitted without verbal testimony. In the letter Ms. Lynch supported A.B. 397 with suggestions for amendments.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, the hearing on A.B. 397 was closed. Chairman Anderson understood potential amendments were being considered. The record would be left open until April 6, 2001 (end of the week). A.B. 397 would be assigned to the work session on April 10, 2001.

Chairman Anderson called a ten-minute recess.

Chairman Anderson reconvened the Judiciary Committee as a subcommittee until a quorum was present.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 399 acknowledging Richard Kirkland as he approached the witness table. Chairman Anderson noted a quorum was present.

Assembly Bill 399: Provides for civil liability for false reporting of crime or emergency. (BDR 3-422)

Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, introduced Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety and former Sheriff of Washoe County; Jim Lopey, Assistant Sheriff, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office; and Paul Lipparelli, Deputy District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorneys’ Office; who joined him at the witness table.

Captain Nadeau believed there was a “hole in the law” regarding recovering costs associated with staged events. He deferred testimony to the others at the witness table.

James Lopey felt A.B. 399 applied to false reporting and elaborate schemes, which had been investigated over the years. In November 1999, a situation was investigated where homicide or kidnapping was presumed. Search and rescue, helicopters, divers, deputies, other investigators and volunteers searched for a body for several days. The alleged victim was found in Las Vegas, retrieved and brought back. The victim, an anti-brothel advocate, admitted he had staged the situation. The cost for that effort was approximately $8,700; Washoe County was unsuccessful recovering those costs from the individual. The issue for A.B. 399 was recovering costs that taxpayers had paid for false reports and subsequent investigations.

Assemblywoman Buckley supported the purpose of the bill, but questioned whether the language was precise enough. What happened in circumstances where a “mischaracterization of an event did not reflect reality?” Assistant Sheriff Lopey believed A.B. 399 was a very good law and well written; the spirit of the law was seeking to assist law enforcement.

Richard Kirkland related a celebrated case called “amnesia man” that lasted a number of months and where thousands of dollars were spent. The event was staged primarily for publicity. Filing a false report was against the law, and unfortunately those types of cases were increasing. Those cases impacted local and state budgets, which paid for resources and personnel, as well as jeopardized the safety of volunteers.

Assemblyman Manendo asked for an example of a misdemeanor where A.B. 399 would apply. Mr. Kirkland said even “amnesia man” could have been called a misdemeanor for the staged absence, although, the major case was a felony because it staged an armed robbery and did damage to his store. Most cases started as misdemeanor crimes, yet it might be a stretch to call it a crime except when it included a false report.

Chairman Anderson asked how 911 calls would fit into the scenario; would this qualify as a prank? Captain Nadeau said a 911 call could be included but there was a “point of diminishing return” regarding the costs involved. Reporting a false crime was a misdemeanor offense.

Paul Lipparelli said one of his clients was the Collection Division of Washoe County who queried how it could recover such costs. No remedy could be found, so it was determined a legislative solution was needed. The intent of A.B. 399 was to allow governments to recover money when a person had knowingly abused the system. It was not to compel the counties, cities and state agencies to file a civil action in every instance, but to use discretion as to which cases were worth going after.

Chairman Anderson asked whether attorney’s fees would be part of the recovered costs. Mr. Lipparelli agreed about the attorney fees, but believed that A.B. 399 would not be used to collect “nickel & dime” cases. Richard Kirkland said he had experienced only three cases where recovery of costs became a public taxpayer issue.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if there were any situations where public agency insurance covered the losses. Richard Kirkland was not aware of any insurance available, most governments in Nevada were self-insured or self-insured to a certain point.

Assemblywoman McClain asked what amount of discretion would be used on 911 pranks that could be considered false reports. What were the penalties for filing a false report and was there a clause that addressed restitution? Should it be considered to include a dollar threshold?

Mr. Lipparelli said the penalties for filing a false report were limited to misdemeanor penalties; there were no felony false report crimes. Those would be limited to $1,000 and up to six months in jail. Putting a dollar threshold might be a good thing to do, but it would be subjective and might become another legal issue.

Chairman Anderson clarified on page 2 line 10 “reasonable cost” was defined. Would that be where the amendment would be made? Assemblywoman McClain replied, “Wherever appropriate.” Assemblywoman McClain did not want victims to be victimized again when pressured to recant a report, the discretion should not be too broad.

Risa Lang said a proposed amendment would probably need to go in Section 1, subsection 1 to include “if costs involved exceeded.”

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if it could be limited to people who “stage” events. Could Legal Division further refine that? Captain Nadeau stated it was the original intention to identify “staged” events.

Assemblyman Oceguera disagreed with Assemblywoman Buckley. Assemblyman Oceguera had experience responding to bloody noses and requests for aspirin with million-dollar fire and paramedic equipment as well as the highly paid personnel; he felt no hesitation trying to recover costs on such “emergencies.”

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall clarified A.B. 399 dealt with the liability of “doing of an act” that might result in a false report passed on in good faith. A proposed amendment might include “intentionally making a false report” and “malice of forethought.”

Richard Kirkland responded A.B. 399 had developed as a result of a “hole in the system.” Counties did have the ability to go to small claims court, but there were a large number of people who abused the system. Mr. Kirkland proposed an amendment to specify “major” investigations.

Assemblywoman McClain voiced her concern as to why make everyone suffer because a few abused system. She believed A.B. 399 was too broad reaching.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony on A.B. 399. There being none, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 399 and opened the work session on A.B. 399. Chairman Anderson felt the court should be given discretion rather than a mandate by changing the word “shall” to “may” on line 19. A question was raised in regard to amending the bill to include a dollar threshold, but what about Assemblyman Oceguera’s concern about repeat offenders. Assemblywoman McClain asked if the concept of A.B. 399 should be included with “filing a false report” and if it could be proved that a false report was filed, then recovery of those costs could be attempted. Assemblywoman McClain did agree the bill could refer to “staged” events, specifically.

Assemblyman Oceguera posed another example for the committee. In any call larger than a single-family residence, four engines, two ladders, two rescues and a battalion chief would respond; was that a “major” incident. Chairman Anderson clarified that Mr. Oceguera did not want a dollar amount added to the bill.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Buckley about her proposed amendment. Assemblywoman Buckley felt comfortable creating a “new cause of action” to allow public entities to go after people who staged events. She was concerned about going further to include “anyone who files a false report” because it may not be a false report, there might be mitigating circumstances. Possibly assigning penalties for wasting resources could be a solution.

Chairman Anderson said in order to progress A.B. 399 the questions of staged events and mitigating circumstances must be addressed. Assemblywoman Buckley said she would support the bill with “staged events” aimed at abusers.

Assemblyman Collins asked who would pay for the false calls, the one who made the false report or the object of the call, such as fire calls on permitted burns.

Chairman Anderson closed the work session on A.B. 399. Chairman Anderson asked Captain Nadeau to provide any proposed amendments by the end of the week to be included in the work session on March 10, 2001.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged Ronna Hubbard of the Nevada State Firefighters Association who attended the hearing in support of A.B. 399.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 448.

Assembly Bill 448: Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming and makes appropriation to White Pine County for repair of trains and purchase and renovation of track. (BDR 41-1066)

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, District 35, was a cosponsor of the bill. The first part of the bill allowed for gaming on railroad trains. White Pine County, Ely specifically, had historic trains that gave tourist rides. It was proposed to add gaming or a specified gaming car, which would enhance tourism and be a good economic venture for the area as well. A.B. 448 provided that a non-restrictive license could be issued to operate the gaming and that city/county licenses and fees would be prohibited.

There was an error in the bill at Section 2, line 10, the words “the purchase” should be removed because the money would not be used to purchase track. The word “purchase” should also be removed from the explanation of the bill and the summary of the bill. Although the money issues would go through the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, Assemblywoman de Braga explained it would be used to do necessary repairs on the two steam locomotives used for the ghost train rides, which was required by law and must be completed by January 1, 2002. Eventually it was hoped to purchase track between McGill and Cobre in Elko County and tie in with Union Pacific, developing tourism travel between Utah and White Pine County.

Assemblyman Carpenter, District 33, was a cosponsor of A.B. 448. The gaming license would provide for entertainment and some revenue for the Nevada Northern Railroad in White Pine County and possibly in Elko County.

Kevin Robison, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Nevada Northern Railway and White Pine Historical Railway Foundation, reported the organization was nonprofit without outside funding sources, other than the receipt of tickets and grant monies received from the Nevada Commission on Tourism and local donations. The issuance of a gaming license for a gaming car would become an alternative funding source. A lessee would take on the gaming license and the foundation would take funding from proceeds. Mr. Robison discussed his handout (Exhibit J) that displayed the costs per locomotive to repair or bring each locomotive up to specifications.

Chairman Anderson reported Mr. Neilander of the Gaming Control Board had concerns relative to the legislation and was unable to appear at the hearing. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman de Braga if she was aware of any opposition. Assemblywoman de Braga said, “No.”

Chairman Anderson had concerns in regards to the nonrestricted license that was usually for large-scale operations. Did the Nevada Northern Railroad intend to run keno and other table games or just slot machines? Mr. Robison said slot machines were the anticipated use.

Assemblyman Carpenter said fifteen slot machines or less qualified for a restricted license, above that number required a nonrestricted license. Assemblywoman de Braga said there might be a future tie to the old west with poker.

Chairman Anderson clarified none of the revenue from the machines would go to any city, town or county. Would that result in a lesser fee than a device in a set location? Would the railroad itself set additional fees other than the “win” from the device.

Assemblywoman de Braga stated the license was expensive and fees would go to the lessee operating the gaming. She was unaware whether a portion of that could go to the railroad.

Assemblyman Carpenter believed the winnings should go to the railroad that really needed them; paying only the state fees. Mr. Robison anticipated a space lease agreement or a set percentage split.

Chairman Anderson clarified the slot machines would be on the train itself, not at the station. If the cars were set off by themselves, would they be available to be used for gaming purposes while sitting on the siding? Mr. Robison said the cars must be supervised. Chairman Anderson asked what assurance would there be that minors would not have access and how would that be maintained?

Mr. Robison reiterated the gaming car would be supervised.

Assemblyman Collins commented it would be great for the rail line so long as it remained restricted to just video or slot machines and poker.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the foundation was “for profit” or “nonprofit” railroad. Kevin Robison replied it was nonprofit. Assemblyman Gustavson stated there was no place in A.B. 448 that stated the railcars had to be moving. Kevin Robison replied the railcars would be moving and he was open to amending the language to specify that.

Jim Avance was a former chairman of the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Avance suggested the language indicate a “license” would be issued; the Gaming Control Board would create the appropriate regulations. The Gaming Control Board could also specify if the games of chance would be available half an hour before and after departure. There already existed a regulation that allowed games of chance in “transportation centers” that would take care of the train station. Mr. Avance said a nonrestricted license would require a $10,000 deposit to start the investigation, plus the cost of the equipment and employees.

Chairman Anderson asked for further testimony. There being none, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 448. The bill would be held for work session on April 10, 2001. Chairman Anderson would wait for information from Mr. Neilander, a possible amendment from Mr. Robison and appropriate regulations from the Gaming Control Board regarding availability of gaming half an hour before and after departure.

WORK SESSION

Assembly Bill 55: Eliminates requirement that county jail be located at county seat. (BDR 16-795)

Chairman Anderson said only one amendment had been proposed on page 1, line 21, changing the word “must” to “may.” Assemblyman Brower agreed the bill would provide an option. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang for clarification. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion on A.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO “AMEND AND DO PASS” A.B. 55.

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Brower to present A.B. 55 on the Assembly floor.

Assembly Bill 178: Provides various changes concerning damages that may be awarded in tort actions against certain governmental entities and their officers or employees. (BDR 3-192)

Assemblyman Claborn presented the report from the subcommittee formed to discuss A.B. 178. The recommendation of the subcommittee was IP (Indefinitely Postponed) due to lack of interest. As chairman of the A.C.R. 46 Committee, Chairman Anderson was disappointed in the result, but entertained a motion on A.B. 178.

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 178.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN.

MOTION PASSED 11-1 WITH MS. KOIVISTO VOTING NO AND

MR. OCEGUERA AND MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT … A.B. 178 DIED.

Chairman Anderson turned his attention to the Work Session document (Exhibit K) and to Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst.

Assembly Bill 162: Makes various changes to provisions governing theft. (BDR 15-900)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 162 summary from the work session document.

Chairman Anderson stated the bill had a broader reaching effect than originally believed; there were other types of services that could be affected. Assemblyman Collins requested the bill be amended to cover written estimates. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if such an amendment could be incorporated into the bill. Ms. Lang said most of the other services did not give written estimates; a new section could be included to cover automotive shop written estimates. Chairman Anderson asked if the additional language would go in Section 10. Ms. Lang said Section 10 dealt with gasoline and oil; a separate section should be included. Assemblywoman Buckley commented on a long-negotiated auto repair legislation worked on by Assemblywoman Chowning for many sessions; A.B. 162 should not conflict with her work. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion with an amendment to include reference to auto parts and service with written estimates. Ms. Lang clarified A.B. 162 dealt with theft only, there would not be theft if there was not a written estimate and it was not paid for. Chairman Anderson said it would apply to the automobile world only. There had been concern about “large truck” repairs. Ms. Lang asked what was to be done with the “large truck” concern. Chairman Anderson asked if it caused a problem to include a reference to large trucks. Ms. Lang asked if an exception for certain types of vehicles should be included in the amended language regarding the written estimate. Assemblyman Collins stated the Guidelines of Consumer Protection when followed implied an agreement to pay prior to coming to the repair shop. Chairman Anderson suggested the amendment should include auto parts and service with written estimates; leaving the repair of large trucks out at this time.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO “AMEND AND DO PASS”

A.B. 162 WITH AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE CHAIRMAN.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson assigned Assemblyman Brown to present the bill on the Assembly floor, with Assemblyman Carpenter as the backup.

Assembly Bill 315: Increases penalties for first or second offense of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor when concentration of alcohol in blood or breath of offender is 0.18 or more. (BDR 43-587)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 315 summary from the work session document and cross referenced A.B. 21 that was also to be heard during this work session. Ms. Lang stated legislation was drafted following a common scheme for DUI that was currently available in NRS 484.3792, which allowed the court to determine whether treatment was appropriate. Treatment could be made mandatory, but A.B. 315 raised the penalties for those blood alcohol levels over the 0.18. Chairman Anderson asked if adding mandatory treatment would create a fiscal impact; those affected would pay for treatment themselves. Ms. Lang said it would raise some cost questions when the affected person could not afford to pay, someone else would need to pick up the cost. Chairman Anderson asked if mandatory treatment was included, would the bill need to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means? Ms. Lang believed A.B. 315 would need to go to Ways and Means anyway. Chairman Anderson asked for questions on the bill and entertained a motion on A.B. 315 including amendments for mandatory treatment. Assemblyman Collins asked if mandatory treatments were available in rural areas. Assemblyman Carpenter replied it was no longer an issue; there were treatment centers throughout the rural areas. He questioned sentences for first and second offenses; he wanted to include a “house arrest” option to avoid additional hardships on the families when the offender could not work. Ms. Lang replied house arrest was specifically not included, although the standard clause regarding residential confinement was in Section 5 where ordinary punishments for DUI were outlined. In A.B. 315, where the purpose was to increase the penalty for those with higher blood alcohol levels, a time in prison was required. In regard to treatment, the court “shall” order payment of tuition for an education course on alcohol abuse or attend a treatment program. An amendment for mandatory treatment would require removal of the “education course.” Chairman Anderson clarified A.B. 315 without an amendment would leave the judge with discretion to make a decision. Ms. Lang agreed the judge had discretion for the first offense, for the second offense treatment was an option but not required. Chairman Anderson said the question was whether the judge should have the discretion to send a first-time offender to an education course or to treatment. Assemblyman Carpenter believed treatment was necessary. Chairman Anderson clarified what would be involved in the amendment, what language would be removed, and what would be added. Assemblyman Collins asked what type of treatment would be expected for a kid drunk at graduation and the habitual problem drinker. Assemblyman Nolan said in the medical field and jail settings, short-term and long-term evaluations were always completed to determine treatment needed. Assemblyman Carpenter still believed some type of treatment was needed, the judge could make a determination as to what level of treatment even for first-time offenders. Chairman Anderson clarified which penalties would be included in the bill and asked about the 0.18 blood alcohol level. Ms. Lang said A.B. 315 specifically applied to those with 0.18 blood alcohol levels for first or second offenses regardless of whether a first offense had been 0.1 or 0.18. Assemblywoman Buckley was hesitant to change the existing statutory scheme as set forth in Section 5, page 5. The judge should be allowed to continue using discretion even if mandatory treatment was amended into the bill. Chairman Anderson clarified Assemblyman Parks’ intention that offenders with 0.18 blood alcohol level should have a higher fine, stricter imprisonment and treatment. Chairman Anderson believed to mandate treatment and leave the judge’s discretion would fit within Assemblyman Park’s intention. Ms. Lang said amendments could easily be made. Chairman Anderson reiterated his understanding of Assemblywoman Buckley’s comments, to leave the statutory scheme in place but add mandatory treatment for those with an alcohol blood level of 0.18. Assemblywoman Buckley replied, “Yes.” Chairman Anderson said the number of days incarcerated would not be changed. Assemblywoman Buckley replied, “Yes…under current law a judge could go anywhere from ten days to six months.” Ms. Lang said she was clear on what amendments were needed. Chairman Anderson asked if there were any further questions from the committee. There being none, he entertained a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO “AMEND AND DO PASS” A.B. 315 AND REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS AND MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT.

Assembly Bill 21: Requires court to order person convicted of second offense of driving under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance within 7 years to attend program of treatment for abuse of alcohol or drugs. (BDR 43-868)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 21 summary from the work session document.

Chairman Anderson said in light of discussions on A.B. 315, a second time offender would be ordered to treatment whether the blood alcohol level was 0.1 or 0.18. Chairman Anderson said A.B. 315 should be reconsidered.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO “DO PASS” A.B. 21.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson returned to A.B. 315 to determine if there would be a conflict.

Ms. Lang said if both A.B. 21 and A.B. 315 were to pass it would result in a conflict that would need to be resolved. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to reconsider A.B. 315.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 315.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson said the amendment would be changed on A.B. 315 from mandatory treatment to a first-time DUI at 0.18 blood alcohol level, since A.B. 21 would include anything over 0.1 blood alcohol level. It was hoped that both bills would pass.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 315 WITH A REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT.

Assembly Bill 220: Revises provisions governing duties of certain peace officers when felony is committed or attempted in their presence or in area that is within their jurisdiction. (BDR 14-141)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 220 summary from the work session document.

Chairman Anderson asked interested parties to approach the witness table; Captain Jim Nadeau; Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; Robert Dickens, Director, Office of Governmental Relations, University of Nevada-Reno (UNR); Rick Bennett, Government Relations, University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV).

Chairman Anderson asked Lt. Olsen if the proposed amendment met his requirements. Lt. Olsen replied, “Yes it does.” Robert Dickens answering the same question said the proposed language reflected the sentiments of the subcommittee. Both universities had active interlocal agreements which determined who would have the primary investigative responsibilities. Assemblyman Nolan, Chairman of the subcommittee, said the proposed amendments reflected the consensus of most of the individuals who attended the subcommittee meeting. The universities had asked to be exempt from the provision because their interlocal agreements were in place. Chairman Anderson asked if all the law enforcement groups listed would be removed or if the entire section would be redrafted. Ms. Lang said the sections would be redrafted, but the definitions would still be included. Chairman Anderson asked how that would affect the community college and university interlocal agreements. Mr. Dickens said under current law, page 3, the universities were authorized to enter into those interlocal agreements. On page 2, if a list of peace officers with limited jurisdictions was included, there were a large range of other state agencies that had limited jurisdiction; the list was not complete. Assemblywoman Buckley asked a question on paragraph 2, page 1 regarding extending jurisdiction by interlocal agreement that was currently limited by state statute. Mr. Lang replied that it did give them the ability to extend jurisdiction beyond the boundaries. Neither Chairman Anderson nor Assemblywoman Buckley supported that. Mr. Dickens said concurrent jurisdictions were established. Captain Nadeau said under current state law UNR entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of Reno enabling UNR to respond to the fraternity houses. It was also possible for the City of Reno to agree to allow Hug High School to handle student issues at the Burger King across from the high school. Chairman Anderson asked if the interlocal agreement would give the university greater powers than they currently had. Assemblywoman Buckley asked if it were within the intent to say “if permitted by law and pursuant to interlocal agreement between….” Lt. Olsen answered, “Yes.” Ms. Lang said there seemed to be a conflict between what was “permitted by law” and what was intended. Lt. Olsen said only those items specifically detailed in the interlocal agreement were allowed, without an interlocal agreement everything would be handled by the primary investigative entity. Mr. Bennett clarified the University Police were the primary authority on state property that constituted the campuses. Ms. Lang said subsection 1 dealt with turning an investigation over to the primary agency unless there was an interlocal agreement. Assemblywoman Buckley asked if paragraph 2 changed circumstances; she opposed that. If it was directly related to paragraph 1 with regard to category A and B felonies to allow discussion on how they would be worked, she supported that. Where did paragraph 2 apply? Mr. Bennett said page 3, Section 4 delineated the legal authorization and scope of the interlocal agreement; the jurisdiction was limited and clearly specified. Assemblywoman Buckley reiterated that paragraph 2 said it could be expanded to anything agreed upon in the interlocal agreement; was that the intent? Lt. Olsen said the initial legislative intent was to reclarify responsibilities. Chairman Anderson asked if the language in paragraph 2 needed work. Ms. Lang believed the intent was to have agencies enter into interlocal agreements to determine jurisdictions and boundaries; what the agencies could do did not change, just where they could do it. Chairman Anderson was confused whether A.B. 220 would expand the level of jurisdiction to an agency that was statutorily controlled. Assemblyman Carpenter agreed that paragraph 2 should not allow expansion beyond authority granted by the legislature. Chairman Anderson asked what would happen if language was added “if not regulated by state law, the jurisdiction of a limited jurisdiction law enforcement agency may be expanded by interlocal agreement….” Ms. Lang was still unclear what the intent was. Captain Nadeau believed Assemblywoman Buckley had excellent language in regard to limitations and apologized for sending mixed messages to Ms. Lang, but it was not his intention to expand the jurisdiction beyond what the statutory limits already were. Assemblywoman Buckley asked if the intent was to “wrap it back” to paragraph 1? Lt. Olsen answered, “Yes, plus to reinforce what the jurisdiction is, not to expand it on their own.” Chairman Anderson asked the panel to talk with Ms. Lang and assigned A.B. 220 to a work session.

Assembly Bill 34: Revises provisions governing granting of rights to visitation with child to persons other than parents of child. (BDR 11-193)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 34 summary from the work session document.

Chairman Anderson acknowledged the receipt of e-mail from Ann McCarthy (Exhibit L) and asked Ms. McCarthy, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, as well as Assemblywoman Berman to approach the witness table. Ms. Lang detailed the proposed amendment, which would replace the original bill draft. Chairman Anderson asked if providing the opportunity for the parent to put on a case would create a Troxel endangerment to prove their case? Ms. McCarthy understood the intent, but there were existing rules of evidence that allowed both sides to present their case. Her issue was about making a parent “put on a case.” Assemblywoman Buckley believed the language was an attempt to recognize the parent had a right to put on a case; removing the sentence completely or modifying it to include “the court shall consider any evidence presented by the parent” would alleviate the concern. She would support that and felt it did not change the subcommittee’s intent; it just clarified a more technical part of it. Chairman Anderson clarified the amendments. Ms. McCarthy said removing the sentence would remove the problem. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 34.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION PASSED WITH MR. BROWER, MR. OCEGUERA AND MR.

COLLINS ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Berman to present A.B. 34 on the Assembly floor; a floor statement would be prepared and the committee would handle the amendment.

Assembly Bill 174: Establishes program of visitation to office of county coroner and authorizes juvenile court to order child adjudicated delinquent to participate in program of visitation. (BDR 5-103)

Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 174 summary from the Work Session document.

Assemblyman Nolan said there had been opposition from the Washoe County Coroners Office; Clark County only needed assurance of funding (Exhibit M). Chairman Anderson asked if there were provisions for notification of family members of the viewed bodies. Assemblyman Nolan said no provision had been made within the bill. Some existing programs had it; some did not. Clark County had no intention at this time to allow viewing of autopsies. Assemblywoman Buckley supported the intent of the bill, but did not support the bill itself. She was concerned about the families of viewed bodies and the lack of liability for those in the program. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 174 WITH A REREFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN.

MOTION PASSED 9-3 WITH MS. BUCKLEY, MRS. KOIVISTO AND

MR. ANDERSON VOTING NO AND MR. COLLINS AND MR. OCEGUERA

ABSENT.

Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Nolan to present the bill on the Assembly floor.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Deborah Rengler

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: