MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 10, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:41 a.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and by videoconference in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas, 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:
Senator Terry Care, Senatorial District 7
Assemblywoman Christina Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District 39
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gene Segerblom, Former Legislator
Kent Lauer, Nevada Press Association
Stan Miller, Claims Manager, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General
Thomas M. Patton, First Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Bill Hoffman, General Counsel for the Clark County School District
Dan Geary, Cofounder of Nevadans for Medical Rights
Ed Foster, Compliance Branch, State Department of Agriculture
John O’Brien, Regional Manager, State Department of Agriculture, Reno Office
Gary Peck, Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Nevada
Ulrich Smith, Former Appointed Member of Rose Commission, Former Member of Criminal Justice Committee, Private Defense Attorney, Former Clark County Prosecutor
Doctor Richard Siegel, Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno, and President of the American Civil Liberties Union
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
Floyd Krebbs, Concerned Citizen
Gemma Greene-Waldron, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division
Kristine Jensen, Concerned Citizen
James Kroshus, Concerned Citizen
Pam Roberts, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Nancy Meredith, Registered Nurse
Christiana Bratiotis, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Region of National Conference for Community Injustice (NCCJ)
Reverend Doctor Phil Hansknecht, Ordained Minister, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, President, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Nevada
Reverend Valerie Garrick, Pastor, Northwest Community Church, United Church of Christ, Las Vegas
Mark Nichols, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Member of Executive Committee of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN)
James Richardson, Concerned Citizen
Becky Harris, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada
Richard Ziser, Chairman, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada
John Wagner, Representative of the Nevada Republican Assembly
V. Robert Payant, Executive Director, Nevada Catholic Conference, and Catholic Legislative Liaison for the Diocese of Reno and the Diocese of Las Vegas
James L. Dunn, Concerned Citizen
William H. Stoddard, Attorney, Spokesman and Bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints
Joy Kendall, Concerned Citizen, President, Cunningham Elementary Parents and Teachers Association (PTA)
Bill Brady, Concerned Citizen, Assembly District 13
Ken Zang, Concerned Citizen
William K. Errico, Esquire, Las Vegas
Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Department of Human Resources, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS)
John C. Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Nancy E. Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
M. Veronica Frenkel, Domestic Violence Ombudsman, Office of the Attorney General,
Judge Mitch Wright, Chief Judge of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Member of Nevada Full Faith and Credit Project, Member, Board of Directors of the National American Indian Judges Association
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Chairman Anderson declared that a quorum was present. He stated he would strictly adhere to time limits imposed on the testimony of each bill.
Assembly Bill 277: Revises provisions relating to settlement of certain claims or actions against governmental entities and officers and employees thereof. (BDR 3-378)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 277, and called upon its primary sponsors for the introduction. Ms. Gene Segerblom, former legislator, summarized that the purpose of the bill was to allow the public to learn when public agencies had settlement agreements, as well as the amount of the settlement. She explained that there was controversy with regard to what information must be disclosed in those settlements. She cited that the position held by the Clark County District Attorney was that the public records law required the disclosure of settlements. She noted that some public agencies opined that confidentiality was permitted. She opined that the taxpayers were entitled to know how their tax monies were utilized, and which agencies and employees were responsible for litigation costs and settlements.
Ms. Segerblom recognized that there would be conflict with the disclosure of settlements that involved sexual misconduct and other crimes of a sexual nature. She noted that some victims of cases of minor sexual crimes might not want their identity publicized. However, their identification would not be included in the disclosure, and the greater need of public knowledge of the nature of the crimes committed by its agencies and employees took precedence, especially since those types of cases rarely occurred. She stated that A.B. 277 did not exceed any requirements that were already included in the public records law and stated, “The legislature needed to make the formal statement that legal settlements, in all but the most unusual circumstances, needed to be public record. Any attempt to make them confidential, would be void and prohibited by the law.”
Senator Terry Care, Senatorial District 7, continued the introduction of A.B. 277 with the explanation that he had requested the exact same bill to be drafted in the Senate, S.B. 398, before he became aware of A.B. 277. He dropped his bill to join in support of A.B. 277. He opined the public had the right to know what their public servants were doing, when they were sued, and where their tax money was spent. He proclaimed his outrage with the secrecy of the state and its divisions when they insisted upon confidentiality of its settlement agreements.
Senator Care briefly explained the process of settlement agreements. He clarified that settlement agreements that were not a result of a legal action, would not be covered by A.B. 277. He described that once the action was made, the discovery process and litigation would begin. The parties would form a settlement agreement as a business decision to prevent further costs of a long-term legal dispute. The agreement typically included language that neither party accepted fault or liability, the terms of the agreement, and typically did not have any privileged information attached.
Senator Care cited that there was case law that established persons as limited public figures, after having sued the state, where the case became either publicized or was controversial. He indicated that he would not accept any provision for bureaucratic review of information of the settlement agreement that involved the state. He asserted that the state, as a public agency, had no expectation of privacy.
Mr. Carpenter inquired if A.B. 277 would include in the disclosure the dollar amount the entity spent on the defense of the cases that were involved in the settlement agreements. Senator Care answered that the information would not appear in the settlement agreement. He was not knowledgeable of the provisions of disclosure for information related to the legal fees and costs of defending the case. Mr. Carpenter opined that the disclosure of the costs of defending the cases was just as important as the disclosure of the settlement agreements. Senator Care indicated if such disclosures were not already available, he would request that a proposed amendment to A.B. 277 be drafted to include such disclosures.
Mr. Nolan acknowledged that the state should disclose certain information, and he recognized that the settlement agreements did not adjudicate guilt, but rather, they were business decisions. He expressed his concerns that the personal rights of the possibly innocent individual of whom the action was against could be violated by the disclosure of the settlement agreement that was made solely as a business decision. The public could perceive the willingness of the individual to settle as an acceptance of guilt, whether the agreement accepted guilt or not. He asked how A.B. 277 would protect individuals against that situation. Senator Care indicated the good faith basis of claims against the individuals and entities was usually determined in trials. He described it was difficult to determine any wrong doing if the case was settled outside of court. He reiterated there were usually clauses in settlement agreements that stated neither party accepted guilt. Senator Care opined that the merits of the public’s right to know where and how their money was spent outweighed the fear that the public might not always understand that lawsuits could be groundless.
Chairman Anderson called for persons to testify in support of A.B. 277. Mr. Kent Lauer, who represented the Nevada Press Association, testified in full support of the bill. He stated that although some government agencies recognized that confidential settlement agreements were not in the public’s best interests, others secretly settled lawsuits on a regular basis. The confidential lawsuits deprived taxpayers of their fundamental right to know how they were represented, since the cases settled were on behalf of the people of the state, and their right to know how and where their money was spent. He dissuaded the argument that confidentiality of settlement agreements discouraged frivolous lawsuits from being filed and persuaded parties to settle. He stated that the greater danger would be to allow tax money to be spent, with little or no accountability, in confidential settlement agreements by government entities and employees.
Mr. Lauer read from an editorial that mentioned the public needed to be informed when settlement agreements were made in order to recognize patterns of discrimination within agencies if illegal acts were permitted that needed further investigation, if unsubstantiated claims were settled because they were cheaper than a court battle, or if issues were related to the duties and performance of employees of government entities. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 41.0385, which required government entities to file reports of all lawsuits and claims made against them, was only a skeletal summary that would be filed but once a year, and did not provide adequate information to the public. He implored the committee to support and pass A.B. 277.
Chairman Anderson entered into the record the Las Vegas Review Journal article from October 9, 1999, entitled, “School Suit Resolved for $30,000,” (Exhibit C), the Las Vegas Sun article from February 8, 1999, entitled “Settlement Reached In School Lawsuit” (Exhibit D), and the Las Vegas Sun article from September 17, 1999, entitled “Lawsuit Brought By Two City Workers Is Settled,” (Exhibit E). Chairman Anderson called for any persons to testify in support of A.B. 277; there were none. He then called for persons to testify in opposition to A.B. 277. He called upon Mr. Stan Miller, Claims Manager, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General, and Mr. Thomas M. Patton, First Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, to testify.
Mr. Miller stated that NRS 41.0385 already addressed the disclosure of information. It pertained to the submission of an annual report of all claims against state agencies and local governments. He explained that the report required the following information to be included:
Mr. Miller noted that the report would not include the name of the defendant. He indicated the possible reason for the name of the defendant not to be included in the report could be when persons were wrongfully accused, but for nuisance value would settle the case rather than to litigate at a more costly expense. He expressed his concern of the disclosure of certain details of the settlement agreements. He dispelled the claim that the annual reports, as required by NRS 41.0385, were skeletal reports. He opined the reports disclosed what was necessary, and details of cases were not required. If the details of cases were required to be disclosed, it could inhibit the ability to settle them. In the interest of closing his testimony, he referred the committee to his handout (Exhibit F). He asserted to the committee that the issue was already legislated and that A.B. 277 was redundant.
Mrs. Angle inquired about the sealing of records of governmental agencies to prevent the disclosure of the information referred to in A.B. 277, and NRS 41.0385. She asked how A.B. 277, when combined with existing law, would affect the process of sealing records. Mr. Miller responded the state did not enter into confidential settlement agreements, to his knowledge. He indicated that local entities might do so, but if they weren’t including the information about those cases as required by NRS 41.0385, they were not in compliance with the law. He clarified NRS 41.0385 required both local government and state agencies provide the information as listed in the statute; it was not limited to state agencies or entities. He referred the committee to his handout (Exhibit F), which included the language of NRS 41.0385.
Mr. Carpenter opined that the disclosure of names involved in settlement agreements might prevent persons from filing cases without merit. Mr. Thomas M. Patton, First Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, responded that litigants who filed legal actions could not maintain anonymity since the documents used to file the action were public records. Further, Mr. Patton responded that he believed claims that were asserted, but did not result in payment, were also included in the annual reports.
Chairman Anderson called for Mr. Patton to testify. Mr. Patton explained that the state rarely considered the preparation of confidential settlement agreements. They reserved such agreements for highly sensitive cases. He explained that they would create a generic release of claims format for such cases, as a result of A.B. 277, should it pass. The Nevada Supreme Court case, Turner vs. Staggs, involved a government entity that attempted to assert statutory notice requirements against the plaintiff, which were ruled invalid. As a result, the Court noted in its decision that it was a violation of an individual’s equal protection rights for plaintiffs to be treated differently when in litigation with political entities as opposed to the private sector.
Chairman Anderson thanked the witnesses. Mr. Carpenter inquired if Exhibit F was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Patton answered that it was. Chairman Anderson subsequently entered it into the record for A.B. 277. He then recognized Mr. Bill Hoffman, General Counsel for the Clark County School District.
Mr. Hoffman testified in opposition to A.B. 277. He believed the bill overlooked lawsuits that were brought against employees of public entities in their personal capacity. He wanted the bill to reflect, that if the case was brought against a public official in their personal capacity, their right to confidentiality would be respected. Information of lawsuits brought against public entities was already made available to the public pursuant to NRS 239, and other public records laws. He concluded that absent court permission or agreement from parties involved, settlements with public entities were already public records. However, individuals had the right to enter settlement agreements in a personal capacity. He opined A.B. 277 “would add no value to the current status of the law.”
Chairman Anderson called again for any persons who wished to testify with regard to A.B. 277. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 277.
Chairman Anderson called for a motion to be made on the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 277.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Nolan abstained from the vote and retained his right to vote on the Assembly Floor. He expressed his concerns regarding the constitutional rights of the individual versus the rights for public disclosure.
Chairman Anderson called for a roll call vote.
THE MOTION PASSED TO DO PASS A.B. 277. ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN ABSTAINED. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson confirmed there were 11 in favor of the motion, 1 in opposition, 1 abstention, and 1 not present. He assigned the bill to Mr. Collins to present A.B. 277 on the Assembly Floor.
Assembly Bill 453: Authorizes medical use of marijuana in certain circumstances and revises penalties for possessing marijuana. (BDR 40-121)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 453 and called on Assemblywoman Christina Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, to present her bill. Ms. Giunchigliani referred the committee to her handouts, “Simplifying the Maze” from 1994 (Exhibit G), as recommended by Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert E. Rose, and a statement from him, which expressed his position and recommendations of the Rose Commission on the decrease in degree of penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana (Exhibit H).
Ms. Giunchigliani referred the committee to several articles that she downloaded from the Internet with regard to marijuana, and other information for their reading leisure (Exhibits J through EE). She explained Sections 34 through 36 of the bill reduced the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana to a misdemeanor with a fine. She noted the absence of opposition to the bill. She indicated Mr. Ulrich Smith, a member of the Rose Commission, was present in Las Vegas. She mentioned that in November of 2000 the measure on the ballots, to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, passed and received more votes than any elected official or legislator from southern Nevada. The bill was modeled after the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act of 1999.
Ms. Giunchigliani briefly explained the plan for state cultivation of medicinal marijuana, which could be included in A.B. 453. She opined it would be the safest and most equitable plan for the state to handle the distribution of medicinal marijuana. The Department of Agriculture would receive a registry form, which would then be verified by the Board of Medical Examiners, that the doctor was in good standing and properly licensed. It was part of a five-part series of forms. For ease of identification for the government and the consumer, a special photo identification card could be created and issued through the Department of Motor Vehicles, similar to drivers’ licenses. She opined it maintained the safety and integrity of the measure the petitioners signed. She then asked to turn the presentation over to Mr. Dan Geary and Mr. Dan Hart, the founders of Nevadans for Medical Rights, who were the primary proponents of Measure 9 to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Chairman Anderson inquired if Ms. Giunchigliani was in agreement with the proposed amendments (Exhibit FF). Ms. Giunchigliani briefly explained her proposed amendments and verified they had been circulated. The proposed amendments were to change the language of “fines” to “assessments,” in order for the money to be directed to the school districts rather than to the drug courts and rehabilitation programs. She also noted the money that was included in A.B. 577 of the Seventieth Session go to the drug courts needed to be diverted through A.B. 453, to the Department of Agriculture, for start-up costs of the state cultivation plan. Chairman Anderson inquired if the money was to be taken away from the drug courts. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that it would not be, the money in question was included in A.B. 577 of the Seventieth Session, for the purpose of keeping the bill alive.
Mr. Dan Geary, Co-founder of Nevadans for Medical Rights, testified in support of A.B. 453. He explained the organization was formed together with Mr. Dan Hart, three years ago. He stated that a plan for state managed cultivation and distribution of medicinal marijuana would be the safest and most effective manner to implement the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Mr. Geary explained the plan for state cultivation would be extremely beneficial for patients. He noted persons who would use the medicinal marijuana suffered from terminal and chronic illnesses that were extremely debilitating. The state cultivation plan would relieve those persons from obtaining seeds or clones of plants on their own, from the purchase of necessary equipment, and the preparation of ground for growth of their own plants. The technology the state plan would use would ensure the security, safety, and consistency of the plants, as well as eventually assisting law enforcement with the determination the plant was purchased in a safe and lawful manner. He stated that it would draw a clear and distinct line to help them determine if persons were legally or illegally in possession of marijuana. A state cultivation plan would also relieve law enforcement from the burden of monitoring patient’s private and/or collective gardens.
Chairman Anderson clarified for the committee that Mr. Dan Hart’s statement was included in Mr. Geary’s testimony (Exhibit GG). The Chair then entered for the record, a letter from Mr. Robert Teuton, Chief Deputy, Juvenile Division, Clark County District Attorney’s Office (Exhibit I). Ms. Giunchigliani noted the amendments he requested were included in the proposed amendment guidelines that she submitted (Exhibit FF). They were to exempt youths under 18 years of age, because they were handled differently in the court system.
Mr. Manendo stated the concerns he heard from constituents were if Measure 9 would affect laws with regard to driving under the influence. He requested clarification, for the record, that A.B. 453 would not weaken any laws with regard to persons driving under the influence of marijuana. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the bill specifically would not excuse persons driving under the influence, as well as persons working while intoxicated, from the medicinal marijuana for the purposes of workers’ compensation. She assured the committee the issues of driving and working under the influence were addressed by A.B. 453.
Chairman Anderson instructed the witness in Las Vegas, to whom immunity was granted, not to sign in, not to give her name, and assigned her the fictitious name of “Rose.” “Rose” explained her husband of five years was a T4 paraplegic. He was injured in an auto accident at the age of 18, which severed his spinal cord from the nipple line down. Since then, he suffered from severe spasms that echoed from his spinal cord. He had no feeling in his body from his nipple line down through his body. She explained his use of marijuana allowed him to function. His spasms were so severe that they would knock him out of his chair. The spasms made him unable to sit still and comfortably. She indicated they were struggling to survive. He needed the medicinal marijuana to be able to work and function, and she mentioned that he was a supervisor of a bank. She stated their goal was not to break the law, just to survive the best way possible with consideration of his condition. She wanted to place a face to the issue before the committee. She implored the committee to implement the will of the voters and pass A.B. 453.
Chairman Anderson thanked the witness for coming forth on the issue and testifying before the committee. Mr. Ed Foster, Compliance Branch, State Department of Agriculture, and Mr. John O’Brien, Regional Manager, State Department of Agriculture, Reno Office, introduced themselves to answer technical questions with regard to the plan for state cultivation of medicinal marijuana.
Chairman Anderson inquired how the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDOA) would protect the marijuana plants. Mr. O’Brien described the marijuana would be grown in an indoor facility with grow lights that would have protections similar to those used in prisons, but to keep people outside instead of inside. He indicated the cost of the facility would be approximately $750,000. The chemical analysis of the safety and potency of the marijuana would require a one-time purchase of equipment that would be approximately $8,500. The cost per sample would be approximately $82. He noted, upon further research, there were several mechanisms the state could use to track the marijuana. He indicated the marijuana plants could be analyzed for “DNA fingerprinting.” It would then be possible to later determine if a person was using a state-grown plant. He noted the cost to purchase equipment and supplies would be approximately $23,000 to $27,000. The cost per sample had not yet been determined, but he estimated it would probably be the same as the chemical analysis of approximately $82.
Mr. Nolan inquired how the market value of the crop, the value of sale, and the fees would be determined. Mr. O’Brien explained they had attempted to research the market value, and had estimates that the market price was perhaps approximately $350 per ounce of marijuana. He indicated the accuracy of their estimates was undetermined. He stated if the assumption of the market value was accurate, they recommended the cost should be $250 per ounce. The cost would deter those who would possibly abuse the system, but still allow patients to purchase the legal and safe marijuana at a reasonable discount.
Mr. Nolan inquired if the plan for state cultivation would eventually be self-funded or subsidized. Mr. O’Brien opined the plan would pay for itself, with the assumption that the estimated consumption of the marijuana grown would be accurate. He explained the NDOA based their research on Oregon’s studies. They estimated Nevada’s population was approximately half that of Oregon’s, and used that approximation throughout their research. Approximately 400 patients would participate in the first year of the program. Each patient would use approximately one ounce per month. Based on those numbers and the cost of $250 per ounce, the state would receive approximately $1.2 million from the state cultivation program, which would be more than sufficient to run it. He described an excess of funds would probably accumulate over the years, which could eventually be allocated elsewhere.
Chairman Anderson inquired how Section 14 of A.B. 453, which detailed the registration card process, would operate. Mr. Foster explained the process was loosely modeled after Oregon’s qualification and registration process. The requirements to qualify for the medicinal marijuana registration card were as follows:
Mr. Foster mentioned that Oregon had problems with patients who felt they needed medicinal marijuana, but could not afford the registration fees. He explained the program would not be able to run without some form of registration fee. The process of application would consist of the following:
Mr. Brower opined the process seemed to be unnecessarily complicated. He inquired why it wouldn’t be treated the same as other prescription drugs, and why the state had to be involved to the degree set forth in A.B. 453. Ms. Giunchigliani explained Measure 9, which was passed by the voters, called for the dissemination and distribution process, and for a registration card to be created. She informed the committee the Legal Department of the Legislative Counsel Bureau advised the state to allow patients to grow their own marijuana, rather than have the state cultivate and distribute the marijuana.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained the state cultivation program was included to genetically mark plants to prevent trafficking problems that might arise as an unintended result of legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, if the state established the cultivation plan, it risked drawing more attention and scrutiny from the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). She explained the bill was drafted to meet the will of the people, but was structured to either allow for the state cultivation plan or a market-grown plan where the marijuana would be treated as other prescription drugs.
Mr. Brower again asked his question of why the medicinal marijuana couldn’t be treated as other controlled substances. He posed the example of a controlled substance, Valium. To his knowledge, the state did not manage and control the distribution of Valium, other than by a general schedule for prescriptions as stated in the statutes. He asked if federal problems were the reason marijuana couldn’t be treated as other controlled substances that were available by prescription. Ms. Giunchigliani responded in the affirmative. She explained the federal government had assumed the position of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The bill included language to provide immunity to the physicians who would recommend the use of medicinal marijuana. However, the problem that had not yet been resolved was the DEA had control over the physicians’ licenses to practice medicine. The state could not legislate the actions of the DEA, because they were a federal agency.
Mr. Collins expressed his concerns of the high costs to the patients who would use medicinal marijuana, since insurance companies would not cover it, and the mention of immunity granted to the state for hallucinogenic effects caused by the marijuana, and the possible future privatization of the growth of marijuana. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that Section 33 addressed the immunity issue. The language included in the section was inserted to provide protections, and was modeled from other states’ legislation. She emphasized the intent of the state registration card was not to make money, but to create the registration card, as was included in the petition for Measure 9. The language of the bill limited the fee to no higher than $150. She opined the fee would not cost that much in reality, since the state would only be processing the forms. The forms would be submitted to the DMV, where their picture would be taken, and they could obtain their marijuana afterwards, wherever that would be.
Mr. Collins observed that there were persons who were sick and already used marijuana. He inquired what their incentive would be to become legal users when the registration fees were so high. He also inquired how the bill would address caregivers that would need to obtain the marijuana for many of the patients who were not physically able to obtain the marijuana themselves. Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill had provisions for caregivers to be issued cards in the circumstances where the patients could not obtain the medicinal marijuana themselves. She stated it would be done as cheaply as possible, for possibly just $25 to $30.
Chairman Anderson observed that A.B. 453 specified illnesses that included the following:
o Classified as a chronic or debilitating medical condition by regulation of the Health Division, of the Department of Human Resources; or
o Approved as a chronic or debilitating medical condition pursuant to a petition submitted in accordance with Section 30 of A.B. 453.
Chairman Anderson also noted that the bill language was narrowly crafted to strictly limit the types of physicians allowed to sign the attending physician form to be physicians licensed pursuant to Chapter 630 of the NRS. He clarified that the bill specifically required registered patients, registered doctors, and persons specifically engaged in the care-giving process, to be examined carefully by the state to ensure federal requirements were met. Also, the bill addressed age requirements and guidelines for the use of medicinal marijuana by those under the age of 18.
Ms. Ohrenschall inquired how and if the state could assist patients, who could not afford the medicinal marijuana, to acquire it. She noted most patients that would be in need of the medicinal marijuana would have probably used up or were close to their insurance caps, and in financial need. She recommended the state set up a program such as the old methadone clinics. Ms. Giunchigliani explained Section 31 of A.B. 453 specifically prohibited insurance companies from being required to pay for the medicinal marijuana, as was included in the original petition of Measure 9. She stated her discomfort of straying from the will of the people.
Ms. Giunchigliani described the rates mentioned earlier for the cost of marijuana were guesstimates for the sole purpose of the state’s possible cultivation and distribution of the medicinal marijuana. She mentioned people were already obtaining marijuana without state assistance. She stated there were protections for the individual included in the bill, which also prevented a person from being assumed guilty of trafficking marijuana simply because they did not have their registration card on their person. She noted that persons were not able to grow enough plants to treat themselves, but were already using marijuana for medicinal purposes, which is what warranted the measure being passed and the bill to be drafted. Ms. Ohrenschall clarified her concern that individuals who could benefit from the use of medicinal marijuana were suffering from such debilitating illnesses, and probably would not be able to afford it.
Mr. Nolan acknowledged that marijuana provided medicinal benefits that were not available in other pharmaceutical medications. He stated that he supported providing the medicinal marijuana in the situations specified in A.B. 453. He expressed concerns with regard to the potential abuse of doctors prescribing marijuana before offering other pharmaceuticals that offered similar benefits, and were not as restricted and controlled as marijuana. Ms. Giunchigliani explained there was a drug available for prescription that contained a small amount of THC. She did not believe the legislation would prohibit doctors from attempting to use other medications before recommending marijuana. She noted some medications worked for some people but not others. She believed a doctor’s regular medical regime would be to determine which prescription worked best for their patient before they recommended the use of medicinal marijuana.
Ms. Buckley opined that the legalization of medicinal marijuana was the will of the people and needed to be answered. She informed the committee of her concerns with the state cultivation plan. She believed the state lacked the funds for start-up costs of the plan. Also, she thought it was likely that the Supreme Court would come to a judgment that it was unconstitutional for the states to grow and distribute medicinal marijuana. Ms. Buckley stated it would be more prudent to implement the will of the people without the state becoming involved with the growth and distribution of the medicinal marijuana. She inquired how the state should be involved with the process in light of the potential Supreme Court ruling.
Ms. Giunchigliani explained the bill did not yet include the state-run cultivation of the medicinal marijuana. It was originally drafted to provide for the process of the registration card and implementation of the legalization of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. She noted the cost of the registration card could be reduced to a nominal fee. It was based on the Oregon fee for registration cards that was up to $150, which was to ensure any unforeseen costs were already covered. She noted if there was no need for administrative overhead, there would not be a need to legislate a minimal dollar amount, which was anticipated by the bill. She explained the only changes that would be needed, would be the amendments suggested by Mr. Teuton.
Ms. Buckley inquired where the patients would purchase the medicinal marijuana. Ms. Giunchigliani stated they would be permitted to grow their own marijuana for medicinal purposes, or purchase it where they could. She noted that although the degree of penalty decrease for possession of small amounts of marijuana was a separate issue, it was linked for that purpose, as a protection for the patients who would be in legal possession. She acknowledged there were not any cannabis clubs in Nevada to grow marijuana for member patients. She suggested the state could perhaps assist in the formation of clubs, and perhaps provide seeds to start crops.
Chairman Anderson requested clarification that if the bill was passed, the state’s participation of cultivating the medicinal marijuana would be eliminated and would possibly remove the fiscal note from the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani explained there would still be a slight start-up cost for the administration of the registration cards, because a state division would need to be responsible for the receipt and processing of the applications. She explained that A.B. 453 proposed to use the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDOA) to receive and process the applications, disseminate information to the State Board of Medical Examiners and the Criminal Repository, and to verify eligibility for the issuance of the registration cards. The NDOA would then pass the information to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for issuance of the registration card. Chairman Anderson clarified the passing of the bill, as it was, would not put the state in the business of growing marijuana.
Mr. Brower inquired if the Attorney General’s Office changed their position with regard to the implementation of Measure 9. Ms. Giunchigliani responded that she did not believe Frankie Sue Del Papa, the Attorney General, had changed her position on the issue. They had agreed to disagree. Ms. Giunchigliani opined the passage of Measure 9 was the will of the people, and it should be carried out.
Mr. Gary Peck, Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Southern Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 453. He disclosed that in general, the ACLU opposed laws that criminalized the cultivation, possession, and use or delivery of marijuana, for a variety of what he opined to be sound public policy and philosophical issues. He asserted that such laws diverted the resources, money, time, and manpower from the enforcement of laws against what he felt were more serious crimes that threatened public safety. He stated the recommendation from the Rose Commission to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana was a sound statement that echoed the opinions of many people throughout the country. He mentioned that at least 24 professional medical associations, which included the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine, publicly supported the prescriptive access to marijuana. He stated that too many physicians and patients remained vulnerable to serious penalties up to and including imprisonment, and were unable to alleviate unnecessary suffering. He urged the committee to pass the enabling legislation, A.B. 453, with limited state involvement.
Mr. Ulrich Smith, former appointed member of the Rose Commission, former member of the Criminal Justice Committee, private defense attorney, and former Clark County Prosecutor, testified in support of A.B. 453. He summarized that the Rose Commission evaluated the possible degree of penalty decrease for possession of small amounts of marijuana, and being under the influence of a controlled substance. They concluded that such degree of penalty decrease would result in the savings of over $1 million in Clark County alone from reductions in jail time, court time, et cetera. He also cited that 95 percent of the states in the United States of America treated possession of small amounts of marijuana, and being under the influence of a controlled substance, as misdemeanors, or not as a crime at all. He expressed that the Rose Commission strongly supported and recommended the degree of penalty decrease provisions of A.B. 453. He presented Exhibit HH about drug courts.
Mr. Brower inquired how typical first-time offenders of possession of small amounts of marijuana were treated in the state’s court systems. Mr. Smith explained that 98 percent or more of the first-time offenders would have the charges reduced to a misdemeanor, and would receive a small fine of approximately $200 or $300, and would possibly be ordered to treatment, dependent upon the court.
Doctor Richard Siegel, Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno, and President of the American Civil Liberties Union, testified in support of the degree of penalty provisions of A.B. 453. He explained to the committee that the theory that marijuana was a gateway to other drugs had been debunked by research performed over the last ten years. People who drank alcohol had a much larger chance of proceeding to harder, more lethal drugs. He stressed the decriminalization of possession of marijuana was the prevailing movement throughout the country. He noted California and Arizona passed legislation to decriminalize the first and second drug offenses. He cited 14 states had voted in support of medicinal marijuana. He stated that the public recognized that millions of dollars were wasted on the prosecution of minor drug offenses. He attributed the statistics to the state’s felony level charges for the use and possession of marijuana. He also pointed out the first-time offenders of the use and/or possession of small amounts of marijuana, were charged as felonies in the rural counties.
Mr. Brower inquired what the statistics were for such convictions of first-time offenders for use and/or possession of small amounts of marijuana. Dr. Siegel explained he did not have the official statistics but he was referring to instances of persons who approached him from locations such as Elko and Nye Counties. He emphasized such persons represented an inequity of justice when charged as felons for their first offense. He also called the committee’s attention to the revocation of parole for possession and/or use of marijuana. He recommended that the state review such provisions to prevent an overabundance of revocations of parole for the possession and/or use of marijuana, because such revocations were increasing in number, thus increasing the prison population and need for new prisons.
Chairman Anderson thanked the witnesses. Written testimony was accepted in lieu of oral testimony from Mr. Kendall Stagg, Northern Nevada Coordinator, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, in support of the bill (Exhibit II), along with written testimony from Ms. Juanita Cox, People to Protect America, (Exhibit JJ). The Chair then called for witnesses in opposition of A.B. 453.
Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in opposition of Section 37 of A.B. 453, with regard to the degree of penalty decrease for possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. She opined the propaganda that belittled marijuana in comparison to alcohol was spread by drug cartels since the 1960s. She stated the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, THC, was strongly fat-soluble, but could not dissolve in water or blood, so it would be stored in the fatty tissues of the body for several weeks. She explained that the THC would gradually be released back into the blood, and users would slip into a state of continuous sedation. The steady presence of THC in the blood damaged the brain, lungs, immune system, hormones, chromosomes, reproductive system, and sexual development. The frequent user would thus become “passive and devoid of personal ambition.” She stressed the most important point was that the user would be unaware of the effects.
Ms. Hansen disclosed her comments were limited to the illegal use of marijuana, not to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. She stated the content of THC in illegal marijuana was up to 25 percent more potent than it had been in the past. She explained in the 1960s the content of THC in marijuana rarely exceeded 1 percent. Today, the content of THC in marijuana was typically 12 percent to 25 percent. She mentioned that the research performed by Doctor Robert Heath, a world-renowned brain researcher, illustrated the drastic effect of marijuana on the brain. She said that Dr. Heath proved the effect of marijuana on the brain made it one of the most dangerous drugs available. She stated that the use of marijuana, which put users into a constant state of sedation, made users vulnerable to the use of cocaine and heroin. She opined that without marijuana use, the market for cocaine and heroin would disappear as addicts died.
Ms. Hansen encouraged the committee to consider the continuation of drug programs for users of marijuana when reviewing the degree of penalty decrease for the possession and use of marijuana. She called their attention to line 7 of page 14 of the bill, which made drug treatment applicable only on the second offense. She encouraged more treatment, rehabilitation, and restitution programs to assist persons to rehabilitate. She submitted for the record an article from the Nevada Families Voter Guide for the year 2000 election, which contained the statistics and information quoted throughout her testimony (Exhibit KK).
Chairman Anderson then called for any other persons to testify in opposition to A.B. 453.
Mr. Floyd Krebbs, a concerned citizen, stated that Section 24 of A.B. 453 was too lenient. He opined that if a person violated any part of the chapter, they should be prohibited from ever obtaining or using a registry identification card, they should not be limited to just six months. He noted the persons who would use medicinal marijuana would be in a debilitated state that would require some sort of assistance for self-defense. He specifically encouraged the committee to combine the registry card with the driver’s license to simplify the process, and allow legal users to grow their own marijuana plants. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Krebbs’ opinion of whether the presence of firearms in public, when combined with the psychedelic nature of marijuana, would present a dangerous and unusual situation. Mr. Krebbs explained that persons who were debilitated by cancer and other illnesses needed an equalizer, such as a firearm, for their protection, whether at home or in the public.
Chairman Anderson explained that A.B. 453 did not prohibit persons from possessing firearms. The bill stipulated that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes could not be used as a defense for the unlawful possession of a firearm.
Ms. Gemma Greene-Waldron, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, disclosed that she had indicated a neutral position when she signed in, but was actually against A.B. 453. She referred the committee to an e-mail sent to the committee by Richard Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney, with regard to the prescription drug, Marinol. The District Attorney’s Office opined that Marinol synthesized the effects of marijuana for medicinal purposes; therefore, the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes was not necessary. She pointed out that the United States Supreme Court was reviewing the issue of legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and could possibly rule that states were not allowed to legalize such use for medicinal purposes. She cited the practice of prosecution for the first offense of possession and/or use of marijuana in Washoe County was to treat it as a misdemeanor. If there was a criminal history of drug use, it would then be charged as a felony. She stated that it was classified as a Category E offense, which mandated probation. She also noted that in Washoe County the drug court was an option. She declared that they believed marijuana was a gateway drug despite previous testimony, and that the persons in possession or use of marijuana may need to appear in a drug court to address their problems. She stated the bill’s provisions to make such possession and/or use of marijuana a misdemeanor would preclude the availability of drug court. She stated, from her experience as a two-time cancer survivor and loss of 100 pounds during the battles, that she never felt the use of marijuana was necessary. She recognized the will of the people had been spoken, and that opposition might be futile, but she wanted her personal opposition to be recorded.
Mr. Carpenter recommended that mandatory treatment for first-time offenders of the possession and/or use of marijuana, be included in A.B. 453. Ms. Waldron stated that it would be a drastic improvement of the bill. She recommended the evaluation of the first-time offender of possession and/or use of marijuana should be made to determine if a problem of drug abuse was present. Mr. Carpenter opined that the evaluation would perhaps relieve someone from responsibility of his or her actions, and that the option of drug court and possible private treatment should be mandatory.
The Chair re-called Ms. Giunchigliani to address the concerns expressed with regard to A.B. 453. She noted that the bill split money between drug courts and metropolitan and rehabilitation businesses, to ensure rural counties that did not have drug courts would be provided for. She cited that the judges had requested judicial discretion and flexibility for first-time offenders of possession and/or use of marijuana, which was why mandatory treatment was specified for the second offense, but not the first. Chairman Anderson noted the committee was of the opinion to not issue judges a great deal of flexibility. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified treatment was not precluded for the first offense, just not mandatory.
Mr. Carpenter opined that the judges “should maintain the discretion to absolutely order treatment” for first-time offenders of possession and/or use of marijuana.
Ms. Kristine Jensen testified in opposition to A.B. 453. She inquired how many “joints” were required throughout the day to obtain the effectiveness of the medicinal marijuana, and what the effects of such use were. She also inquired as to the necessity and effectiveness of THC, as well as the start-up costs of the state cultivation plan. She asked how the state would control the personal growth of marijuana plants, as well as the potency of such plants. She summarized that the issue of whether marijuana was a gateway drug had not yet been concluded.
Mr. James Kroshus testified against A.B. 453 with regard to the issue that marijuana was a gateway drug. He compared the prohibition of marijuana to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. He cited alcohol was a “gateway drug,” it was a causative effect of spousal abuse, drunk driving, divorce, and irresponsibility. He indicated that the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes was not necessarily the right and moral thing to do, even though voters overwhelmingly supported it.
Chairman Anderson called for any other persons who wished to testify with regard to A.B. 453. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 453.
Mr. Carpenter stated his position of support for the mandatory treatment of offenders of possession and/or use of drugs in all instances, to prevent repeat offenders. Chairman Anderson explained judicial discretion would not be left open by the passing of A.B. 453. He clarified that the committee could safely proceed with an amend and do pass motion for the bill without jeopardizing the treatment of offenders of possession and/or use of drugs. Ms. Buckley requested the bill be assigned to a work session. She expressed her wish for the research of the effective date of the bill to possibly coincide with the future Supreme Court decision, in order to address technicalities. Chairman Anderson assigned A.B. 453 to the work session on April 12, 2001.
Assembly Bill 496: Provides for recognition of reciprocal beneficiary relationships. (BDR 11-1283)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 496. He informed the committee and the audience that not everybody who wanted to speak in support and opposition to the bill would be heard. There were far too many people to speak and not enough time.
Assemblyman David Parks, Assembly District 41, introduced his bill, which provided legal recognition of “reciprocal beneficiary relationships,” A.B. 496. He informed the committee that nearly half of all marriages ended in divorce, and that most individuals lived long distances from family members. He explained that he had a friend by the name of “Lee,” who was very ill and needed surgery for an aneurysm. He was separated from his family and had lost contact with his son. Mr. Parks explained that if “Lee” hadn’t falsified his admission papers by listing Mr. Parks as a nephew and emergency contact, “Lee” would not have been able to receive any visitors while he was in the hospital. Mr. Parks offered the committee another example of an elderly woman who had a modest estate. Her wish was, upon her demise, that the remainder of her estate be set aside for her granddaughter’s education. She attempted to ensure that her wishes would be followed by preparing a will that excluded her drug-addicted daughter. While her estate was in probate after her death, her daughter immediately took possession of her assets, sold everything she could, and used the proceeds to buy drugs. Her granddaughter, who was the intended recipient of the estate, only received a small insurance policy as a result.
Mr. Parks stated that A.B. 496 briefly provided for recognition of reciprocal beneficiary relationships, where two individuals may designate each other to act in the best interests of the other on several issues, when one of them could no longer do so. He explained that the bill provided similar powers as that of a durable power of attorney for health care, or a living will. He stated that neither the durable power of attorney for health care, nor the living will were required to be formally filed or recorded with any agency, just notarized. A.B. 496 permitted state and local agencies to provide dependent medical benefits to persons who were in reciprocal beneficiary relationships, and were in compliance with other requirements established by the public agency, at their discretion. He dispelled the argument that A.B. 496 attempted to redefine “family” or “spouse.” He opined that it simply created another definition that “addressed the unmet needs of today’s society.” He stated that several legal documents addressed specific needs, but had limited applications, and only covered situations in a “haphazard, patchwork manner.”
He summarized Sections 3 through 6 of the bill were definitions. Section 7 through Section 11 provided the guidelines to the conditions under which reciprocal beneficiary relationships would qualify, and required the Attorney General to adopt forms and regulations. Sections 13 and 14 addressed the dismissal from jury duty for persons to care for the other person with whom they had a reciprocal beneficiary relationship. It also allowed such persons time off from work without discrimination for the care of the person with whom they had a reciprocal beneficiary relationship.
Mr. Parks noted that the employees subsidized the employers for the employee’s dependents group health insurance coverage. He stated that he, himself, paid approximately 7.5 percent above the direct cost of his health insurance coverage, which amounted to approximately $250 per year, that was paid toward somebody else’s dependent health insurance coverage, because of the way group health insurance programs were designed. He inquired about the fairness of such practices that placed the costs of dependents’ insurance coverage upon persons without dependents. He referred to the cost comparison Clark County performed to evaluate the increase of costs to provide dependent coverage to all its employees. He cited the increased costs ranged from between $285,000 to $474,000 annually, 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent of total insurance costs. He described the actual increase of costs for programs that covered employee’s dependents were between 1.2 percent and 1.5 percent. In closing his testimony, Mr. Parks quoted an editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal (Exhibit LL), which stated that A.B. 496 was both “sensible and compassionate.” It summarized that the bill “acknowledged, without the imposition of major mandates on private businesses, the law should not discriminate against unmarried couples by prohibiting them from enforcing contracts, and from making key decisions about the health and welfare of their partners.” It urged the passage of A.B. 496.
Mr. Manendo inquired if the article quoted was submitted as part of the record. Chairman Anderson officially admitted the editorial article from the Las Vegas Review Journal into the record (Exhibit LL), at Mr. Manendo’s request. Mr. Parks also submitted his prepared testimony for the record (Exhibit MM).
Ms. Ohrenschall requested clarification of page 3, lines 3 through 8, of A.B. 496. Mr. Parks explained that that portion of the bill referenced subsections “a” through “d,” and appeared to be part of the definition.
Chairman Anderson recognized Ms. Pam Roberts, Nevada Women’s Lobby. He informed her that the committee had received her written testimony (Exhibit NN). Ms. Roberts disclosed that she was appearing on behalf of the Nevada Women’s Lobby, and not in her capacity as a Deputy Attorney General. In light of the limited time, she informed the committee she would summarize her written testimony by highlighting a few points. She explained that her written testimony outlined how A.B. 496 would extend statutes that were already in existence to cover persons who were in reciprocal beneficiary relationships. She also submitted to the committee a letter of support of A.B. 496 from Mr. Henry Cavallerra, a lawyer who practiced law in the areas of wills, trusts, estates, and elder rights (Exhibit OO). The letter urged the committee to do pass A.B. 496.
Ms. Roberts stated that documents such as wills and durable powers of attorney for health care decisions, did not address all of the rights, benefits, and obligations that were included in A.B. 496. She noted that many adults did not execute either of the documents because to do so forced them to contemplate death or serious illness. She described that she had conducted informal polls that showed less than 50 percent of adults had executed either or both a will or durable power of attorney for health care decisions.
Ms. Roberts mentioned that the statutes provided protection to persons who were married, or members of immediate family. She explained that A.B. 496 extended some of the same compassionate and humanitarian protection to unmarried people that were already provided through statutes to persons who were married, or members of immediate family.
Ms. Roberts stated that A.B. 496 would benefit seniors. She described that many elderly persons outlived their spouses and children. She noted that not everybody in Nevada chose, or was able to marry, the person that he or she loved. She explained that many heterosexual elderly couples chose not to remarry. Some did not remarry to avoid the social security penalty for married couples, while others did not remarry to avoid upsetting their adult children, or had personal or religious reasons for not remarrying.
Ms. Roberts stated the recognition of reciprocal beneficiary relationships did not diminish marriage. She noted the bill specified that if either member of a reciprocal beneficiary relationship became lawfully married, the reciprocal beneficiary relationship automatically dissolved. It still honored the sanctity of marriage. She described a situation where she had to explain prejudice, hate, and bigotry to her sons. She told her sons that “the leaders are the ones who could make it change.” She stated that Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that all men would be treated equal, that hate, bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice would not continue. She noted the dream was still unfulfilled, and urged the committee to continue in the pursuit of equality by the passage of A.B. 496.
Ms. Nancy Meredith, registered nurse, testified in support of A.B. 496. She read from her prepared testimony (Exhibit PP). She described situations of unmarried couples where the significant others had no input and were not allowed information concerning their partner’s health and could not assist in the decisions made with regard to their partner. She explained in one case, the significant other’s body was turned over to the coroner and treated as an “unclaimed body,” although the partner, who had no legal rights, knew the wishes of their significant other. She said situations like this occurred every day in health care. Passage of A.B. 496 was necessary to provide basic legal rights and compassion to couples and friends who cared for each other in unmarried relationships. She stated, “Public policy should serve the best interests of all people, regardless of marital status.”
Ms. Christiana Bratiotis, Executive Director, Northern Nevada Region of National Conference for Community Injustice (NCCJ), testified in support of A.B. 496 to recognize reciprocal beneficiary relationships. She explained the passage of the bill would promote respect and understanding among all people and would make America a better place for everyone. She stated the passage of A.B. 496 would enhance cooperation among all citizens and would represent a more comprehensive attempt to provide equal access of civil rights to all. She urged the committee to do pass A.B. 496.
Reverend Doctor Phil Hansknecht, Ordained Minister, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and President of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 496. He stated that the church obviously encouraged marriage to strengthen the bonds of family and society to establish order. He recognized the protections of responsible freedoms, such as committed relationships outside of marriage. He noted the several reasons why persons would choose relationships other than marriage. Some of those reasons were based on economics, religion, and lifetime commitments to faith and service. He stated that judgments with regard to the reasons were less important than the freedom for people to choose such relationships. He opined that persons “should be allowed to have such freedoms consistent with good public order and responsible order.” He stated they should also receive protections that applied to all citizens in circumstances such as marriage. He noted that A.B. 496 would provide such protections to people who declared reciprocal beneficiary relationships. He explained the basic rights included in A.B. 496 should apply to all persons in committed relationships. He emphasized the strong support of A.B. 496 by the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Nevada, which also strongly encouraged marriage.
Reverend Valerie A. Garrick, Pastor, Northwest Community Church, United Church of Christ, Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 496. She read from prepared testimony (Exhibit QQ), which portrayed the importance of legislation to provide justice and compassion to all people, and recognized that not all committed relationships were related through blood or marriage. She stated that A.B. 496 “would harm no one, nor take benefits away or threaten the benefits of anyone, but would benefit many constituents who lived in the realistic family structures of today.”
Mr. Mark Nichols, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, member of the Executive Committee of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), testified in support of A.B. 496. He read from his prepared testimony (Exhibit RR) and expressed the importance of legislation to recognize the basic legal rights of persons in committed relationships, and to extend to them several of the protections and benefits, that married persons enjoyed. He described the injustice of such discrimination to people who were in committed relationships, simply because they were not married. He urged the committee to do pass A.B. 496 and correct the social injustice.
Mr. James Richardson, concerned citizen, testified in support of A.B. 496. He explained that the Board of Regents discussed the possible provision of health insurance benefits to persons other than spouses and children. He described the basic humanity of the bill. He noted the need of the state to recognize reciprocal beneficiary relationships, for competitiveness. He stressed the need for the ability of the state to provide benefits to persons other than spouses and children. He mentioned the university lost several potential employees who were more than qualified for the positions for which they applied, due to the inability to provide such benefits. He referred to page 6, Section 25, of A.B. 496, which would allow public subdivisions to provide dependent health insurance to persons in a reciprocal beneficiary relationship, if they so chose. He urged the committee to pass A.B. 496.
Chairman Anderson called for any further testimony in support of A.B. 496. Since there was none, he called for testimony from persons in opposition of A.B. 496. He then announced the order in which he intended to call persons to testify.
Ms. Becky Harris, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada, summarized that the passage of A.B. 496 would produce approximately ten benefits. Included in those ten benefits would be intestate succession, ability to make funeral arrangements, anatomical gifts, civil action recoveries, compensation for benefits, potential insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, burial rights, employer leave for immediate family illness, and leave from jury duty to care for immediate family illness. She opined that all but three of the benefits, which were the excuse from jury duty, employer leave for immediate family illness, and compensation for certain victims of criminal acts, were covered by other means such as wills, trusts, durable powers of attorney for health care decisions, and durable powers of attorney. She explained the options that were already in place were sufficient to provide for all persons, regardless of sexual preferences or family relationships. She stated durable powers of attorney for health care decisions, were executed. She noted that hospitals in Clark County provided documents for durable powers of attorney for health care decisions free of charge for any persons who were admitted to the hospital. She referred to Section 28 of A.B. 496, which regarded hospital visitation rights. She explained that NRS 449.720 already governed hospital visitation rights. She summarized that it gave the patient the authority to consent to the presence of anybody who was not directly involved in his or her medical care. She concluded her testimony and stated that under the bill, the potential for abuse, fraud, and waste was exponential.
Chairman Anderson accepted into the record a packet submitted by Mr. Richard Ziser, Chairman, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada. Mr. Ziser testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He stated that over 70 percent of the voters in the state of Nevada supported the amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to be between a male and female. He asserted that A.B. 496, with the parameters that established a reciprocal beneficiary relationship and the benefits it entailed, attempted to redefine “immediate family.” He opined that the reciprocal beneficiary relationship partner was placed in equal status to a “spouse.” He stated the bill would make reciprocal beneficiary relationships even more broad than “marriage.” He referred the committee to the portion of his exhibit, entitled “Homosexuality and Hope: Statement of the Catholic Medical Association,” to address the comments of bigotry, hatefulness, and intolerance (Exhibit SS). He strongly urged the committee to not pass A.B. 496.
Ms. Buckley referred to page 2, second paragraph, of Exhibit SS, and inquired how a patient would be able to declare persons to visit them. She commented that upon review of NRS 449.720 she did not understand how it would allow a patient to designate persons to visit; just rights to privacy, which she opined, would not include the right of the patient to designate visitors. Mr. Ziser recognized the inadequacy of the statute to provide the patient with the authority to designate persons allowed to visit them. He recommended that the statute could be amended without the passage of A.B. 496 by adding language such as, “receive within reasonable restrictions, visitors of his choosing, including without limitation, friends and family members.” He cautioned however, that amendments to visitation rights could impede upon the hospital’s own policies. Ms. Buckley clarified that Mr. Ziser supported the hospital visitation rights, just without the term “reciprocal beneficiary.” Mr. Ziser further clarified “without the creation of the new entity.”
Ms. Harris clarified her reference to NRS 449.720 was to the last line of Section 4 of the statute, which stated, “The patient must consent to the presence of any person who is not directly involved with his care during any examination, consultation or treatment.” She opined it would allow the patient to consent to anybody’s presence, as they chose. Chairman Anderson clarified the statute would, at the least, raise the argument that the patient could choose their own visitors, yet it did not guarantee the patient’s right to do so. He noted it would still be subject to the doctor’s approval or objections based upon his medical protocol.
Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. She informed the committee that in 1989 she had been an elected delegate to the White House Conference on Families. She stated that it was her first experience with legal attempts to change the definition of family. She declared the definition of family in Nevada law had been tested by time. She explained her concerns with the bill were based on a foundation of compassion and love. She opined future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy the love of a family, which included the love shared between husbands and wives, and parents and children. She stressed that there were alternative means to achieve the goals attempted by A.B. 496 without jeopardizing the definition of “family.”
Mr. John Wagner, Representative of the Nevada Republican Assembly, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He stated the organization was a partisan political organization, which supported and opposed bills regardless of their origination. He opined that A.B. 496 was a direct attack on Question 2, the measure that amended the definition of marriage in the state constitution, which was supported by 70 percent of the voters. He stated that the purpose of the bill seemed to be to distort the will of the people. He proclaimed the bill was an attack on the family itself and urged the committee to vote against A.B. 496. Chairman Anderson explained the legislature typically waited for a measure to pass the public vote twice before it would be mandated in the law.
Mr. V. Robert Payant, Executive Director of the Nevada Catholic Conference, and Catholic Legislative Liaison for the Diocese of Reno and the Diocese of Las Vegas, referred the committee to the written statement of opposition to A.B. 496, submitted on behalf of the Nevada Catholic Conference (Exhibit TT). He opined that it would be unwise and a detriment to the state to add a new legal entity, as A.B. 496 would, by the creation of the reciprocal beneficiary relationship. He noted that most religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, believed marriage was the basis of society. They did not want anything done that would damage the “basic building block of our society.” He stated the church felt the bill infringed upon the definition of “spouse” by creating an equivalent, “reciprocal beneficiary.” He explained most of the benefits that the bill attempted to establish were already available through other means. He raised the concerns of dissolution of the relationship through an affidavit. The joint property that the reciprocal beneficiaries would accumulate with each other would not be so easily divided through the filing of an affidavit. He opined that a tribunal, similar to divorce courts, might need to be established if A.B. 496 was passed.
Mr. Brower inquired if Mr. Payant’s position was that the goals A.B. 496 attempted to meet could be obtained elsewhere through other legal mechanisms. Mr. Payant summarized that the benefits could be obtained through existing law, or amendments to existing law. He noted that the structures to achieve the benefits were already in place in Nevada law. He asserted that the intestate laws did not have to be changed because wills, durable powers of attorney, and trusts, would specify the succession of estates.
Mr. James L. Dunn testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He stated that it was an attempt to legalize “same sex marriages,” by renaming it “reciprocal beneficiary relationships.” He stressed the financial impact of the bill had not yet been determined and cautioned the committee of the possible unintended repercussions of the bill, should it be passed. He urged the committee to not pass A.B. 496.
Mr. William H. Stoddard, Attorney, Spokesman and Bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, testified in opposition of A.B. 496. He expressed his concerns that the bill attempted to create a new legal entity, much like the state of marriage. He opined that the church doctrine declared that, “Marriage between a man and a woman was ordained of God, and the family was central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of his children.” As an attorney and church leader, he stated the strong marital relationships between a husband and wife, man and woman, was pivotal to raise a just and responsible society. He concluded that the church bore no ill will toward homosexuals, but did not want the basic relationship, that was the “core of society,” to be endangered by the creation of reciprocal beneficiary relationships. He urged the committee to not pass A.B. 496.
Ms. Joy Kendall, concerned citizen and President, Cunningham Elementary Parents and Teachers Association (PTA), testified against A.B. 496. She opined that “family” should not be redefined. She noted that reciprocal beneficiary relationships did not appear to require the relationship to be between two people. She indicated the partner in the reciprocal beneficiary relationship could be someone or something other than a human being, if one so chose.
Mr. Bill Brady, concerned citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. Mr. Brady read from his prepared testimony, which praised the committee for their representation of the voters (Exhibit UU). He stressed that it was the responsibility of the committee to carry through the spirit of the vote from November of 2000 to protect marriage and keep it limited between a man and a woman. He stated, “Traditional marriage should not be tampered with in any way.” He opined that A.B. 496 was an attempt to get around the Protection of Marriage Act of 2000, and the will of the people. He urged the committee to honor the voters that they represented and vote against A.B. 496.
Mr. Ken Zang, concerned citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He quoted Paul the Apostle from Romans 1:24 in the Bible.
Mr. William K. Errico, Esquire, who practiced insurance law, testified in opposition to A.B. 496. He indicated that it would have an extreme, economical impact on insurance companies. He stated that one of the problems that the bill would create was difficulties with adverse selection. He explained that a person, who was already ill, would be able to enter into a reciprocal beneficiary relationship for the sole purpose of becoming eligible under somebody’s health coverage; that would place an unfair and heavy financial burden upon the remainder of the group health insurance participants.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 496. He informed the audience that written testimony would be accepted after the meeting for persons who did not have the opportunity to testify. A letter from Becky Maddox, concerned citizen, was accepted without testimony after the hearing (Exhibit VV). Chairman Anderson recessed the committee until 11:25 a.m.
Assembly Bill 429: Makes various changes concerning protection of children from abuse and neglect. (BDR 38-294)
Chairman Anderson reconvened the committee at 11:30 a.m. and opened the hearing on A.B. 429. He declared that a quorum was present.
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District 39, introduced his bill, A.B. 429. He provided some background of the reason the bill was requested. He indicated that Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, diligently assisted him in attempts to resolve problems with regard to the lack of finances of a family from whom their son was removed, due to concerns of abuse and neglect. Mr. Hettrick explained that the system proved to be inaccessible to families that diligently worked to reunite but lacked the funds to obtain an attorney. He summarized that the purpose of the bill was to assist willing parents in the pursuit to obtain due process and reunite their families, by the provision of reports from the DCFS, with regard to their children and the alleged abuse and/or neglect.
Mr. Hettrick informed the committee that he had submitted some proposed amendments to A.B. 429. He described that Section 2 of the bill, pages 1 and 2, required reports be made available to the parents or guardians, or their attorneys, 72 hours before the hearing. He explained a common practice appeared to be that the parents would be given reports at the hearing with little or no time to review the report, to rebut it in court. Mr. Hettrick stated that due to tight court schedules, the system would continue with a hearing despite the inability of parents or guardians to effectively defend themselves. The system did not allow for the parents or guardians to have the time to review the reports with regard to the alleged neglect or abuse of their child. Mr. Hettrick indicated that he consulted many judges with regard to the bill. The responses he received indicated the bill ensured due process, gave judges the authority to enforce the provisions of the reports within 72 hours of the hearing, and prevented needless and excess continuances.
Mr. Hettrick summarized that Section 3 of the bill assured the availability of transcripts to parents. He explained that parents, who were using public defenders, were already lacking in funds and could not afford a copy of the transcripts. He indicated the inability to obtain transcripts often directly resulted in the inability of the parents to effectively provide their defense, and the inability to appeal to the court to recover the custody of their child. He stressed the importance of the ability for a parent to be able to utilize the system, despite their financial position.
He called the committee’s attention to page 2, line 10, of A.B. 429. He explained the provision to limit persons who could obtain a copy of the transcripts and/or sound recordings of proceedings to the parent or guardian, or their attorney, was to exclude a non-custodial parent from obtaining the transcripts and/or recordings to prevent their use in a possible custody dispute. The section also provided for the board of county commissioners to set sliding scale fees for the transcripts and sound recordings of proceedings that would be based upon the parents’ or guardians’ ability to pay. It provided that if the parent or guardian could not pay anything, they would still receive a copy of the transcript and/or sound recording, and the fees would be charged to the county in which the proceedings were held.
Mr. Hettrick explained that the remaining sections of the bill amended the chapter to reflect the additions of Sections 2 and 3. Page 4 allowed for the attorney to obtain the reports for the parents or guardians. He described that Section 7, on page 5 of A.B. 429, was to be deleted from the bill as noted in the proposed amendments (Exhibit WW). He stated that its content was already included in the law, and that it was not necessary to be included in the bill if the proposed amendments (Exhibit WW and Exhibit XX) were accepted. He described that Section 8 added references to Section 2.
He called the committee’s attention to Section 9, page 6, lines 7 through 11, of the bill. He explained the law required a semiannual hearing to be held with regard to the placement of a child with someone other than a parent, pursuant to NRS 432B.550. Section 9 would change the law to require such a hearing be held every 90 days, rather than semiannually. He noted that the federal law required a case to be completed within a year. Several participants regularly attempted to have hearings held every 90 days, to monitor the progress of the case. He indicated that the proposed amendment, Exhibit XX, would amend page 6, Section 9, line 11, of the bill.
Mr. Hettrick referred the committee to page 9, lines 48 and 49, and page 10, lines 1 through 4. He explained that it reflected the changes of the fees of the transcripts and sound recordings of proceedings, as addressed by Section 3 of the bill. Chairman Anderson clarified that Mr. Hettrick had already discussed the proposed amendments to the bill with Mr. Shaw and the Division of Child and Family Services. Mr. Hettrick verified that he had shared the proposed amendments with them and other interested parties, who indicated their support of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Hettrick referred the committee to the first proposed amendment (Exhibit WW) that included a provision of the reports or information to the extent possible no later than 72 hours before the proceeding, in recognition that the reports or information were not always written. It also stated that the provision of the reports or information no later than 72 hours before the proceedings include proceedings held pursuant to NRS 432B.410 through 432B.465, inclusively, and NRS 432B.500 through 432B.590, inclusively, rather than to apply only to proceedings held pursuant to NRS 432B.500. Chairman Anderson inquired if it allowed the practice, with regard to the first hearing, to remain as it stood. Mr. Hettrick clarified that it would allow the practices with regard to the first hearing to remain as they stood. He also reiterated that if the first proposed amendment from Exhibit WW was accepted, Section 7 of A.B. 429 would no longer be necessary and should be removed from the bill.
Mr. Hettrick explained the change of language in the proposed amendment to Section 9 of A.B. 429, Exhibit XX, was made to prevent a significant fiscal note from being assigned to the bill. Rather than mandating that a hearing be held every 90 days, the proposed amendment would provide for the hearing to be held every 90 days, upon the request of a party. He explained that the proposed amendment included the language “semiannually and may be reviewed in 90 days upon the request of a party.” He explained that he would rather have the word “may” changed to “must.” Mr. Hettrick mentioned he had discussed the particular change with Mr. Shaw, who indicated it would be acceptable. Chairman Anderson inquired if the change of language from “may” to “must” would keep the hefty fiscal note attached to the bill. Mr. Hettrick opined that it would not, because if the court ordered the hearing to be held every 90 days, the DCFS would be required to attend the hearing anyway, therefore the fiscal impact would not be as extreme as it would be if all proceedings were mandated to occur every 90 days. He stressed that the “every 90 days” review would only apply upon a party’s request; it would not be mandated.
Ms. Buckley inquired if the provisions could include the children’s attorney when there was one. Mr. Hettrick stated he had absolutely no reservations about including the children’s attorney into the provisions of the bill, where they would apply. He explained that the intent of the bill was to apply due process to all. Chairman Anderson inquired if the change of language from “may” to “must” corresponded with the Legal Division’s guidelines. Ms. Lang responded that it would be compliant; that it was simply a policy choice, whether to make the language discretionary or not.
Chairman Anderson called upon Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, to testify with regard to the bill. Mr. Shaw declared his neutral position toward A.B. 429. He explained the change of language, that would require a hearing to be held every 90 days upon request, would not pose a significant fiscal impact on the DCFS. He indicated that if it were to be mandated for every case to be heard every 90 days, it would most definitely have a significant fiscal impact. He stated that he had no objection to Ms. Buckley’s request to include the provisions of the bill to also apply to the children’s attorneys.
Mr. John C. Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, testified with regard to A.B. 429. He requested that the bill be amended to include all attorneys who were involved in the proceedings be included under the provisions to receive the reports prior to the hearing. He did not want it limited to only the parents or guardians or their attorneys. He indicated that he wanted all the parties involved to receive a copy of the reports and/or information. He opined that it would not add any significant fiscal impact to the bill. Chairman Anderson inquired if the current language of the bill did not require the attorneys to receive a copy of the report and/or information. Mr. Morrow clarified that the language of the bill required the report and/or information to be provided to the parent or guardian, or to their attorney. The language “or” should be changed to “and” to ensure that the attorney would also receive a copy of the report and/or information. He also stated that the language should be changed to include Ms. Buckley’s request to include the provision of the report and/or information to the children’s attorney as well.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the language to be changed by Mr. Morrow’s request would be Section 2 of the proposed amendments (Exhibit WW). The changes would occur in the phrase, “To each parent or guardian of the child who is the subject of the proceeding, or to the attorney of each parent or guardian, not later than 72 hours before the proceeding.” The language of “or” would be changed to “and” to include of the parties, not to restrict it to one of the parties. Mr. Morrow requested the language be included in both Section 2 and Section 3, to ensure that the provision was clear. He expressed his appreciation that the time line was included in the bill. However, he requested the time line be extended to allow more than 72 hours. He indicated that the judges had requested the reports be provided 10 days before the proceedings. He stated that the provision of the reports would be preferred to occur at least 10 days before the proceedings, but would appreciate 72 hours before the proceedings, if it were the committee’s wish.
Ms. Buckley inquired how Section 3 of the bill would affect the policy considerations to not have a child testify against a parent, to prevent problems if reunification would occur. She noted that several judges would videotape a meeting in chambers with the child during proceedings. Mr. Morrow could not sufficiently answer the question. Mr. Hettrick opined that page 2, lines 12 through 13, addressed the issue. He stated the specific language “transcript of the proceeding if: (a) Such a copy is available or could be made available,” would not include a videotape. He opined that the videotape would not be made available, which would keep the bill from infringing upon the court’s policies of consideration in such matters.
Ms. Buckley clarified that judges typically heard from children in abuse and neglect cases, which would bring the issues into effect by the bill. She expressed her concerns with the provisions of transcripts, et cetera, of a child’s discussion with a judge being made available to the parents or guardians. She opined that it could interfere with the reunification of the families, and that it might place an undue burden of responsibility for the separation of the family upon the child. Mr. Hettrick recommended that language be added that would provide protection from such testimony of the child being disclosed to the parent.
Ms. McClain expressed her concerns with the granting of continuances. She inquired what the fate of the child was while the continuances were granted. Mr. Morrow stated that the issue raised was a continuous problem. He explained that the first hearings, which were to occur within 72 hours, were frequently continued. He mentioned petition hearings were almost always continued for a range of approximately five days to two weeks, because people were usually not aware that they could have representation until the time of the hearing. He noted that the child would remain under whatever care was established during that time.
Ms. McClain stated her concern with the bill, was that it would delay the permanency of the child involved. She also cited the possibility of abuse of the provisions, to purposely prevent the permanent plan of the child from being completed. Mr. Morrow responded that the reports covered by the bill were limited to the reports that would apply to the hearings that were already established. He noted if a hearing was set for 6 months or 90 days, the DCFS would already be aware of the date of the hearing, and would be required to have the report prepared by the set deadline. Ms. McClain inquired why it was necessary to make the provision to allow the parties to request a continuance. Mr. Morrow explained that there were no firm schedules set for when the reports would be delivered, as was included in the bill. He described that it was not uncommon to receive reports at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing that would be held that afternoon.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the purpose of A.B. 429 was to set a clear schedule for when events would take place, so that persons would have a reasonable expectation of having documents, and the court to make a determination in a clear and timely manner. Mr. Morrow agreed. Chairman Anderson indicated that the bill would statutorily “set a time line for certain events to happen in the regular court process.” Mr. Morrow responded in the affirmative. Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Morrow’s assistance with any amendments to the bill, if necessary.
Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in support of A.B. 429. She stated that upon passage, A.B. 429 would serve the interests of justice by allowing the whole truth to be heard. She recommended the language “unless the court deems the release of such a tape or transcript is not in the best interest of the child,” to be inserted after Section 3, subsection (c). She opined that the language might resolve the concerns raised by Ms. Buckley, of the release of information that could damage the relationships between the parents or guardians and the children.
Chairman Anderson called for further testimony with regard to A.B. 429. There being none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 429. He assigned the bill to the work session on Monday, April 16, 2001. He indicated the proposed amendments would be discussed and possibly compiled. Ms. Ohrenschall requested careful consideration to be exercised when amending the language to ensure that the intention of the bill to provide everyone’s documentation would remain. Chairman Anderson summarized the various proposed amendments to be considered in preparation of the work session.
Assembly Bill 585: Makes various changes to provisions concerning domestic violence and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substances. (BDR 15-514)
Chairman Anderson brought the committee’s attention to A.B. 585, which was heard by the committee on Friday, April 6, 2001. He summarized that the bill would return judicial discretion to the judges with regard to driving under the influence and domestic violence.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 585.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Anderson called for a roll call vote to be taken.
the motion passed to indefinitely postpone a.b. 585. assemblywoman angle, assemblyman collins, assemblyman gustavson, and assemblyman nolan voted against the motion. all others voted yes. assemblyman brower was not present for the vote.
Chairman Anderson verified there were nine votes in favor of the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 585, four votes against the motion, and one absent.
Assembly Bill 581: Makes various changes concerning orders for protection against domestic violence. (BDR 3-480)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 581.
Ms. Nancy E. Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, introduced A.B. 581. She referred the committee to the letter she submitted, which summarized the bill (Exhibit YY). She also submitted a letter from Patricia A. Lynch, of the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council, which stated their support of the bill (Exhibit ZZ). Chairman Anderson accepted them into the record.
Ms. Hart summarized that the purpose of the bill was to clarify provisions in NRS 33.090 with regard to registration and full faith and credit of orders for protection against domestic violence that were issued by other states, territories, or Indian tribes. She noted that the orders were often called “foreign protection orders.” She read from Exhibit YY, and explained that the full faith and credit language stemmed from the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). She mentioned it was first adopted into Nevada law in 1997, NRS 33.090, and amended in 1999 to clarify that the foreign protection order did not need to be registered in order to be given full faith and credit. The confusion remained since 1999, because the provisions governing the registration and the enforcement of the foreign protection orders were contained in the same statute. She stated that A.B. 581 would separate the registration procedures from the full faith and credit.
Ms. Hart proposed an amendment to Section 1, subsection 4, (a) and (b), to read in the alternative, “or” rather than “and,” and Section 1, subsection 5, lines 28 through 29, to read “national crime information database.” She also proposed to delete the phrase in Section 5, subsection 3(a), which read, ”For providing an application to register an order.” She explained that the phrase was not necessary because no application to register was contemplated in the law, and the language might confuse persons who used the law. She urged the committee to pass A.B. 581. Chairman Anderson inquired if the legal staff had reviewed the proposed amendments that she discussed. Ms. Hart confirmed that they had.
Ms. M. Veronica Frenkel, Domestic Violence Ombudsman, Office of the Attorney General, testified in support of A.B. 581. Ms. Frenkel read from her letter that supported the bill (Exhibit AAA) and supplemented the information submitted by Ms. Hart. Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Frenkel summarize her comments in recognition of her written document (Exhibit AAA). Ms. Frenkel explained the critical need to enforce protection orders regardless of where they originated, given the tourist nature and rapid growth of the state of Nevada. She described that law enforcement frequently requested clarification of the law, with regard to registration and enforcement of foreign protection orders. She noted that mutual orders were specifically excluded from the full faith and credit provision, because she opined that they did not serve in the interest of victim safety.
Mr. Carpenter expressed his concerns with page 2, Section 1, subsection 5, lines 26 through 31, of the bill. He opined that the provision would put a law enforcement officer into a state of confusion of whether or not to enforce the foreign protection order. Ms. Hart responded that the officer would have a document in hand, and that particular portion of A.B. 581 gave the officer the discretion to determine if the document appeared to be authentic.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the situations that would normally occur would involve an officer requested to enforce a protection order that was on file, at which point he would search the database for domestic violence to verify the order existed. However, if the person had just acquired the protection order, and it was not yet entered into the database for domestic violence, the order would still be enforceable by the presentation of the document. Chairman Anderson clarified that the provision allowed a protection order to be enforced by the officer, at his or her own discretion with regard to the authenticity, if the order had not yet appeared in the database for domestic violence. Ms. Hart agreed. She pointed out that the next paragraph, Section 1, subsection 6, provided a safeguard that issued the enforcing party immunity for actions made based upon the reasonable belief that the order was valid.
Judge Mitch Wright, Chief Judge of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Member of Nevada Full Faith and Credit Project, and Member of the Board of Directors of the National American Indian Judges Association, testified in support of A.B. 581. He expressed the need for protection orders to be enforced, regardless of arbitrary borders. He informed the committee if the bill was not passed, it would enable domestic violence perpetrators to continue their behavior.
Chairman Anderson informed the committee that a group of persons in Clark County had expressed their wish to reserve their comments and concerns, to be addressed in the Second House, if the bill was passed. He then called for any other persons to testify with regard to A.B. 581.
Ms. Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, stated their support of A.B. 581.
Mr. Morrow expressed his concerns with A.B. 581. He opined that the bill should not exclude the enforcement of mutual orders from other jurisdictions. He also expressed concerns about the specification that law enforcement could rely upon a statement from a party that a protection order existed. He stated that allowing the law enforcement officer the ability to rely upon the statement would be unfair and unjust.
Chairman Anderson called for questions with regard to the issue raised by Mr. Morrow. A letter of support was accepted into the record without testimony from Ms. Susan Meuschke, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (Exhibit BBB). He then closed the hearing on A.B. 581. He summarized the proposed amendments submitted by Ms. Hart (Exhibit YY).
assemblywoman mcclain moved to amend and do pass a.b. 581, with the amendments discussed in exhibit yy.
assemblywoman ohrenschall seconded the motion.
Mr. Carpenter inquired how a law enforcement officer would determine the authenticity of the foreign protection order that was not found in the domestic violence information database. Ms. Ohrenschall explained that if a significant time period had lapsed since the order was issued, which would appear on the face of the order, or if there were blank spaces where a signature or seal should appear, it would indicate to the officer that the document might not be valid.
Mrs. Angle requested clarification if there would need to be a document present, in order for the foreign protection order to be enforced. Ms. Hart responded that there were two provisions. Section 1 provided for the officers to use discretion when presented with the document of the foreign protection order if it was not found in the database. Section 4, with amended language, would allow an officer to rely upon the statement alone of the victim, to assess whether there was a protection order in existence to be enforced. Ms. Hart indicated that it was a permissive statement that would allow the officer to use their own discretion to act upon, but it was not required for them to do so. It required the officer to consider the situation.
Chairman Anderson called for a roll call vote on the motion by Ms. McClain and Ms. Ohrenschall.
the motion passed to amend and do pass a.b. 581. assemblywoman angle and assemblyman carpenter abstained from the vote. all others voted yes. assemblywoman buckley was not present for the vote.
Chairman Anderson confirmed that the vote consisted of 11 yeas, 2 abstentions, and 1 absent. He assigned the bill to Ms. McClain to present on the Assembly Floor. Chairman Anderson recessed the meeting at 12:42 p.m., until 7:00 p.m. in Room 1242, for the purpose of the work session.
WORK SESSION
The Committee on Judiciaryreconvened at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
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 Sheila Leslie, District 27
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael Pescetta, representing self
Barbara Reed, Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County
George Flint, Government Relations, Reno
Lucille Lusk, Co-chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Intergovernmental Services Las Vegas Metro Police Department
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Reno
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney,
David Gibson, Clark County Public Defenders, Legislative Team
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas
John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defenders Office, Reno
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 370 and acknowledged Assemblywoman Leslie’s presence at the Work Session.
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the A.B. 370 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 370: Authorizes employers to obtain orders for protection against harassment in workplace and establishes procedures for obtaining such orders. (BDR 3-720)
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Leslie if she had reviewed the amendments put forth by the Attorney General’s Office. Ms. Leslie replied, “Yes.” Chairman Anderson then asked Ms. Leslie if she had reviewed the amendments from Keith Lyons. Ms. Leslie replied she had reviewed them but was not in agreement with them. Chairman Anderson stated that he was in agreement with a proposed amendment from Assemblywoman Buckley concerning protection for a strike action. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 370 with the amendments suggested by Ms. Hart and Assemblywoman Buckley.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 370.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. NOLAN AND MRS. ANGLE ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Leslie to present the bill on the Assembly Floor.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 353 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 353: Prohibits sentence of death for person who is mentally retarded. (BDR 14-801)
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Leslie if she had reviewed the amendments and how she wanted to proceed with the bill. Ms. Leslie said she agreed with Michael Pescetta’s amendment, which addressed concerns raised at the original hearing. Ms. Leslie preferred the Arizona model not be adopted; she preferred the bill as written. Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, believed the amendment worked with clarification on a number of items:
Mr. Pescetta would agree to specify time limits. The prosecution would want the evidence to be provided as soon as possible; 30 days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing would be acceptable. Regarding the examination of the defendant, a sensible period of time would be no less than 15 days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing.
Ms. Lang asked whether a time should be specified for filing an appeal. Mr. Pescetta stated 30 days under the normal statutory scheme would be fine. This period would allow the prosecution to seek review before proceeding with a trial and implicating any double jeopardy. Chairman Anderson agreed to keep to the normal statutory scheme.
Assemblyman Collins asked if all evidence had to be in the possession of the defense or was there public disclosure for other relevant evidence. Mr. Pescetta said this would provide the prosecution with discovery of the materials in the possession of the defense. If the prosecution sought other evidence, they would be able to use that at the hearing, as well as any other evidence they might possess, such as police reports or previous examinations. Chairman Anderson asked if it was reasonable to assume the defense would have all the evidence needed prior to the 30-day window. Mr. Pescetta believed this would be the point where the defense would move for the examination; the defense better be ready because they had the burden of proof.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the situation would still remain if the defendant had an IQ of 70 or below. With the rebuttable presumption, even with an IQ of 70 or below, could it not be argued that he would be fit to be tried? Mr. Pescetta responded the rebuttable presumption was there so the line was drawn. Even if the IQ were below 70, this would require both intellectual functioning that was significantly substandard and substantial impairment of adaptive behavior. If the prosecution could come in and show that even though the IQ was below 70, he did not meet the definition of retardation under Section 5, then the court would find that he was not mentally retarded and thus this statute would not protect him.
Assemblyman Carpenter questioned the word “or” at the end of line 2, page 4. Upon review of the subsection, Ms. Lang replied that the word “or” should be there, providing a choice between punishment by death or imprisonment in the state prison. Chairman Anderson clarified that even if a person had an IQ of 70, they could be imprisoned for life. Mr. Pescetta agreed.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 353.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brower was not convinced it was necessary to change the law. Assemblyman Brower saw a number of problems: (1) the difficulty to determine whether a person was mentally retarded and what that meant; (2) if the system worked properly a defendant’s alleged mental retardation would be a mitigating factor that could be argued and presented to the jury, where it would be considered during the penalty phase; and (3) the assumption behind the bill that a mentally retarded person could not appreciate the gravity of his/her conduct in the same way a person who was not mentally retarded could. Assemblyman Brower questioned whether such a person should even be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to life without parole. “Reasonable minds can differ…and disagree.” For those reasons, he respectfully disagreed and would vote “no.”
Assemblyman Gustavson agreed it was a very difficult decision to make for all the committee members, and he was not ready to make a decision at this time.
Chairman Anderson agreed this was a difficult issue. Although it was an arguable presumption, there were many who would disagree that it was fair and equitable. Tests were always difficult. The bill included the standard set by the state already, which had been agreed upon by the state in terms of providing services. There was an obligation to protect society, which might require placing a person in prison, and at the same time not take someone’s life.
Assemblyman Carpenter hated to play “God,” but he did believe in the death penalty; with the amendment, he would support the bill.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 10-3 WITH MRS. ANGLE, MR. BROWER AND
MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO AND MR. NOLAN ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Leslie to present the bill on the Assembly Floor.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 254 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 254: Makes various changes to provisions governing marriage. (BDR 11-95)
Chairman Anderson stated it was his understanding that an agreement (Exhibit DDD and Exhibit EEE) had been reached between George Flint; Carson City Clerk-Recorder, Alan Glover; Clark County Clerk, Shirley Parraguirre; and Douglas County Clerk, Barbara Reed; to work with the wedding chapel industry regarding proposed legislation concerning the authorization for wedding chapels to issue marriage licenses.
Chairman Anderson said bill drafting would take out the references from the bill that applied to wedding chapels issuing marriage licenses. Assemblyman Manendo said Sections 3, 7, 9, 19 and 20 contained those references. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Flint if he was satisfied with the opportunity to work with the clerks on the issue until the next legislative session. Mr. Flint replied he was satisfied.
Chairman Anderson discussed other amendment language. A change was requested specifying legal marriage as that between male and female; Ms. Lang believed the language was not necessary since that was all that was recognized in Nevada.
Ms. Reed submitted proposed amendments (Exhibit FFF) from Shirley Parraguirre, Clark County Clerk, involving clean-up language and renewals to keep the records current. Assemblyman Gustavson was concerned about Section 2, page 1, line 7 where “or any religious society not having clergy” was referenced. Ms. Lang said that language was intended to cover various religious organizations; similar language was used throughout the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 254 with the amendments as previously discussed.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 254.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Reed said the clerks did not oppose the bill as amended. Chairman Anderson reiterated language regarding issuance of marriage licenses in wedding chapels would not be included at this time. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, was uncomfortable not including the language regarding male/female marriages.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 13-0 WITH MRS. ANGLE ABSTAINING.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 220 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
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)
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, as they approached the witness table. Ms. Lang read the proposed amendments. Assemblywoman Buckley did not support removing “university police” from the definition of limited jurisdiction peace officers. Assemblyman Gustavson asked why the university police were being removed. Lt. Olsen said the university police were the only law enforcement agency included in the original bill that was a state law enforcement agency; the bill did not include any other agencies. Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Gustavson if he would support Assemblywoman Buckley’s position that university police should fall within the category just like everybody else. Assemblyman Gustavson agreed and asked if the university police were Category 1-trained officers. Lt. Olsen replied in the affirmative. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 220.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins said the bill already exempted the Nevada Highway Patrol and Park Rangers; he did not support leaving university police out. Assemblywoman Buckley restated that university police were peace officers with limited jurisdiction by statute; the amendment proposed to change that, which she would not support. Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to leave statute the way it was. Assemblyman Collins said the jurisdiction would be limited to “state” ground. Chairman Anderson said those agencies with limited jurisdictions needed to go to local law enforcement agencies with Type A events; if the agencies had the ability to perform Type A investigations, an interlocal agreement must be in force. Assemblyman Collins believed previous legislation might have allowed university police to pursue off-campus, turning the people over to local law enforcement. Chairman Anderson replied the university police were only allowed to go off-campus if an interlocal agreement with the local agency was in force. Assemblyman Nolan asked if it was the intent to exclude the university police from this particular provision, it was already within the language where it stated, “Unless otherwise agreed to through an interlocal agreement.”
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 399 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 399: Provides for civil liability for false reporting of crime or emergency. (BDR 3-422)
Chairman Anderson queried Captain Nadeau regarding lines 19 to 20 “shall award the public agency the cost of actions and may award reasonable attorney fees”; he thought it had been agreed to “may” in both instances. Chairman Anderson felt the agency should not move unless there were substantial dollars involved; “may” gave them the discretion to make that determination. Ms. Lang agreed that “may” should be used in both instances.
There was a question regarding the use of “public agency” or “peace officer.” Although the report needed to go to the peace officer, there were times when a variety of resources might respond. Assemblyman Oceguera asked if a dispatcher was considered to be a peace officer. Captain Nadeau said a peace officer was defined in the NRS, typically a dispatcher was not a peace officer; consequently, a call to a dispatcher would not qualify. Assemblyman Oceguera suggested that line 6 and line 3 both use the terminology of “public agency.” Ms. Lang cautioned there were a lot of public agencies. Chairman Anderson read line 20 where public agency was defined.
Assemblywoman McClain was concerned with the wording on line 5, but Assemblywoman Buckley believed the word “such” corrected the misunderstanding. Assemblyman Brower clarified that “may” would apply to both the cost of the action and the attorney fees. Chairman Anderson expected this would not include a “slight” event. Chairman Anderson read the proposed amendments and entertained a motion for amend and do pass of A.B. 399.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 399.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Oceguera to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 397 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 397: Provides for admissibility in evidence of certain statements made by unavailable declarants. (BDR 4-997)
Ms. Lang explained the amendments. Chairman Anderson was concerned with the wording of “paramedic” and “volunteers.” Assemblywoman Buckley asked why it allowed a statement about a statement. Gemma Waldron, Washoe County District Attorney, said an oral statement might be recorded in a police report, thus there might not be a written statement. Assemblywoman Buckley felt if there was a written statement, it should be made available during discovery. Ms. Waldron replied discovery would obtain a written statement if it were available. Chairman Anderson said there were always problems with discovery; evidence should not come forward later if it was known to exist. Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to make the discovery issue consistent; suggestions for tightening the language should be sought.
David Gibson, Clark County Public Defenders Office, said written notice was given for the use of hearsay evidence. Chairman Anderson asked that language be crafted to assure if statements were to be used the defense knew of their existence. Mr. Gibson said the use of an oral statement could cause a dispute; a written notice should reference the hearing. Ms. Waldron said the amendments took into account the issues raised by the city attorneys, who may not know until they were in court that the victim would not be available. Chairman Anderson asked if there were electronic statements or statements from other agencies, could those statements be prepared for the defense even if they might not be needed. Ms. Waldron said that could be done; during discovery a list of witnesses would be prepared. Assemblyman Brower stated the list of other witnesses might not be disclosed until the unavailability of the victim was known; the police officer would not be called to testify if the victim was available to testify. Assemblywoman Buckley stated as part of the standard operating procedure for every domestic violence case, written notice should be given that if the victim were not available, the police officer would be called to testify. Assemblyman Brower agreed.
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, said the amendments proposed by Ms. Waldron incorporated numerous changes for domestic violence cases where we already had gone the extra mile. Mr. Gibson was concerned that the language allowed a statement from a witness who was not the victim. Ms. Waldron said that was not the intent; the threat of harm may be directed at the victim’s child or family member, but the victim got hit and the statement was from the victim. Ms. Lang said both were correct.
Assemblywoman Buckley believed A.B. 397 was a good bill, but was concerned too many amendments could damage the bill. Mr. Gibson agreed and said he preferred the original language of the bill.
Mr. Gibson was concerned about “employees of a public agency.” Assemblyman Brower replied that took into consideration the 911 operators accepting a call. Mr. Gibson felt that in order for the hearsay statement to be reliable, it had to be made in person. Assemblyman Brower believed that the case would not go to court if the accusation was not real. Mr. Gibson said each time the hearsay law was expanded it allowed the absurd to happen.
Assemblyman Brower asked Ms. Lang why she believed the bill applied to civil cases as well as domestic violence cases. Mr. Gibson stated Section 3, subsection 1, did include language that applied to civil cases. Ms. Waldron replied that the violation of a temporary protective order was a civil action.
Chairman Anderson asked if it was the intent of the committee to reject the proposed amendments.
Assemblywoman Buckley felt the committee should adopt wording regarding notices “in writing” and go back to the original language. Assemblywoman Buckley said currently 911 call tapes were admissible under the Business Records exception to the hearsay rule. Mr. Gibson agreed. Assemblywoman Buckley cautioned the committee in changing the hearsay rule. Ms. Waldron said the front desk staff in a police station was a consideration in the “employee of public agency” wording; the front desk staff might not be a peace officer. Ms. Waldron, with a recommendation from Captain Nadeau, suggested the wording could encompass “law enforcement personnel, physician or nurse or an employee authorized to take a report.”
Chairman Anderson clarified the proposed amendments and entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 397.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 397.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Brower to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Mr. Anthony read the A.B. 354 summary from the Work Session document (Exhibit CCC).
Assembly Bill 354: Provides for genetic marker analysis of certain evidence related to conviction of certain offenders sentenced to death. (BDR 14-595)
Chairman Anderson cautioned that a conflict might exist with A.B. 489, which required genetic marker analysis to be obtained from all offenders convicted of felony.
John Morrow stated his amendment would expand the criteria to include those convicted but not under the sentence of death; those with life sentences and sexual assaults. Chairman Anderson asked if a discovery process would be required. Mr. Morrow said the material must be available and testable. Assemblyman Nolan ask if the bill was to pass and there was a presumption of contaminated evidence, would that give an offender reason to petition for a retrial. Mr. Morrow did not believe so; it was at the court’s discretion. It was not an open-ended invitation; frivolous actions could risk statutory “good time.” Chairman Anderson asked if the amendments had been shared with Assemblyman Price. Mr. Morrow said he had given the amendments to Assemblyman Price but had not received any feedback.
Ms. Waldron explained the submitted amendment, which was prepared with David Sarnowski. Chairman Anderson asked what the downside of not processing the bill would be; would it not be better to wait for a perfected piece of legislation that all could agree upon. Mr. Morrow believed the legislation as originally written was an important piece of legislation; the primary focus should be those on death row. Chairman Anderson said the Senate Committee on Judiciary recently passed out of their committee S.B. 254, which established a moratorium on execution of sentences of death until July 1, 2003, and provided for study of issues regarding the death penalty. There was no guarantee S.B. 254 would pass on the Senate floor, or that it would pass in the Assembly. Mr. Morrow said if there was an innocent person on death row that could be cleared by genetic marker testing, there was nothing in the statutes that could allow that to happen; only post-conviction litigation could take people off death row. Chairman Anderson suggested A.B. 354 be brought back for further work.
Chairman Anderson believed there were still problems with A.B. 577 and not enough information to make a decision.
Assembly Bill 577: Makes various changes concerning permanent guardianship of certain abused or neglected children. (BDR 13-1333)
Chairman Anderson scheduled A.B. 577 to be discussed at the work session on April 16, 2001.
Chairman Anderson asked for a report from the subcommittee on A.B. 248, requiring adoption of regulations governing provision of certain information to foster or adoptive parents and revising certain provisions governing procedures for protection of children from abuse and neglect, chaired by Assemblywoman McClain, to be made at the April 12, 2001 work session.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sandra Albrecht-Johnson
Committee Secretary
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: