MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 11, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:45 a.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and by videoconference to 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:
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Pat Cashill, representing George S. Shoenberger
Dr. Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Mr. James Vilt, attorney, representing Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center
Judge Scott Jordan, Second Judicial District Court, Family Division
Judge William Voy, Eighth Judicial District
Ms. Cindy Pyzel, Senior Deputy Attorney General, representing the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services
Mr. John Morrow, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office
Ms. Kathleen O’Leary, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office
Dr. Richard W. Lewis, Nevada Certified Psychologist
Mr. David Watts-Vial, representing the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office
Mr. Tom Stoneburner, Director, Northern Nevada Alliance for Workers Rights
Mr. Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board
Mr. Scott Scherer, Board Member, Gaming Control Board
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Lieutenant Toni Weeks, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Mr. Dennis DeBacco, Program Manager, Criminal History Repository
Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance
Mr. Gary Peck, Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
Ms. Charlotte Arrowsmith, Alliance for Workers’ Rights
Ms. Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State’s Office
Mr. Charles Moore, Administrator, Securities Division, Secretary of State’s Office
Mr. Samuel P. McMullen, representing Morris Management Corporation
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, representing Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company
Mr. Alfredo Alonso, with Lionel, Sawyer, and Collins, representing the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Mr. Robert Crowell, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Chairman Anderson provided opening remarks, stated a quorum was present, and opened the hearing on A.B. 550.
Assembly Bill 550: Revises provisions governing rights of clients of mental health facilities and procedures for detention and civil commitment of mentally ill persons. (BDR 39-1479)
Chairman Anderson stated the Assembly Committee on Judiciary requested A.B. 550.
Mr. Pat Cashill, representing George S. Shoenberger, testified he practiced in civil law and was a former prosecutor. Mr. Cashill provided the committee with a chronology of events that occurred resulting in Mr. Shoenberger being released after 70 days for unjust involuntary commitment (Exhibit C). He explained Mr. Shoenberger’s wife contacted his former psychiatrist and current business partner upon his request for a legal separation. Mr. Shoenberger was arrested on December 7, 2000, on a “Legal 97” or warrant for arrest signed by a psychiatrist and was not released until February 16, 2001.
Mr. Cashill stated a consensus existed in Nevada that a person involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility must, within 72 hours, be freed. He stated that was untrue. Rather, the district attorney in the county where a person was involuntarily confined caused the filing of a petition for continued involuntary commitment. That had been done in Mr. Shoenberger’s case, however, no determination of the merit of the case, legitimacy of the arrest, or the reasons why Mr. Shoenberger should have been confined were made until February 17, 2001.
Mr. Cashill explained if Mr. Shoenberger had been arrested for domestic violence or any other crime, he would have been released on his own recognizance or bail within a few hours. He added the criminal system functioned, but what failed to function was the legal system’s responsibility for ensuring that a person accused of being mentally ill, must be assured minimal procedural and substantive due process rights similar to those of criminal defendants even though the illness could cause the person to be a risk to self, others, or be incapable of functioning outside the arena of a lock-down unit of a hospital ward.
Mr. Cashill stated those alleged to have some form of mental illness, should be accorded at least the dignity and due process rights of criminal defendants.
Mr. Cashill noted he had spoken with many representatives of the various agencies and individuals involved with the issue and was prepared to meet with all parties to reach a consensus about how the bill could be crafted so it addressed the violation of rights that occurred to Mr. Shoenberger. He added the current bill did have flaws.
Chairman Anderson stated while the issue had been discussed in previous sessions, creation of a new section in Chapter 433 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) would follow an example that more clearly defined how involuntary commitments should be addressed.
The Chair expressed the intent to identify sufficient magistrates to hear involuntary commitment petitions so that people were not placed in a mental institution or incarcerated without a hearing in a timely manner.
Assemblyman Carpenter commented that Exhibit C seemed to show the court had held an early hearing, but ruled against Mr. Shoenberger. He agreed with the concept of early hearings, but it appeared perhaps the matter should be left to judicial discretion. Mr. Cashill concurred that the sitting trial judge made a determination; however, the decision was not made until 41 days after the commitment. Within 72 hours the Washoe County District Attorney filed a petition for involuntary commitment and a hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2000. Because of a crowded docket and the number of witnesses, the hearing was continued numerous times. He explained A.B. 550 sought to significantly shorten the period of time within which an independent magistrate must make a determination of probable cause to involuntarily commit. The bill provided that the hearing must be held within 48 hours of arrest.
Mr. Cashill stated opposition to the bill sought a longer period of time and he conceded that a reasonable extension of the proposed time limit would be acceptable. He stressed that he would not concede that 41 days was a reasonable time frame.
Assemblyman Oceguera referred to imposition of the “Legal 97” process and concurred that the process required a hearing within 72 hours. He asked how A.B. 550 would affect emergency needs for public safety agencies. Mr. Cashill replied the intent of the legislation was not to restrict the power of a psychiatrist or psychologist under Nevada law to sign a “Legal 97” in appropriate circumstances and empowering the law enforcement officer to make an arrest. Once a “Legal 97” was signed and an arrest occurred, A.B. 550 would compel the judicial system to provide the individual a speedy determination of the legitimacy of the confinement.
Mr. Oceguera noted a “Legal 97” did not have to be signed by a psychiatrist. Law enforcement or emergency personnel could sign someone to commitment for their own good and he wanted to ensure that right was protected. Mr. Cashill replied the legislation did not intend to restrict the power of any person in a position authorized to make the determination.
Chairman Anderson referred to Exhibit C and noted the events of December 6, 2000, and December 7, 2000, would be unchanged by the bill, and a hearing would be scheduled within 72 hours before a magistrate. The other effect of the bill referred to involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs prior to a judicial determination. Mr. Cashill explained the judge did not issue a “Legal 97.” A psychiatrist, psychologist, or emergency personnel had the power to complete the form authorizing the arrest of an individual and that would remain unchanged. A.B. 550 created the right to a hearing within 48 hours of the arrest, not 72 hours. Under current law, the district attorney must make a determination within 72 hours to file a petition for continued confinement and the bill would not change that provision.
The intent of the bill would codify a practice that had already been in place in Washoe County for some time. He referred to the People vs. Medina decision in 1985 by the Colorado Supreme Court. The procedure in the bill was patterned after that decision which determined under what circumstances a person’s right to refuse medication could be overridden. Nevada also had a statutory procedure for denial of rights. In Mr. Shoenberger’s case, the court issued an order appointing a guardian for his estate and his person. The next day, the guardian, in concurrence with the treating physician, issued an order for Mr. Shoenberger to be administered psychotropic drugs against his will. That order was issued six days after another doctor had determined Mr. Shoenberger was competent to refuse to be medicated against his will. He had also been denied access to his lawyers during that period of time.
Chairman Anderson provided committee members a copy of a memo from Mr. Jack Mayes, Executive Director, Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center (Exhibit D), in support of A.B. 550.
Dr. Richard Siegel, President, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), stated he supported portions of the bill, but not the bill as a whole. He commented in researching Mr. Shoenberger’s case, he had ascertained that the Division of Mental Health and others had a very different idea of the facts of that case.
Dr. Siegel commented A.B. 550 imposed standards for involuntary commitment of people and standards of involuntary medication. The ACLU had strong views on both of those issues. The third issue the ACLU felt strongly about was that there should be a collegial process to obtain consensus on the issues.
Dr. Siegel opined the change from 72 hours to 48 hours was not critical although the Division of Mental Health and others had concerns about the provision.
Dr. Siegel stated the Shoenberger case involved the private mental health sector and it was important that the system worked in both the private and public mental health sectors.
Dr. Siegel concurred with Mr. Cashill regarding the issue of involuntary medication. He suggested present-day medications were much less likely to have the side effects that patients had been frightened of in the past. Certain psychotropic drugs had caused permanent side effects in some cases and there were some legitimate concerns. Dr. Siegel opined the language of A.B. 550 did not make it easier for a person to affirm the right to refuse treatment, especially when the person might not be mentally ill.
Dr. Siegel stated the Community Unity Coalition had a strong feeling about the fact that Nevada was the only state that used the district attorneys’ petitions to allow people who were not the closest of family members to initiate commitment procedures. Nevada should not be the benchmark as the easiest state to make an involuntary commitment.
Mr. James Vilt, Attorney, representing Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center (NDALC), testified he would confine his remarks to the forced medication issue. A.B. 550 codified exceptions to the premise that mentally ill people, even those involuntarily committed, were presumed competent to make their own decisions.
Mr. Vilt stated the bill allowed for forced administration when an emergency existed and administration of medication was necessary to protect someone from harming themselves or others. The situation was already addressed in NRS 433.5456, described as chemical restraints. A.B. 550, unlike the already enacted language, failed to discuss the procedures that must attend the use of chemical restraint. Under current law, any facility that administered medication to an unwilling individual in an emergency situation must do so in accordance with certain procedures specified in NRS, or within guidelines of the accreditation agency, if appropriate. NRS 433.5503 required the existence of a defined emergency must have a medical order authorizing the use of the restraint, the doctor who signed the order must examine the patient within one day of administration of the drug, and required the procedure to be reported as a denial of rights. Mr. Vilt opined, given the vulnerability of the mentally ill population, the severity of the infringement on interests of liberty, and since the procedure would take place before a hearing was held, those procedures should be referenced in A.B. 550.
Mr. Vilt quoted Section 1, subsection 2, paragraph 3(a) of the bill, and stated he was unfamiliar with what might warrant those circumstances. He stated procedures probably needed further definition for protection of the person and to ensure proper reporting.
Mr. Vilt stated A.B. 550 repeated the requirement for a court order established by case law and currently followed.
Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Vilt would be available to work with Mr. Cashill and others in drafting further amendments to the bill and Mr. Vilt agreed.
Judge Scott Jordan, Second Judicial District Court, Family Division, stated he was the Washoe County judge who presided over the bulk of mental health hearings, totaling approximately 400 hearings per year.
Judge Jordan provided a two-page statement (Exhibit E) regarding the bill. He offered to serve on a work group with Mr. Cashill to review current procedures.
Judge Jordan commented he was the presiding judge in the Shoenberger case and could not comment on the case under the canons of judicial ethics. He added, if the committee wished to change the statutes regarding involuntary hospitalization, he urged members to review the public records of the case prior to making that decision.
Judge Jordan noted while Washoe County handled 400 mental health hearings per year, that number was far greater in Clark County. Typical mental health hearings lasted between 15 minutes and 20 minutes. The Shoenberger hearing had required 25 hours of court time due to the complexity of the case, the number of lawyers, and the number of witnesses.
Judge Jordan listed the three aspects of mental health hearings addressed by A.B. 550.
1. Involuntary administration of medication.
He stated the bill proposed to follow the standard set in Colorado by the case, People vs. Medina and added that was the standard used in Washoe County to decide whether medication should be administered. Judge William Voy of Clark County advised the Medina standard was used in that county as well. Exhibit E proposed only some minor changes to that section of the bill.
2. Abolishes the district attorney procedure for beginning the mental health commitment process.
In Washoe County, Judge Jordan had ruled that the district attorney process was unconstitutional, and was not being used in that county. The district attorney procedure was applied in a completely different way in Clark County that provided more fairness to the process.
3. Requirement to hold a hearing within 48 hours of involuntary detention.
Judge Jordan opined that requirement would be a very costly and unnecessary step. Current requirements provided a petition must be filed within 72 hours of the time of hospitalization and the hearing must be held within 5 days of filing the petition. He suggested the time frames were adequate to balance the needs of due process protection of the patient with the needs of the community and the needs to provide treatment to the patient. The new 48-hour requirement would add no particular value to the current process and the costs of the change would be much better spent serving outpatients or other needs.
Chairman Anderson asked in approximately how many mental health hearings a continuance was required. He asked if continuances were typically requested because the family court had other pressing issues requiring hearings. Judge Jordan reiterated the average time to conduct such a hearing was 15 to 30 minutes consisting of two witnesses who were the examining doctors, and family members of the patient. He stated continuances needed in the case under discussion were an extreme exception. There had been no other hearings within the last two years that had needed a continuance.
Chairman Anderson asked if additional magistrates were allowed to hear such cases would it help ensure someone would not be held involuntarily without due process. Judge Jordan replied he had two concerns about the requirements of the bill to spread the workload to other magistrates.
· Issues of mental health were extremely sophisticated, complex and delicate issues.
He commented the bill allowed such hearings before district court judges, municipal court judges, justices of the peace, or any other officer of the judicial branch of the state. Specific training of those magistrates was necessary to have the ability or the knowledge to effectively make the delicate decisions needed in such cases.
· The draft language of the bill, in Judge Jordan’s opinion, was unconstitutional.
According to one court citation, the Supreme Court had determined it was unconstitutional to grant concurrent jurisdiction to different court systems. The KJB vs. District Court case applied to an instance between justice courts and district courts.
Assemblywoman Buckley referred to Section 7 of the bill and asked if that section required one of the listed magistrates to hear such cases. She had read the language as enabling. Judge Jordan replied he had read the language as “the petition would not be heard by the magistrate, but rather the 48-hour hearing.” If the 72-hour requirement for petitions was still in place, the hearing would be held before a petition was ever filed. His reading was that the ultimate petition must still be held before a district family court judge.
Ms. Buckley asked if it would be more acceptable if A.B. 550 was amended to clarify a time frame of 72 hours, but counted weekends and holidays. Judge Jordan replied he would not be comfortable with that provision. He opined, the current time frames provided the protections that were needed. He added, assumptions behind the bill were that people were being hospitalized when they should not be; however, the current problem in the system was that the overall scope of resources was unavailable. People were ready to be discharged, but had no place to be discharged to.
Mr. Carpenter commented he had great respect for justices of the peace, but he did not feel that they had the expertise to make a finding based upon clear and convincing evidence in mental health cases. Judge Jordan stated the current system, which would not be changed by the bill, was that “Legal 97s” referred to earlier were completed by medical or law enforcement professionals in the community where a patient resided. At that point the patient was transported to the Nevada Mental Health Institute or Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services in southern Nevada, and the remainder of the legal process would occur in Washoe or Clark County. Under A.B. 550 the 48-hour hearings and remaining procedures would all take place in Washoe or Clark Counties after the patients had been transported to the mental health facilities in those counties. Mr. Carpenter stated that probably raised his concerns even further.
Chairman Anderson commented those provisions made the issue of timeliness even more difficult to deal with.
Ms. Cindy Pyzel, Senior Deputy Attorney General, representing the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, stated she advised and counseled the public psychiatric hospitals in Nevada and the rural clinics. She stated the division was concerned that A.B. 550 would make it more complicated for the institutions to provide psychiatric observation, care, and treatment to the clients. The bill exalted law, lawyers, and process at the expense of mental health treatment and imposed legal standards on matters of professional judgment.
Ms. Pyzel stated a person who was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility had a need and a right of treatment within proper clinical standards and guidelines. The current law struck a proper balance between the rights of the patient. When a person was taken to a mental health facility on an emergency situation because they had been observed to be both mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others, continuing observation and treatment was needed to ascertain what the real need was. Clinicians were allowed 72 hours to determine whether a petition for civil commitment should be filed.
Ms. Pyzel explained the 72-hour period was a crucial time because the filing of a petition had significant legal consequences including the potential to be committed for up to six months. Nothing was added to the observation by disruption of the client with transport to the courts for a probable cause hearing.
Ms. Pyzel stated the 48-hour period specified in A.B. 550 was unworkable. It took time to observe and evaluate a client, to dictate, transcribe, and file reports. With current staff, the institutions could not get the needed information to all the necessary people involved to hold a meaningful hearing.
The bill’s creation of three new hearings and the need to hold those hearings within 48 hours would increase the amount of staffing needed by the institutions. The division had estimated additional medical records personnel would be needed in each facility to process the paperwork and additional staff would be needed for the transportation and escort of clients to courthouses. Ms. Pyzel explained the additional staff was crucial under the bill, because if the facility missed the 48-hour period the client must be released.
Ms. Pyzel clarified Nevada law already provided that clients must give written, informed consent to all treatment that they received except in emergencies. NRS 433.484, Section 1(d) stated, “A licensed and qualified physician may render emergency medical care or treatment to any patient or client that had been injured in an accident, or who was suffering from an acute illness, disease, or condition.” The current and proper standard called for provision of care with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Medical professionals were judged by that standard, not one of probable cause or requirement of irreversible deterioration.
Adding a requirement that denial of rights occurred only on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that the denial was necessary to protect the clients’ health and safety of others, added a heightened legal standard to matters of professional judgment.
Ms. Pyzel concluded that the bill would cause a large fiscal impact on Washoe and Clark Counties, and the language was most likely unconstitutional. The division had created a process based on United States Supreme Court law for reviewing a recommendation to Medicaid when a client would not provide written consent to treatment. The division, the public defenders, and the courts had developed a method of judicial review of that decision to involuntarily administer medication. The restriction of the procedure to antipsychotic medication was too limited. Division facilities applied the standard to all classes of psychotropic medication. The division could only apply involuntary medication standards to those clients who were civilly committed.
A.B. 550 attempted to legislate to an anomaly. The facts of the case discussed had been much disputed. More lawyers had been involved in the case than was good for the client, in Ms. Pyzel’s opinion. The bill confused the criminal standards applied to arrests with the civil standard applied parens patriae application of detention of a person for treatment of a mental illness.
Ms. Pyzel opined under the bill, law enforcement officers would be called to the hearings to establish probable cause placing a further fiscal impact.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Pyzel to work with the others on proposed amendments to the bill and she concurred. He added his level of concern was that the apparent “speedy” process did not allow a client to have a hearing prior to commitment. Assemblywoman Buckley concurred with the Chair’s concerns.
Regardless of the number of cases involved, the committee was concerned with what constituted proper legal requirements. Ms. Buckley was disturbed that Ms. Pyzel’s testimony did not reflect a concern for the client’s liberty interests, which was paramount. She concurred that more problems occurred because of lack of funding for the mental health system than were caused by the provisions of the bill, but the law still needed to address the client’s rights.
Chairman Anderson referred to written testimony from the Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center (Exhibit F) and stressed his concern that divorced spouses, and noisy neighbors, among others, could use the law in those cases to their advantage. He stated amendments to tighten the requirements would raise comfort levels regarding the bill.
Mr. John Morrow, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, introduced Ms. Kathleen O’Leary, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County Public Defender’s Office. He noted her specialty was mental health issues. Mr. Morrow stated he had been involved in the case discussed by Mr. Cashill and elaborated on the factual background of the case. Ms. O’Leary would discuss technical aspects of the bill.
Mr. Morrow stated he had worked with civil commitment cases for over 15 years and stressed the case of Mr. Shoenberger was absolutely a “worst case” situation. Initially, Mr. Morrow represented Mr. Shoenberger at the interview with two qualified mental health professionals to determine criteria for commitment. At that time the two mental health professionals split their decision with one stating Mr. Shoenberger met the conditions for commitment, while the second disagreed. The Public Defender’s Office was prepared to go to a hearing the next day according to statute.
At that point in time another lawyer entered the case unannounced and, in fact, there were more people in the interview room than Mr. Morrow had ever seen. Individuals included friends of Mr. Shoenberger, business associates, and family members, all of whom had differing opinions of whether or not Mr. Shoenberger should be committed. Because of the complexity of the case, the hearing was rescheduled for approximately one week later.
After interviewing witnesses, primarily those in favor of Mr. Shoenberger, Mr. Morrow was prepared to go forward with the hearing. At that point the new lawyer and he worked together. That hearing ended because of time constraints and another hearing was scheduled approximately one week later where yet another lawyer appeared to represent Mr. Shoenberger. At that point Mr. Morrow ceased his active work on the case. Some time later, Mr. Cashill and his partner, Mr. Young, became involved in the case and Mr. Shoenberger was committed. Mr. Morrow stated the commitment decision would have been difficult if it had been done at the first hearing set and it was possible the client would have been released at that time.
Ms. Kathleen O’Leary, Deputy Public Defender, testified that while Judge Jordan had conducted approximately 400 civil commitment hearings per year, the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office represented 600 to 750 or more patients prior to, and during, those hearings. She noted that meant literally hundreds of people dropped out of the civil commitment process prior to the hearing stage and suggested that was appropriate.
Ms. O’Leary explained the doctors, treating psychiatrists, and staff were making decisions concerning the patient’s liberty in favor of that liberty and/or their voluntary status as a patient at the hospital.
If the 48-hour provision of A.B. 550 were enacted patients would be seen at a very acute stage and it would be unclear whether they suffered from a mental illness or that their behavioral symptoms were a result of substance abuse. Ms. O’Leary stated at that point, as an attorney, she would be able to argue liberty issues, but would be unable to determine the client’s beliefs about their condition because they would be in no condition to communicate. She added in such cases she would likely request appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the client’s best interests, creating an additional layer of cost.
Ms. O’Leary reported Judge Jordan had a very firm continuance policy so it would seem Mr. Shoenberger agreed to all the continuances in his case.
Ms. O’Leary stated she agreed with the comments of Judge Jordan regarding Section 7, which allowed magistrates to hold commitment hearings. Currently NRS 433A determined that district family courts would hear the cases and the bill would create a constitutional issue if delegated to any other judicial officers.
Ms. O’Leary referenced Section 13, which eliminated the district attorney’s petition. Judge Jordan had declared that element unconstitutional in the Second Judicial District. Ms. O’Leary concurred with that ruling.
Ms. O’Leary expressed concern about the provision of A.B. 550 that created a new procedure to allow individuals to be forcibly taken from their homes by medical or law enforcement professionals without a warrant. If a private citizen were to forcibly remove another citizen from their home it would constitute kidnapping. A law enforcement officer would be violating the Fourth Amendment.
Ms. O’Leary stated the standards set forth in A.B. 550 identified the Medina standards that were already in place and it would be proper to codify them. To her knowledge private hospitals were not providing procedures of judicial review regarding involuntary medication.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the heavy workload of the Public Defender’s Office and asked Mr. Morrow and Ms. O’Leary if they could consult with the working group with Mr. Cashill to arrive at a consensus in discussion of amendments to the bill. Mr. Morrow offered Ms. O’Leary’s service to that committee.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office acted as counsel for the clients committed from rural counties as well. Ms. O’Leary replied once a client was transported to the Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI), she provided counsel and if a client was admitted to West Hills, that facility transported the client to NMHI to meet with her.
Chairman Anderson requested members of the medical community to approach the witness table regarding the bill.
Dr. Richard W. Lewis, Nevada Certified Psychologist, testified he was one of two consulting psychologists for the NMHI and was comfortable with the current system because it provided adequate time to compile information to review. Treating staff were interviewed, adequate historical information was needed, psycho/social information was needed, as were laboratory results. The patient was interviewed and a recommendation was made to the court within 24 hours.
Dr. Lewis was concerned that if the process occurred more speedily, sufficient information would not be available to a magistrate to rule regarding very complex issues.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged individuals in Las Vegas who had indicated a desire to speak and observed, in the interest of time, that the major points of the bill in both support and opposition had already been heard. The Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 550.
Mr. Cashill stated he and Ms. O’Leary, Dr. Siegel, Ms. Pyzel, and Judge Jordan would meet at 8:30, April 12, 2001, in his office to reach a consensus and discuss amendments to the bill.
Mr. David Watts-Vial, representing the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, provided written testimony in opposition to A.B. 550 (Exhibit G), and offered to meet with the working group on the bill.
Chairman Anderson requested a document from the working group to Mr. Anthony by Friday, April 13, 2001. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 466 and relinquished the Chair to Vice-Chair Manendo.
Assembly Bill 466: Provides for issuance of statewide work permits for gaming employees. (BDR 41-244)
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Assembly District 27, testified she had been working on the bill for more than one year. She had met with representatives of the gaming workers, law enforcement, the industry, gaming regulators, and the Criminal History Repository to bring a bill that would standardize statewide issuance of work permits.
The bill was sponsored by the Nevada Alliance for Workers’ Rights because the current law was 40 years old.
Ms. Leslie provided Exhibit H to committee members with a copy of NRS 463.0157 that defined gaming employees and stated that section specifically excluded bartenders and cocktail waitresses and there was no mention of maids, valets, car drivers, porters, or some other gaming related occupations. She stressed that A.B. 466 only addressed gaming work cards. Gaming work cards were currently required of gaming employees that dealt directly with gaming cash.
Ms. Leslie outlined the goals of A.B. 466.
· Standardize the work card process;
· Inspire more confidence in the system statewide;
· Reduce the cost and aggravation for gaming workers;
· Establish reciprocity allowing a worker to be investigated one time and then that person was able to change jobs within five years without another background check; and
· Establish clearer guidelines and criteria, and enhance consistency for denial of a gaming work card.
Ms. Leslie provided background of the gaming industry. Gaming was legalized in Nevada in 1931; the legislature focused on forcing organized crime out of the industry in 1949, and shifted the licensing procedure from local to state government. At that time the Nevada Tax Commission became the regulatory agency and fingerprints of gaming employees were first allowed. In 1959 the Gaming Commission replaced the Tax Commission as the regulatory agency for the industry. In 1965, work permits were first required of casino gaming employees.
Ms. Leslie related that since 1965, local jurisdictions had developed their own methods for addressing the intent of the law. Current statute provided work permits to be issued in accordance with applicable ordinances or regulations of the county or city in which the duties were performed. The Nevada Gaming Control Board must issue the permit if either the county or city of employment did not require one. In all but Clark and Washoe Counties, the county sheriff’s department issued permits. In Clark County, gaming work cards were issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Police Departments of Henderson, Mesquite, and North Las Vegas. In Washoe County, permits were issued by the Reno Police Department, the Sparks Police Department, and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
A survey had been taken of the 22 agencies within the state authorized to issue gaming work cards and responses were received from all but Humboldt County. The survey revealed there was very little consistency from agency to agency.
A variety of fees were being charged and some jurisdictions conducted a local “SCOPE” check on the individual to locate any arrests or convictions that would result in denial of the gaming work card. Some did both a local and state “SCOPE” check, and still others did a complete background on the individual. The cost of obtaining a gaming work card and the validity period also varied widely. In one rural county the cost of obtaining the card was $5 and was valid for one year. In two other rural counties the cost was $5, but was valid for a lifetime within that county. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office charged $74 for a full background check and the card was valid for five years.
Reciprocity was not consistent. Washoe County honored the Carson City work card, but no others, even within their own county. The City of Reno only honored its own card.
The intent of A.B. 466 was to bring consistency and enhance integrity of the program while creating less aggravation for the worker. Ms. Leslie commented the committee would hear testimony from some who felt the potential cost of the background check would be too high, but that must be weighed against the benefits of standardizing the process, eliminating the need for duplicative gaming work cards, and allowing portability of work cards within the state.
Some proposed amendments would focus on providing more time for gaming regulators to develop regulations for certain criteria and Ms. Leslie concurred with that proposal.
Mr. Tom Stoneburner, Director, Northern Nevada Alliance for Workers Rights, testified the gaming work card issue had been raised at the foundation meeting of the organization. He explained the organization had a strong representation of gaming workers.
Mr. Stoneburner stated the major complaints regarding gaming work cards centered on the issue of the amount of time required to obtain the work card, get it renewed, or obtain multiple work cards. He explained multiple work cards were sometimes needed if a person held multiple positions such as a change person who was also a cab driver.
Mr. Stoneburner stated the issue gained importance when the City of Reno was reformatting their gaming work card system. The Reno reform had cut the time needed to obtain a card from sometimes half a day down to half an hour. He suggested employees of the gaming industry were aware of and accepted the fact that some kind of background search was needed and some fee for that process would be required.
Lack of consistency had been a big issue for the organization membership as well as the fact that some employees would change jobs located only a few miles apart and yet that change would require a new gaming work card. For instance, a gaming employee who worked in Sparks, Nevada, changed jobs to one in Reno, the gaming employee would need a new gaming work card. The requirement was a state requirement and thus, the state had some responsibility to ensure the consistency of the process. Mr. Stoneburner asked the committee to remember throughout discussion of the bill that there was a worker behind every gaming work card issued.
Assemblyman Collins compared issuance of gaming work cards to what it would be like if every county and city issued their own driver’s license or the variances from city to city of the speed limit. He remarked the hard part would be putting the plan in place and asked if an implementation plan had been developed. Ms. Leslie replied a plan was in place and that plan would take some time to implement. She explained her hope was that A.B. 466 would be passed with the enabling legislation and enough time to allow gaming regulators to do what must be done. Regulations would be developed after public input.
Vice Chair Manendo asked what amendments were proposed to the bill. Ms. Leslie deferred to the representatives of gaming regulation.
Mr. Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, stated the board was in favor of the bill, but there were some procedural matters that should be addressed through amendments to the bill and resulting regulations.
Mr. Neilander provided committee members with Exhibit I as an amendment to the bill. Mr. Neilander stated with a statewide gaming work card, workers could move from location to location without further background checks, reapply, pay a fee, but one protection missed in the process was that under current law, an additional check was done and sometimes, for a small percentage of people, they had been arrested, convicted, or had other issues. The amendment kept the ability to make further background checks in place. The person would not have to pay a fee, but the board would receive notification of a change of location and have the opportunity to object if needed. That amendment pertained to Section 2, subsections 6 and 8.
In Section 2, subsection 12, the amendment gave the Gaming Control Board the ability to limit or place conditions on someone’s work card. Mr. Neilander explained that need typically arose in drug-related cases where a person had a drug problem but had gone through a period of rehabilitation and the board would place a condition on their gaming work card, that they be subject to random drug testing. Current law only allowed conditioning (restricting) of a work card if the person had a conviction record. However, a person who completed all the requirements of the drug court program as a result of a conviction, could receive an unrestricted work card because the conviction was no longer reflected on their record. The other possibility was that the board would not issue a permit to a person who had completed drug court if that was revealed because the only permissible restriction occurred if a conviction was reflected in their record. The amendment would remedy that situation.
In addition to the amendments proposed in Exhibit I, there were two other language changes that the board felt were necessary and that information would be provided when the committee discussed the bill in work session. The effective date of the bill needed to provide enough time for the board to complete their rule-making process. That process would include a series of public workshops at the board level, then a recommendation would be made to the Nevada Gaming Commission, and they would conduct a series of public hearings. The implementation of the program needed to be done in a very careful manner. It was considered 1.5 years would be needed for implementation.
The final proposed amendment from the Gaming Control Board would be that the initial application for a gaming work card must be submitted in the county of residence. The issue was important because the board did not want to create a situation where people started forms shopping.
Mr. Neilander summarized the board was in support of the bill with the proposed amendments in place. Vice Chair Manendo requested final proposed language to be provided to the committee no later than April 13, 2001. Mr. Neilander concurred and stated other amendments would be proposed as well.
Chairman Anderson asked if the Gaming Control Board amendments had been shared with Assemblywoman Leslie and Mr. Stoneburner. Mr. Neilander replied affirmatively and stated to his knowledge the proposed amendments were acceptable to the sponsors of the bill.
Mr. Scott Scherer, Board Member, Gaming Control Board, stated he was present to assist with questions concerning the proposed amendments.
Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, testified that in his office Debbie Campbell had worked closely with Assemblywoman Leslie. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office stood in support of A.B. 466 and the proposed amendments. He stressed it was very important that a mandated, consistent, standard of investigation statewide was needed because for one entity to accept a gaming work card issued by another entity, it must at least hold to the criteria expected within the accepting entity. Captain Nadeau expressed his opinion that the concerns had been met.
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, testified in support of the bill, the proposed amendments, and those amendments not yet heard.
He stated many meetings had been held with all parties involved with the drafting of the bill. He introduced Lieutenant Toni Weeks, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association.
Lieutenant Weeks provided committee members with three further proposed amendments to A.B. 466 (Exhibit J). She explained the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department proposed the amendments. The proposed amendments covered the fact that if the costs to the issuing agencies were raised, the amendment would allow the cost charged by an agency to be raised as well.
Section 2, subsection 4, lines 35 through 39, of the bill was to be changed because the current practice was that local agencies submitted fingerprint cards to the repository and the repository sent them on to the FBI if needed. The amendment would retain that process.
In Section 2, subsection 7, of the bill, language would be changed to read, “Will issue a 90-day temporary work permit.” Lieutenant Weeks explained if the permanent work permit was issued and some type of negative record was reported back from the FBI that would preclude the issuance of a work permit, the agency had to send a letter to the applicant revoking the card and to the employer. Sometimes the employer did not receive their copy of the letter and the applicant continued to work with a revoked gaming work card.
Lieutenant Weeks stated a temporary work card was currently issued for security guards and childcare workers, and adding the procedure to the gaming work card process would save time on everyone’s behalf.
Mr. Dennis DeBacco, Program Manager, Criminal History Repository, stated he had no further comments, but was present to answer any further questions.
Ms. Jan Gilbert, representing the Progressive Leadership Alliance in Nevada, testified in support of the bill and the amendments.
Mr. Gary Peck, Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, testified from Las Vegas stating the union was in support of A.B. 466. He stated the bill appeared to clarify the distinction between privileged industries and workers working privileged jobs as opposed to workers not working in privileged jobs. He expressed some concern about conditions being imposed on persons not convicted of crimes. He noted that Mr. Neilander’s comments made sense. However, it should be considered whether the person had merely been accused of some crime or whether people had been through the process and had plea-bargained or agreed to a drug court program.
Mr. Peck was confused about the need to submit the initial application for a gaming work card in the county of residence. He stated if the criteria and process were being standardized, he did not understand why the amendment was needed, although he did not oppose the amendment.
Mr. Peck stated he was pleased to note testimony that specified the process to adopt regulations for implementation of the statewide process would be public. The developed standards were critical to having a gaming work card system that was fair and met legal and constitutional standards.
Ms. Charlotte Arrowsmith, Alliance for Workers’ Rights, testified from Las Vegas in support of the bill and expressed her gratitude for the sponsors of A.B. 466.
Vice Chairman Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 466 and opened the hearing on A.B. 547.
Assembly Bill 547: Makes various changes to provisions governing securities. (BDR 7-502)
Ms. Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy, Secretary of State’s Office, introduced Mr. Charles Moore, Administrator, Securities Division, Secretary of State’s Office. She explained A.B. 547 made clarifying and streamlining changes to the securities law.
Ms. Lacey supplied a proposed amendment (Exhibit K) to Section 2 of A.B. 547. The amendment proposed to delete Section 2 in its entirety and renumber the remainder of the bill. Ms. Lacey stated an addition was needed to Exhibit K to state in Section 8 that the reference to Sections 1 and 3 should be changed to Sections 1 and 2.
Mr. Charles Moore, Administrator, Securities Division, Secretary of State’s Office, noted the bill primarily addressed minor housekeeping issues. The office had received communications from some people in the industry who were opposed to any fee increases. That was why the amendment had been offered.
Vice Chair Manendo noted if the amendment passed, the two-thirds majority vote required to pass the bill would be removed.
The Vice Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 547 and opened the hearing on A.B. 576.
Assembly Bill 576: Revises provisions concerning stay of execution and appeal of certain judgments. (BDR 2-1153)
Mr. Samuel P. McMullen, representing Morris Management Corporation, testified A.B. 576 was in some ways an awkward bill because it was hard for people to understand how what were perceived as very profitable tobacco companies would need a cap on judgments or bonds for appeal.
He explained the Engle case in Florida related to liability for smoking-related damages was ruled in favor of a $145 billion judgment and it was usually the practice in state courts that when a bond was posted for appeal of a judgment, it was posted at 100 percent of the judgment entered. He noted the bond was placed in case there were any problems with final, full payment of the judgment at the end of a case. Payment of judgments had never been an issue with the large tobacco companies, but when the tobacco company in the Engle case went to get a bond for the $145 billion, that bond in Florida was required to be 125 percent of the judgment, or $181 billion. Bonding companies charged 5 to 6 percent as a premium for the bonds that ensured funds were available until appeals were resolved.
Mr. McMullen explained the worldwide bonding capacity was approximately $6 billion to $10 billion. The Engle case alerted people worldwide that there might be times in which an appeal bond could not be issued.
Mr. McMullen stated, based on the tobacco settlement agreement, approximately $40 or $50 million per year was being received by Nevada that was functionally at risk at any moment because of the ferocity and number of suits against tobacco companies in general. The high judgments, in essence, made it impossible to defend on appeal in certain cases. The tobacco industry was looking for a rule of reason, and particularly in Nevada, where the state was somewhat at risk as well. Mr. McMullen noted the state of Oklahoma had just adopted a $25 million cap per lawsuit the previous day.
Mr. McMullen referred to A.B. 576, page 1, line 18, that added the cap in a civil action. Line 21 specified that if a judgment exceeded $1 million in value an appellant was required to give a bond in order to secure a stay of execution of a judgment during the pendency of the appeal. Page 2, line 4, set the cap at $1 million plus 10 percent of the judgment in excess of $1 million or $25 million under line 6, whichever was less.
Mr. McMullen explained if a judgment was $250 million or more a $25 million appeal bond would be required.
Line 8 stated if someone was purposely dissipating or diverting assets outside the ordinary course of business to evade ultimate payment of a judgment, the court could enter what orders were necessary. Mr. McMullen explained that language was an attempt to ensure there was a mechanism for security of the judgment.
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, representing Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company, testified in support of A.B. 576. He added part of the problem was that if companies were forced into bankruptcy, it was questionable that anyone would realize anything from the lawsuit.
The bill protected the plaintiff as well as the tobacco companies. He noted the cap was set high enough that it would only affect huge settlements.
Mr. Alfredo Alonso, with Lionel, Sawyer, and Collins, representing the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, stated it was important to realize the bill simply asked that if there was going to be an appeal, the appeal bond should be reasonable. He added that within the last six years judgments had jumped from a median of $500,000 to $1.8 million.
He noted it was impossible to obtain an appeal bond for a judgment of $147 billion that would not bankrupt even such companies as Phillip Morris. A Rand Institute finding had revealed that 95 percent of the “mega” cases were ultimately overturned on appeal.
Mr. Jeffrey added that similar legislation was being introduced in all states and reminded the committee Oklahoma had signed a cap into law. A similar bill had passed in approximately six states.
Mr. McMullen stated it was becoming impossible to obtain appellate bonds at the level of some of the current judgments.
Mr. Robert Crowell, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), stated the NTLA’s concern with the bill was the amount of the cap proposed by the bill. He reiterated that average judgments were between $500,000 and $1.8 million. The bill would cap bonds at $1 million for security and apply to all judgments, not just tobacco judgments.
Mr. Crowell reminded the committee that appeal bonds were designed to protect a plaintiff that succeeded in gaining a judgment to ensure that after an unsuccessful appeal the judgment could still be paid.
Mr. Crowell referred to Section 2 and stated in that situation, the bill would require the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence on appeal that the defendant or the adverse party was attempting to divert assets. He suggested that standard had to be met twice by a plaintiff to receive their judgment. He offered to work with the authors of the bill and noted the NTLA was not opposed to some form of post judgment court review of judgments. That would allow some flexibility for the court to state that the bond was a proper amount and there would be adequate security for the protection of the plaintiff. Absent that, the NTLA respectfully opposed the bill.
Vice Chair Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 576 and asked Mr. Crowell to work with Mr. McMullen to work on a consensus amendment.
The Vice Chair turned the committee’s attention to A.B. 547 to entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 547 WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE TO REMOVE THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE BILL.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Nolan stated he was absent from the hearing during testimony on the bill and therefore would abstain from voting on the motion.
Vice Chair Manendo opened a roll call vote for A.B. 547.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. NOLAN ABSTAINING; AND MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. (11 YEAS, 1 ABSTAIN AND 2 ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
The Vice Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 578.
Assembly Bill 578: Revises various provisions relating to gaming. (BDR 41-531)
Mr. Neilander explained A.B. 578 was the omnibus bill from the Gaming Control Board.
Section 1 changed the definition of “manufacturer” to recognize the current board policy and interpretation of the statute that if someone assumed responsibility for the design of a gaming device, they fit within the definition of manufacturer.
Many components made up a gaming device, but the board’s primary focus was on the pieces of the random number generator that determined win or loss. Within the industry, most employees had EPROM-based knowledge and there was additional software driven technology, including graphics, that might interfere with the credit meter. The bill recognized that a licensed manufacturer might contract out with other entities, but as long as the licensed manufacturer assumed responsibility for the design it would be allowed.
Section 2 through Section 5 were all taxation sections but the concept was the same. When someone paid taxes, certain things could be paid in advance and reconciled later based on accounting of revenue. When a refund was issued it included interest on those funds. The current refund was at the statutory rate plus 2 percent. The Nevada Department of Taxation had a long-standing provision that stated a refund was only required to pay one-half the current interest rate. The bill would make the refund for overpayment coincide with the Department of Taxation’s practice of issuing refunds at one-half the statutory interest rate. Mr. Neilander provided a chart of gaming interest rates in other states (Exhibit L). Some states were the same as Nevada’s current policy and in other states no interest at all was allowed. In other states the typical interest was at approximately one-half.
Section 6 was an amendment to NRS 463.643, which was the provision that governed the mandatory licensing for shareholders of publicly held corporations in Nevada engaged in gaming.
Mr. Neilander explained the current statute was written under the assumption that a publicly traded corporation had its stock registered, listed, and traded on a stock exchange. Currently there were corporations that were public by virtue of the fact that their debt and bonds were traded only.
The primary change was that a debt-only company did not have to file reporting requirements with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The bill clarified that if a person, who held over 10 percent of a publicly traded corporation, even if that corporation’s debt only was traded on the market, was in a mandatory licensing position.
Chairman Anderson asked if the Gaming Control Board would agree to hold the bill to potentially add a section placing a tax on the newly proposed area of Internet gaming. Mr. Neilander concurred and added A.B. 578 already contained all the pertinent tax law sections.
Chairman Anderson stated if the Internet gaming bill was passed on April 16, 2001, then the current bill would be an appropriate place to place gaming control functions and taxes.
Mr. Collins asked for an example of a debt-traded company versus a stock-traded company. Mr. Neilander explained a corporation such as the Eldorado in northern Nevada where the stock itself was registered with the SEC, but the company was not traded on any exchange. The corporation would sell their notes, or senior secured notes that were debt instruments, and those became tradable on an exchange. A certain interest rate and yield went with such a trade. He added that interest and yield were what was used to finance some of their projects. The current statute had not contemplated such an occurrence.
Vice Chair Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 578 and returned the committee to the Chair.
Chairman Anderson stated three gaming bills would be considered during the April 16, 2001, work session. It was anticipated the work session would include 16 bills.
Assembly Bill 105: Revises provisions pertaining to explosive and incendiary devices. (BDR 15-425)
Chairman Anderson reminded the committee that it had taken action on A.B. 105 and then questions were raised and another action had been considered. The “amend and do pass” action on the bill needed to be rescinded and a proposed amendment needed consideration that should cover black powder issues.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO RESCIND THE AMEND AND DO PASS ACTION ON A.B. 105.
VICE CHAIR MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Ms. Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, provided a conceptual amendment (Exhibit M) that would amend Section 3. That section dealt with mere possession of an incendiary device. The amendment would amend the exception in subsection 3(a) so that it did not prohibit a person from possessing a material component, substance, or device as required to performance of his duties . . . or (b) an amount, if detonated or otherwise exploded, would not ordinarily cause substantial bodily harm to another person . . . or (c) as part of a model rocket engine designed, sold, and used for the purpose of propelling a model rocket.
Ms. Lang explained subsection 3(b) was intended as the catchall for small amounts. Sponsors of the bills concurred with the concept of the amendment.
The further amendment removed the exemption for model rockets because that was moved into the mere possession statute.
Chairman Anderson asked if the amendment would include a new Section 1 of the bill. Ms. Lang replied the amendment only provided amendment to Section 3 and subsection 1 of Section 4 of the bill.
Assemblywoman Angle asked if the amendment would take care of all hobby enthusiasts’ concerns. The Chair responded affirmatively.
VICE CHAIR MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 105 WITH THE AMENDMENT STATED IN EXHIBIT M AND ALL PREVIOUSLY PASSED AMENDMENTS.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
The Chair stated the floor presentation would remain as previously assigned.
Chairman Anderson stated 16 bills would be on work session for April 16, 2001, and for April 12, 2001, the following bills would be considered in work session.
· A.B. 77;
· A.B. 248;
· A.B. 294;
· A.B. 471;
· A.B. 453; and
· A.B. 500.
Chairman Nolan asked that A.B. 331 be considered and Chairman Anderson suggested committee members needed to talk to either him or the committee policy analyst if there were other bills they felt needed consideration before the Monday deadline.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:31 a.m.
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: