MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Ways and Means
Seventy-First Session
March 15, 2001
The Committee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 3:36 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2001. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Carol Thomsen, Committee Secretary
Chairman Arberry announced the committee would begin with the hearing on A.B. 260.
Assembly Bill 260: Makes appropriation for support of historical book to be published by Women’s Research Institute of Nevada of University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (BDR S-1138)
Kathy McClain, Assemblywoman, District 15, stated the bill would appropriate $50,000 to produce, publish, and distribute a book on the historic contribution of women in the great state of Nevada. Ms. McClain introduced one of her cosponsors of the bill, Senator Dina Titus, Clark County Senatorial District 7, who would present testimony to the committee.
Senator Titus stated the committee would hear pertinent details regarding the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and the project itself, in later testimony presented by the principals involved, however, she wanted to introduce her colleagues at UNLV and provide some background information.
Senator Titus introduced Dr. Joanne Goodwin, Professor of History, and Director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada at UNLV, who had received her doctorate in U.S. History from the University of Michigan, and held a master’s degree in Women’s History from Sarah Lawrence College. Dr. Goodwin was a published scholar, and had received the William Morris Award for Excellence in Scholarship from UNLV based on her publications. Senator Titus indicated Dr. Goodwin had published a number of articles, was the general editor of “Women in American History,” was well known on the UNLV campus, was a role model for young women, and had worked very diligently to establish the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada. The institute was well respected, not only at UNLV, but also throughout the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).
Senator Titus then introduced Caryll Batt Dziedziak, Assistant Director, Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, who was a Ph.D. candidate in cultural and intellectual history, and a part-time instructor in the Women’s Studies Program at UNLV. According to Senator Titus, in addition to Ms. Dziedziak’s academic success, she was very involved in women’s political issues and advocacy. Ms. Dziedziak served as the state Chair of the Nevada Women’s Agenda and as the southern Chair of the Nevada Women’s Lobby.
Dr. Goodwin thanked the committee for the opportunity to provide information, not only about the institute, but also about the particular project described in A.B. 260. Dr. Goodwin advised she was the director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, and underscored the fact that, although the institute was located at UNLV, it was a statewide research institute, approved by the Board of Regents in 1999. Dr. Goodwin referenced Exhibit C, a packet of information regarding the institute and the project, which included the institute’s mission to stimulate, coordinate, and communicate research on, and about, women throughout the state.
Dr. Goodwin commented that she began working for Jean Ford within the project that would create the Nevada Women’s Archives, which had established a branch in Reno and at UNLV. Dr. Goodwin indicated she also became involved in the Las Vegas Women’s Oral History Project because, when teaching classes, she found there was very little information available, and yet whenever a conversation arose regarding development in Nevada, it always included the story of men and women working together. Dr. Goodwin noted that when published sources were perused, women were absent from the history of Nevada, which had become one of the major motivations for her work.
The institute was currently working on two projects in conjunction with national organizations: (1) a leadership development network out of Rutgers University, Center of American Women in Politics; and, (2) a pilot project funded by the Nevada Women’s Fund, with the Center for Applied Research at Reno, to research the status of women and girls in Nevada history. Dr. Goodwin emphasized the institute was a very strong example of public/private cooperation in the funding of its projects, having received both gifts and grants; the institute had also applied to foundations for funding. According to Dr. Goodwin, to date, the institute’s proposals had been well received.
Dr. Goodwin explained the book project was being presented to the committee as an example of the institute’s use of resources, and included in Exhibit C was the proposal and the need for the project. There were two published books regarding the history of women in Nevada, which would seem ample. Dr. Goodwin described how the proposed book would differ, and why the current publications were not ample. She noted that both of the published books were academic in nature, and were wonderful sources of information at the college level. Dr. Goodwin stated the published books addressed women in Nevada history predominantly during the 19th and early 20th century, while a great deal of the development within the state, particularly in southern Nevada, occurred after 1945, at the end of World War II. According to Dr. Goodwin, for the past approximately five years, she had been working with students to painstakingly accumulate biographies of prominent Nevada women, and the proposal addressed by A.B. 260 was to design a collection of approximately 100 very short biographies of women who fit the tentative title of the book, “Women Community Builders.” The book would include women from all walks of life, representative of a variety of different specters, i.e., business, politics, community, family, schools and educators.
Continuing, Dr. Goodwin noted that the institute wanted to present the information in a visually stimulating manner, because the audience for the proposed book would range from middle school to high school students. The book would attempt to incorporate quality academic research in an easily accessible format. Contained in Exhibit C were mock-ups of historic figures that would be included in the proposed book, and Dr. Goodwin stated the women featured in the book would be either deceased, or over the age of 80.
Dr. Goodwin commented that the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada was not only the most academically prepared to present the material for the book, but had already amassed over one-half of the entries. The institute would now look to the legislature to assist it in completion of the project, which had been underway for the past four years. Dr. Goodwin explained the type of format the institute wanted to utilize for the book was one that would include a variety of colors and photo images, and would be attractively designed, which was beyond the resources currently available to the institute. Dr. Goodwin indicated she had spoken to the Nevada Humanities Committee, the State Library, and the Historical Society about possible funding for the book, however, the budgets for those organizations were insufficient to participate in that endeavor.
Testifying next before the committee was Ms. Dziedziak, who stated the book was being proposed for two reasons, the first being to tell the stories of women who had made wonderful contributions to Nevada. Ms. Dziedziak stated that anyone who had had the privilege of serving with Jean Ford or Jan Evans would not question their worth or their contributions for inclusion in the book. According to Ms. Dziedziak, once memories faded, so did the history surrounding such women, and an organization such as the institute was needed to undertake assimilation of that history in a very accessible format for the community, i.e., schools, libraries, and the general public.
Ms. Dziedziak indicated that she taught an introductory Women’s Studies course, the demographics of which included mainly students in their early 20s, or “Generation X.” Per Ms. Dziedziak, those students were unaware of the stories surrounding Jean Ford and Jan Evans, two women who played very public roles in Nevada history. When Ms. Dziedziak discussed social organizations, issues concerning availability of services to the community, and how her students could become an “agency of change,” the students could not envision themselves as instruments of change. Ms. Dziedziak explained that when rape crisis centers were discussed, her students recognized that issue, even though they could not connect with it. However, when she interjected the story of Florence McClure, i.e., “Hurricane Flo,” who brought a group of concerned citizens together in her living room in 1973, and advised them they could make a difference, and bring about needed changes on behalf of the victims of rape and abuse, her students could connect with that story. By the end of the 16‑week course, Ms. Dziedziak indicated those students saw themselves as capable of being involved and making positive changes in Nevada, perhaps by becoming public figures themselves.
Ms. Dziedziak reiterated there were two reasons for the stories proposed for the book, and one was because the stories and contributions of the public women in Nevada should be told, women such as Florence McClure, who would turn 80 years of age in April 2001, and was still going strong. Ms. Dziedziak stated that secondly, there were more “Florences” out there, and Nevada needed young, “Generation X” students, who understood they could carry on those types of issues in the same manner, and could become an “instrument of change.”
Ms. McClain commented that passage of the bill would make the very important statement to the public that state legislators and state leaders recognized the contributions made by women over the course of Nevada’s development. Ms. McClain thanked her cosponsors on the bill, and urged the committee to support A.B. 260.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby, echoed earlier comments, and indicated the lobby would definitely lend its support to A.B. 260. The lobby felt a book depicting the contribution of women in Nevada’s history would be very beneficial to the state, and should be contemplated before some of that history was lost.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 260, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on A.B. 209.
Assembly Bill 209: Makes appropriation to Welfare Division of Department of Human Resources to increase temporarily population which is eligible to qualify for assistance from Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (BDR S-979)
Bonnie Parnell, Assemblywoman, District 40, Carson City, indicated the bill would provide a $5 million one-shot appropriation to temporarily expand the eligible population that received assistance with energy bills from the Low‑Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEA) Program, created by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 422.045. Currently, only those persons who were at 150 percent of poverty, or below, were eligible for the program. A.B. 209 would provide a temporary expansion of that population to include households at 60 percent of the state median income (Exhibit D). Ms. Parnell indicated she had sponsored the bill on behalf of the citizens of Nevada who, possibly for the first time in their lives, needed help. Many families had parents or grandparents living on fixed incomes, and Ms. Parnell commented that her mother might serve as the perfect example of the population who would benefit most from the proposed legislation. Ms. Parnell explained that her mother had lived alone for the last 13 years of her life, had received Social Security benefits, and worked occasionally at a local florist shop until the age of 79; she never once thought about asking the government for help. According to Ms. Parnell, her mother probably would not have qualified under the current LIHEA Program eligibility guidelines. She had been a very proud, independent woman, who managed to balance her checkbook from month to month. With the most recent sudden and sharp increase in energy costs, Ms. Parnell feared that her mother would have been, as many are finding themselves to be, squeezed to the point where that checkbook would no longer balance.
Ms. Parnell pointed out that current estimates from the Department of Energy suggested that prices over the winter months for heating oil were approximately 40 percent higher than last year, and natural gas prices were approximately 70 percent higher, leaving many of Nevada’s most vulnerable citizens to fall “through the cracks.” Northern Nevada was just emerging from the peak period of heating costs, but Ms. Parnell feared that those living in southern Nevada, which was just approaching the long, hot summer months, might very well need assistance with cooling bills. Ms. Parnell recalled the summer approximately four years ago, when her sons were living in Chicago, and that city suffered an unexpected, extended heat spell, that caused the death of approximately 600 senior citizens because they could not afford to cool their homes.
During the most recent campaign effort, many legislators spoke again and again about the dilemma of people who had to choose between putting food on their table or prescription drugs in their medicine cabinet. Ms. Parnell felt that a new factor had now been added to that equation, i.e., rising energy costs.
According to Ms. Parnell, that was the reason she had sponsored A.B. 209, and she called the committee’s attention to Exhibit D, which included a proposed amendment to the bill. After consultation with the current LIHEA Program administrator, it was determined that in order to remain in compliance with the federal guidelines, the language in Section 1, Subsection 2 of the bill should be amended to read: “. . . 60 percent of the state median income . . . .” The second page of the exhibit depicted the difference between the current program income levels at 150 percent of poverty, compared to the proposed income levels at 60 percent of the state median income.
Ms. Parnell noted that committee members were well aware of the situation the state was facing with available monies. The Governor had suggested in his State of the State address, that he would like to set aside $5 million for energy assistance. Ms. Parnell voiced her willingness to amend the language even further, to address the most vulnerable citizens depicted by the exhibit, possibly in the “size of household” category. Of real concern would be the household consisting of one person, where there might be a single, older citizen living on a fixed income, who would fall into the category just above the current income eligibility for the LIHEA Program.
Calling attention to Exhibit D, Ms. Parnell noted that included was information regarding what action was being taken by other states in consideration of the crisis at the current time. States were allowed to supplement the current federal program, if it was felt the state was undergoing an emergency situation. Ms. Parnell pointed out that many states had, indeed, increased and/or supplemented the federal program. The increase would be based either on 60 percent of the state median income by guideline, or 185 percent of poverty, whichever was lowest. Per Ms. Parnell, in the state of Nevada, 60 percent of the state median income was the lowest. She noted that many states had addressed the need to supplement the LIHEA Program, and the bill looked at the situation as a temporary, rather than an ongoing expenditure from the state coffers.
Ms. Parnell pointed out that she had asked that the bill become effective upon passage and approval, which she felt was a critically important issue. She reiterated her willingness to work with the Governor regarding the content of the bill, and believed that the allocation of $5 million would be beneficial in assisting those in need. Ms. Parnell indicated she felt the committee, and the legislature as a body, should address the population that had never asked for help, and who might not even be aware of how or where to access that help. The current LIHEA Program was administered via the Welfare Division of the Department of Human Resources (DHR), and Ms. Parnell introduced Michael J. Willden, Administrator of the Welfare Division.
Mr. Willden informed the committee that the Welfare Division did administer the LIHEA Program. The Governor’s Office had been closely monitoring the current energy crisis, and had recognized the need for additional support for low-income families with their winter heating, and summer cooling, costs. As previously indicated by Ms. Parnell, The Executive Budget, prepared by the Governor and submitted to the legislature for consideration, included a $5 million allocation to the LIHEA Program to assist those families with their energy needs.
Presently, stated Mr. Willden, the LIHEA Program was operated with 100 percent federal funding, allocated by the Department of Health and Human Services via the LIHEA Block Grant. In previous years, Nevada’s allocation had been approximately $2 million per year, however, because of the current energy situation and the escalating costs, the President had directed the Department of Health and Human Services to release additional LIHEA emergency contingency funds to the states. According to Mr. Willden, Nevada’s award for the current year stood at $3.4 million.
Continuing, Mr. Willden reported that there would be a presentation at the upcoming Interim Finance Committee (IFC) meeting, of a work-program to approve allocation of those additional dollars via the LIHEA Program budget account. That action would allow the LIHEA Program to allocate approximately $3.1 million in the “payments to families” category in FY2001, which would be an increase from the previous allocation of $2 million in FY2000. The reserve had been created to balance-forward to FY2002, which would create a total program of approximately $3.7 million.
Historically, indicated Mr. Willden, the LIHEA Program had received approximately 10,000 applications per year, as depicted by Exhibit E, which included a spreadsheet that delineated the history of program applications. Of the 10,000 applications received, the division had been able to serve approximately 80 to 85 percent, with an average payment of approximately $214 per year to eligible households. Mr. Willden reported that, at times in the past, particularly during the 1990-91 energy crisis, the division had received approximately 17,000 applications, and had served nearly 15,000.
The current LIHEA Program experienced a significant increase of applications to approximately 9,700, or 15 to 20 percent higher than the previous year, with roughly two months left in the program year; the total number served during the past year was 9,600 households. Mr. Willden stated the division had analyzed data for the last six-week period, to review current trends, and it was noted that most low-income households were receiving higher energy bills. The division had experienced a 66 percent increase in applications within the past six weeks, compared to the same time frame during the last program year. Mr. Willden indicated there was a great deal of concern regarding summer cooling costs, electric rates, gas and propane rates, as utility rates continued to increase.
Mr. Willden explained that the supplemental funds from the LIHEA Program, which would take the account to over $3 million, would be targeted to maintaining a status quo of the roughly 10,000 applications. He reiterated that the average payment had been approximately $212 per year, per household, which covered approximately 37 percent of the energy costs. With the rising energy costs, the division hoped to maintain that 37 percent ratio, however, in order to do so, would need to raise the average payment to approximately $304 per household, per year.
According to Mr. Willden, the $5 million appropriation contained in The Executive Budget was expected to be utilized over the upcoming biennium, primarily in the maintenance and implementation of five strategic goals:
Mr. Willden reported, at the present time, the eligibility criteria being used was 150 percent of poverty, and there were approximately 157,000 households, as indicated by the Census Bureau, below that level. He noted the LIHEA Program was only serving approximately 10,000 households. The division’s priority was to expand the dollars allocated to the lowest income families, and it hoped to maintain that priority.
Mr. Goldwater asked whether a component of LIHEA was based on the number of heating days. Mr. Willden explained that the formula used at the federal level for the allocation of LIHEA funds was an extremely complex formula and dealt with low-income families, the energy burden, or heating/cooling days, et cetera. Mr. Goldwater reiterated that it was his understanding that the federal government used the number of heating days as an important component in the allocation of LIHEA funds. That would be particularly important in augmentation of the program for residents of southern Nevada, where it would not be heating days, but rather cooling days that should be used. Electing to respond was Ms. Parnell, who reiterated that if the additional $5 million was allocated, as proposed in A.B. 209, northern Nevada had passed the peak for heating costs, and the money would be available for cooling costs during the upcoming hot summer months. The last page of Exhibit D indicated that Nevada received the second lowest allocation of LIHEA Program funds of any state, with only Hawaii, where temperatures were quite mild, receiving less. Mr. Goldwater noted that the key function of the Washington, D.C. Office might be to explain why two-thirds of Nevada’s population lived in southern Nevada, and the LIHEA Program allocation was computed based on heating days, rather than cooling days. Mr. Goldwater stated he felt it would be a very helpful program for southern Nevada. Ms. Parnell noted that perhaps Nevada should urge Congress to allocate a greater allotment of LIHEA funds to Nevada.
Ernest Nielson advised he was with the Washoe County Senior Law Project, which represented low-income seniors in various arenas. Mr. Nielson voiced support of the bill on behalf of the project and its clientele, and pointed out that the lower the income, the greater the percentage paid for energy costs. According to Mr. Nielson, nationally, low-income families paid approximately four times the percentage of their income than a median-income family paid for energy costs. Mr. Nielson stated that for fixed-income seniors, the figures were even worse. Over the past year, the LIHEA Program reached only about 14 percent of the eligible families in Nevada, which meant that a large population, which was eligible for benefits, did not receive them. Mr. Nielson felt the requested $5 million appropriation was very much needed, and agreed that Nevada was essentially being cheated, because it did not receive the proper allocation from LIHEA for the southern population.
Per Mr. Nielson, the state did receive additional federal money for any additional funds added to the “mix,” i.e., via voluntary programs and the utility company programs, which had provided approximately $500,000 toward low-income assistance related to energy. Because of that participation, the state received an additional allocation of approximately $90,000 from the federal government. With the proposed $5 million appropriation, the state should realize another approximately $1 million in leveraged funds from the federal government; he urged the committee to support A.B. 209.
Ernest Adler, representing the Nevada Housing Coalition, stated the coalition also strongly endorsed the bill. He advised that the majority of the housing programs throughout the state had agreed to strongly endorse A.B. 209. Mr. Adler felt Mr. Goldwater had made a very good point regarding summer energy costs, and he felt the state was underestimating the costs for energy over the summer months. Mr. Adler stated if the legislature did not pass the bill, there was a real possibility that people would suffer severe physical malady, or perhaps even death, during the upcoming summer months, which would create a serious situation in southern Nevada. Mr. Adler reiterated that the Nevada Housing Coalition strongly supported the measure, however, did not feel that $5 million would be sufficient to address the problem.
The coalition felt the question of weatherization should also be addressed within the state, which could reduce energy costs by as much as 50 percent. Mr. Adler pointed out that would be of greater value than a subsidy because it would last for the life of the home. Mr. Adler noted that currently, the state only weatherized approximately 178 of the approximately 128,000 homes that needed weatherization.
Mrs. Chowning agreed with Mr. Adler’s comments, and indicated the legislature had heard previous testimony during budget hearings regarding just how drastic the problem had become. There were a number of applications that went unmet, because agency budgets remained stagnant, which she felt was both alarming and appalling. Mrs. Chowning inquired about non-profit organizations, i.e., the Salvation Army, which might provide assistance with the payment of energy bills, or with repairs to homes, et cetera. Mrs. Chowning noted that people would seek assistance from all available sources, state or local governmental entities, and non-profit organizations. Mr. Adler stated there were a number of non-profit organizations that would provide assistance, however, that assistance would be with such items as replacement of older air conditioning units, which might consume as much as twice the amount of energy as a new unit. Mr. Adler pointed out that represented a significant cost, even though there would be significant benefit realized over the life of the new unit. According to Mr. Adler, there simply were not many non-profit organizations that would step in and replace air conditioning units, or pay for weatherization, which could be quite expensive; the non-profits did assist persons with items that were less costly.
Mr. Nielsen reported that the Salvation Army in southern Nevada and community service agencies in northern Nevada distributed the funds provided by the utility companies. The utility program was voluntary and composed basically of the utility customer’s charitable contributions, matched by the stockholders. Those were the energy funds that were available on an emergency basis, as far as Mr. Neilson was aware. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated the City of Las Vegas had initiated a program several years ago for individuals who had reached a certain age, which provided extended loans for the life of a home. Those loans were for improvement projects such as roof replacement or repair, replacement of air conditioning units, et cetera, and Ms. Giunchigliani noted that while it had been a very worthwhile project, it was a repayment program with limited funds available. Ms. Giunchigliani then suggested the possibility of replacement of air conditioning units with “swamp” or evaporative coolers. Mr. Adler noted that “swamp” coolers were much more energy-efficient than refrigerated air conditioning units. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether other entities in southern Nevada had been approached, such as the trade unions, to ascertain whether there were programs where those entities would be willing to assist. Mr. Adler noted one of the problems was that there was a shortage of persons conducting energy audits on eligible houses, and the installation of weatherproofing, et cetera. Mr. Adler indicated that if there was a steady source of funding for weatherization projects, the trade groups might provide assistance.
Robert (Bob) Cooper, Senior Regulatory Analyst, Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Consumer Protection, advised the committee that even though the Consumer’s Advocate could not be present at the hearing, he wanted to convey the strong support of his office for A.B. 209. Mr. Cooper provided Exhibit F for the committee’s perusal, which depicted the dramatic increase in the price of natural gas, as revealed by previous testimony. Mr. Cooper explained the exhibit also included projections for the next three years, which indicated prices would remain high for quite sometime, and the problem would not disappear. Mr. Goldwater’s comments regarding the cooling costs in southern Nevada were quite appropriate, stated Mr. Cooper, because natural gas was becoming the fuel of choice to help meet that cooling load in Clark County. According to Mr. Cooper, natural gas prices would also factor into higher electrical rates, as noted by the Public Utilities Commission. Mr. Cooper voiced strong support for A.B. 209, on behalf of the Bureau of Consumer Affairs.
Also voicing support for A.B. 209 were:
· Jon Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services;
· Janet Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; and,
· Bernard T. Santos, J.D., American Association of Retired Persons, Capital City Task Force Coordinator.
With no further testimony forthcoming regarding A.B. 209, Chairman Arberry closed the hearing, and opened the hearing on A.B. 186.
Assembly Bill 186: Makes appropriation for support of clinical law program at William S. Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas. (BDR S-1120)
Richard J. Morgan, Dean, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV, advised the committee that A.B. 186 would be an integral part of building the law school, and was related to the clinical legal education program. Part of the education program within any good law school was a law clinic, and Dean Morgan explained the purpose of such a clinic would be to provide students with the opportunity to work with faculty on actual client problems while attending law school. There was a major educational benefit to such programs, because students actually dealt with clients and applied the law they had learned, while developing interpersonal skills. Dean Morgan stated students in the program also worked on their professionalism and ethical conduct, and he felt it was a very important educational part of the program. In addition, Dean Morgan pointed out that the clinical program at a good law school played a major role in community service, and the vision of the William S. Boyd School of Law was very much centered on community service.
Dean Morgan noted that legal clinical programs served the community by providing legal representation, without cost to persons who otherwise would not receive such representation. In the proposed clinical law program, students would be representing abused and neglected children, along with juveniles and juvenile court proceedings. Based upon the preliminary work conducted by students in those programs, the judges before whom they appeared were very, very impressed with the quality of the work being done. Dean Morgan stated the clinical program not only included educational and community service benefits, but was also very important to the law school as it moved toward full accreditation, and the maturity of what was hoped to be a great law school for Nevada. Dean Morgan explained that the William S. Boyd School of Law was provisionally accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) in record time, having received its provisional accreditation less than two years after opening its doors. The school recently underwent an inspection from the site inspection team of the ABA, and the team was exceedingly complimentary in its assessment of the law school.
Part of the development, for accreditation purposes, involved initiation of a skills training program such as the clinical law program, and Dean Morgan felt it was the type of program favored by the ABA. The ABA had reviewed the law school’s clinical program plan, and having the plan in place would position the school very well in its move toward full accreditation. In conclusion, Dean Morgan noted the potential long-term, cost-saving features of the program for the state. Dean Morgan pointed out that students who worked in the program were under faculty supervision, worked for free, and provided excellent legal service to the clients they represented. Beyond that, those students would be working with the courts, and their clients in appropriate cases, to avoid institutionalization or incarceration in state juvenile facilities, and to avoid foster care. Dean Morgan noted that for every placement appropriately avoided by students, the state would save a great deal of money, and he felt that over the long term, the program would be very cost-effective.
Dean Morgan commented that for accreditation, education, community service, and cost-saving reasons, he would urge the committee to favorably consider the bill. He then introduced Mary Berkheiser, Associate Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, and Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, who would also present testimony regarding the bill.
Barbara Buckley, Assemblywoman, Assembly District Eight, advised the committee that she felt very strongly about the law school and its clinical program, and was quite impressed with the law school’s progress since it opened. When Dean Morgan’s office was still temporary, Ms. Buckley visited him and suggested he consider programs where students performed community legal services. Dean Morgan replied that he had thought about a requirement that all first year law students, as a condition of graduation, would volunteer 50 or 60 hours of community legal service.
Ms. Buckley indicated that, along with law school faculty and Dean Morgan, she had worked with Nevada Legal Services to design free community legal education classes. The law school offered eight to ten classes a week in family law, which included instruction regarding how to represent oneself in small claims court, in bankruptcy proceedings, and explained the various housing laws. Law students presented the basics for the classes, with supervision provided by an attorney, and Ms. Buckley noted it was an extremely innovative program, and had very strongly impressed the accreditation team. According to Ms. Buckley, that was the type of effort typical of the law school, and she felt it was an amazing group, led by an amazing Dean.
Ms. Buckley opined that the clinical program designed by the law school was one of the best she had ever observed. Ms. Buckley noted that when she attended law school, there were no clinical programs available, therefore, students learned a great deal about the law, but did not know what they were supposed to do on the first day of practicing law. Ms. Buckley explained that such students did not know how to prepare a pleading and had never appeared in court. She felt clinical programs were the “new guard” of legal education, rather than a supplement, and was essential for well-trained attorneys. Ms. Buckley stated the clinical program taught lawyers about the great, unmet legal needs of society, and once a lawyer experienced the pleasure of representing a juvenile first-hand in the clinic setting, not only would they learn the law regarding how to actually practice with a case, they would also get “hooked.” Ms. Buckley noted that when she called on attorneys who had participated in clinical law programs several years later and asked for representation of a case pro bono, those lawyers knew what it was like to fight for a child who otherwise would have no access to justice, and whose voice would be “lost in the wilderness.” Ms. Buckley emphasized that it was a great program that met a great need, and she urged the committee’s favorable support of A.B. 186.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the program was necessary to the law school in its move toward accreditation. Dean Morgan replied in the affirmative, and noted the law school did need to initiate a skills-training program, whether it was the proposed program or another substantial skills-training program. The proposed clinical law program would clearly satisfy the law school’s accreditation requirements. The recent ABA inspection team included one of the best clinical teachers in the country from the University of Tennessee, who remarked that it was a fine program. Ms. Giunchigliani then asked about the absolute final date the law school would need the funding for the program, with the view to accreditation. Dean Morgan replied that the law school would be applying for full accreditation in the summer of 2002, and would be inspected for full accreditation in late spring of 2002. For accreditation purposes, that would be the absolute final date, however, Dean Morgan pointed out that for educational purposes, the law school would like the funding as soon as possible.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked, should the committee be unable to facilitate the entire funding request, what the law school’s bottom line was regarding funding. Electing to respond was Ms. Berkheiser, who explained the law school had initiated the clinical program and, because of the Dean’s commitment to the program, had hired founding faculty who had experience in clinical teaching at previous institutions. Ms. Berkheiser stated because the law school was in its third year, it was committed to commencing with the clinical program. Two clinics had been initiated, one in the area of child welfare, and one in the area of juvenile delinquency, and Ms. Berkheiser reported the law school planned to maintain the operational status of those clinics. She noted, however, that additional faculty was needed in order to maintain the operational status of the program in the future. Professors were required to teach other courses, to write and produce scholarships, and Ms. Berkheiser stated the hope was to add other clinics as the law school progressed, in order to provide additional services to children and families. Ms. Berkheiser reiterated that, while the program was operational, additional staff was needed.
Dean Morgan stated, with respect to funding, the law school needed as much of the requested allocation as the legislature could approve, and as soon as possible. If it became apparent that the financial situation was such that there would be a delay, Dean Morgan stated the law school could accommodate that delay. He noted A.B. 186 was a carefully considered proposal that did not contain much “fat,” however, he felt that “half a loaf was better than no loaf at all.” Ms. Giunchigliani stated the committee was facing the possibility of budget cuts amounting to approximately $38 million from one-shot funds, and since A.B. 186 contained a one-shot request, she would ask that the law school advise the committee of the actual dates funding would be needed, along with the absolute minimum funding necessary for the program, which would help the committee in its deliberations.
With no further questions forthcoming regarding A.B. 186, the hearing was closed. Chairman Arberry opened the hearing on A.B. 266.
Assembly Bill 266: Makes various changes regarding notaries public. (BDR 19‑648)
Renee Lacey, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State, introduced Bru Ethridge, Notary Division Administrator, Digital Signature Coordinator, Office of the Secretary of State, and explained they would testify in support of A.B. 266, which would make some procedural and clarification changes to the notary laws. Ms. Lacey noted that Section 3 of the bill requested initiation of a special fund for the Secretary of State’s Office to provide training for notaries, charge fees, and establish the fund to pay for the training. Ms. Lacey referenced Exhibit G, the written testimony of Bru Ethridge, which referenced various sections of the bill. Ms. Lacey explained that the Secretary of State’s Office currently provided free training for the approximately 27,000 notaries in Nevada, at the rate of approximately 1,000 per year. That training was free and, while there had been positive feedback regarding the training, there had also been complaints regarding the facilities where the training sessions were held. Those notaries who participated in the training classes had offered to pay a fee for that training if an appropriate training room could be provided, one which allowed them to bring refreshments into the class.
Chairman Arberry asked whether the bill addressed a “fee” or a “fund.” Ms. Lacey acknowledged the Secretary of State’s Office would charge a fee, which would be applied to the cost of a training facility and toward the appropriate paperwork. Chairman Arberry indicated his only concern was that the Governor had indicated he would not sign any legislation that contained fees, and inquired whether the Governor was familiar with the provisions of A.B. 266. Ms. Lacey replied that she was unaware of that stipulation, and Chairman Arberry requested further clarification regarding the Governor’s position. Ms. Lacey advised that she would provide the requested information.
Mr. Marvel asked, other than the requested fee, whether there was any additional fiscal impact on the state. Ms. Lacey replied that there was no other fiscal impact, and advised that the notaries had voiced a willingness to pay the fee, if appropriate facilities could be provided. Ms. Lacey reported that the Secretary of State’s Office simply did not have sufficient funds in its budget to pay for the training facilities.
Ms. Tiffany asked about Section 5(b), of the bill, which referenced procedures for notarization of digital and electronic signatures. Ms. Lacey explained that S.B. 49, heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and the concern was that there were no procedures in place for electronic notarization, if the UETA was adopted. There were currently no uniform procedures for electronic notarizations, and Ms. Lacey pointed out that there was a lawsuit pending regarding the patent on the procedure. After checking with other states, it was determined that the Secretary of State’s Office in various states had provided the procedure, via regulation authority. The procedure was strictly for notarization of digital and/or electronic signatures, because there was currently no procedure in place for such notarization. Ms. Lacey stated there was one certification authority in Nevada, and to date there had been no electronic signatures that had required notarization. If the UETA was adopted, technically, an electronic signature could be submitted for notarization.
Mrs. Chowning referenced the utilization of state facilities, and asked whether state facilities were being sought for training. Electing to respond was Ms. Ethridge, who advised she did utilize all public office space available, which included the Grant Sawyer Building in Las Vegas, where her training was often bumped at the last minute because of other meetings, and it was often difficult to reschedule a class for 175 people. Ms. Ethridge reiterated that she used the various state buildings whenever possible, and often had to refuse applicants because of the size of the class. The class lasted between three and four hours, and people wanted to bring in their own water, et cetera, which was not allowed in certain public facilities.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on A.B. 266, and with no further business to come before the committee, adjourned the hearing at 4:47 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Carol Thomsen
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE: