MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-First Session
March 19, 2001
The Senate Committee on Financewas called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 7:37 a.m., on Monday, March 19, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator William R. O’Donnell
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Debra Petrelli, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gene T. Porter, Chief District Judge, Department 1, Eighth Judicial District
Cynthia Dianne Steel, Family Court Judge, Department G, Eighth Judicial District
Bill Martin, Chairman, President and CEO of Nevada State Bank
Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, State Supreme Court
Charles M. McGee, District Judge, Department 2, Second Judicial District
Janet J. Berry, Chief District Judge, Department 1, Second Judicial District
Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County
Deborah E. Schumacher, Family Court Judge, Department 5, Second Judicial District
Ann P. McCarthy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Ron Longtin, Court Administrator, Second Judicial District, Board of Commissioners, Washoe County
Peter I. Breen, District Judge, Department 7, Second Judicial District
Mark Winebarger, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administration and Fiscal Services, Department of Education
Rose McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District
Pat A. Zamora, Director, Accounting Department, Business and Finance Service Division, Clark County School District
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education,
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration
Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator (statutory title) and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, State Supreme Court
Senator Raggio informed the committee there is a list of bills to be considered for introduction (Exhibit C). He said they are all requests for one-time General Fund appropriations, and are all from the Department of Administration or other state agencies. He asked whether funding for all bill draft requests (BDR) on this list is included in The Executive Budget.
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Fiscal Analyst, responded that this is correct.
Senator Raggio indicated that, unless there is an objection from the committee, he would entertain a motion to introduce all of these on the list as committee bills.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1349: Funds increase in teacher training, textbook resources, and information technology. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 427.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1351: To allow the Nevada Humanities Committee to have basic funding support for the biennium. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 428.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1352: To allow continuation of the drug court program in the 2nd Judicial District. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 429.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1353: To allow continuation of the drug court program in the 8th Judicial District. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 430.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1362: Funds grants for library collections and equipment requirements. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 431.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1363: Funds department computer requirements. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 432.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1364: Funds Division of Museums and History equipment requirements. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 433.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1365: Funds Las Vegas Museum participation in planning for the Las Vegas Springs Preserve Project. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 434.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1367: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at the Nevada Mental Health Institute. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 435.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1369: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at the Division of Mental Health and Development Services Rural Regional Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 436.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1371: Funds matching support for National Judicial College. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 437.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1373: Funds matching support for College of Juvenile/Family Law. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 438.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1374: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at the Desert Regional Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 439.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1375: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at the Sierra Regional Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 440.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1377: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at rural clinics. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 441.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1378: Funds replacement equipment. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 442.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1379: Funds wild horse stables for Prison Industries (loan from General Fund). (Later introduced as Senate Bill 443.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1380: Funds security upgrades at various Parole and Probation offices. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 444.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1383: Funds a jobs task analysis and physical fitness validation study for peace officers. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 445.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1385: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software in the Division of Mental Health and Development Services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 446.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1388: Funds new and replacement equipment in the Director’s Office. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 447.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1392: Funds State Parks improvement projects. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 448.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1395: Funds replacement equipment in the Division of Forestry. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 449.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1399: Funds vehicles and new equipment. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 450.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1401: Funds continuation of assistance to the Life Pregnancy Assistance and Vocational Training Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 451.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1402: Funds continuation of assistance to the Alliance of the Mentally Ill of Nevada. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 452.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1404: Funds Senior Rx Program marketing efforts and subsidy enhancements. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 453.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1410: Funds a business process re-engineering study for the Division of Mental Health and Development Services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 454.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1419: Funds new and replacement equipment and hardware and software at Lakes Crossing. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 455.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1420: Funds new and replacement equipment at Southern Nevada Child and Adolescent Services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 456.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1423: Funds Conservation Laboratory. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 457.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1424: Funds cost-of-living bonus to all public employees in local school districts. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 458.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1425: Funds update of Nevada Report Card Accountability software and development of the new 8th grade criterion reference test. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 459.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1427: Funds assistance for the operation of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at UNLV. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 460.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1428: Funds new and replacement equipment in Computing Center. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 461.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1431: To allow the Silver Haired Legislative Forum to have basic funding support for the biennium. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 462.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S‑1432: Funds various facility maintenance projects. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 463.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1433: Funds various enabling technology projects and new and replacement equipment. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 464.)
SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE AS BILLS BDR S-1349, BDR S-1351, BDR S-1352, BDR S-1353, BDR S-1362, BDR S-1363, BDR S‑1364, BDR S-1365, BDR S-1367, BDR S-1369, BDR S-1371, BDR S‑1373, BDR S-1374, BDR S-1375, BDR S-1377, BDR S-1378, BDR S‑1379, BDR S-1380, BDR S-1383, BDR S-1385, BDR S-1388, BDR S‑1392, BDR, S-1395, BDR S-1399, BDR S-1401, BDR S-1402, BDR S‑1404, BDR S-1410, BDR S-1419, BDR S-1420, BDR S-1423, BDR S‑1424, BDR S-1425, BDR S-1427, BDR S-1428, BDR S-1431, BDR S‑1432, BDR S-1433.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
* * * * *
Senator Jacobsen introduced a bill from Rotary International regarding license plates. He mentioned that they did go on sale in California. Senator Raggio asked what the bill requests. Senator Jacobsen said it provides for a license plate at no cost to the state. Senator Raggio asked whether he would like this to be a committee introduction. Senator Jacobsen responded that would be best. Senator Raggio indicated that he will accept the motion.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE).
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 184: Adjusts prospective salary of supreme court justices and district court judges. (BDR 1-517)
Senator Raggio said this measure was heard initially in the Senate Committee on Judiciary and was re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance because of the fiscal impact.
Gene T. Porter, Chief District Judge, Department 1, Eighth Judicial District, said he is the Chief Judge within his department and read from written testimony (Exhibit D). He explained that as Chief Judge he has direct oversight of more than one-half of all trial judges in the state of Nevada. He added that it is his responsibility to speak on behalf of the entire Nevada trial and appellate judiciary concerning the issue of judicial compensation, and in support of Senate Bill (S.B.)184.
Judge Porter pointed out that the salaries of the Nevada judiciary are drawn from the General Fund. He said the Nevada judiciary consists of 54 District Court judges and 7 Supreme Court justices, with 30 of these individuals living in Clark County. He added that the annual compensation for these judges and justices is set by the Legislature. He mentioned the current annual, base salary for District Court judges is $100,000, plus longevity of 2 percent a year, after four years, to a maximum of 22 percent after 11 years. He said the salary for Supreme Court justices is $107,600 with the same longevity benefits as District Court judges.
Judge Porter said the last base salary increase occurred in 1995, when compensation was increased from $79,000 to $100,000 annually for all judges taking office after the 1996 election. He added there has been no increase in salary since that time.
Judge Porter commented on a task force that was implemented by Governor Kenny Guinn in November 2000 to examine and recommend appropriate pay levels for certain elected public officials. He said the task force took testimony from the judicial and legislative branches and representatives of elected county officials and submitted its final report to the Governor in January of this year.
Judge Porter said S.B. 184 contains the salaries for the judicial branch as recommended by the Governor’s task force. He pointed out that through the efforts of the task force, the recommended salary structure contained in S.B. 184 is included in the Governor’s recommend budget. He added that, as a judge, he fully supports these recommendations.
Judge Porter noted that traditionally, in setting salaries, a comparison of similarly situated positions and pay scales of other states are reviewed. He said that such an analysis assumes the workload and productivity of each position is the same. He added that by comparison Nevada judges and justices are similarly situated, although still somewhat behind their colleagues in neighboring western states as shown on the comparative chart (Exhibit E).
Judge Porter pointed out that judges in Washington, California, and Arizona are paid higher salaries. He said judges in Utah receive almost identical salaries, while judges in Idaho receive less than the salary paid to Nevadan Judges. Judge Porter added that, at the appellate level, only the state of Idaho pays its justices less than Nevada.
Judge Porter said, “However, utilizing traditional methods to appropriately set judicial salaries in today’s Nevada is to ignore the profound changes that have occurred in our state over the past 5 to 10 years.” He further remarked that the private sector approach of basing compensation on workload and productivity, rather than on artificial classifications, is his recommendation to the committee.
Judge Porter pointed out that with regard to the Eighth Judicial District Court, which comprises more than half the entire judiciary, Nevada judges are among the most productive and underpaid in the country.
Judge Porter, referring to page 2 of Exhibit E, said judges in Los Angeles County enjoy a yearly cash take-home pay of $163,822.
Senator Raggio asked whether California gives longevity pay for judges. Judge Porter said he believes they do. He noted that page 3 of Exhibit E outlines judges’ salaries in San Diego County. Senator Raggio explained that when longevity pay was instituted in Nevada, we were the second state in the nation to implement it. He added that, at that time, California did not pay longevity. Judge Porter said the way he understands it, California Judges have a base salary of $133,052, and, depending on what county they are in, they are paid a supplemental amount.
Senator Raggio asked about current health benefits for justices in Nevada. Judge Porter said, “In Nevada, judges are currently covered. As far as my family goes, I have to pay in addition to my family, but I, myself, am insured.”
Senator Raggio said, “Retirement is dependant upon which route you follow. Is that still the situation?” Judge Porter said it is, and it depends upon which plan you are on and how long you are on the plan. Senator Raggio asked whether some judges pay their own retirement and some do not. Judge Porter said if a judge is in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the Supreme Court budget pays it, and if a judge is in “judicial,” there is no payment.
Senator Raggio reiterated that, in addition to the base salary, judges in Nevada, do receive health benefits and retirement in one form or another. Judge Porter agreed that they do.
Judge Porter, returning to Exhibit E, explained caseload and disposition of cases for judges in Los Angeles. He also outlined the ratio of caseload to judges and take‑home pay for judges in Maricopa County, Arizona, as well as the salary and caseload of judges in San Diego County. Referring to page 5 of Exhibit E, he called attention to judges in Clark County who have a yearly take-home pay of $108,667. He added that in 1999, there were 27 judges for a population of 1.3 million or 48,148 citizens per judge. He mentioned that in January of this year, 3 judges were added to the Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District. He indicated the average judge in Clark County has a caseload of 2,254 cases and disposed of 2,025 cases annually, which is almost twice the number of other jurisdictions.
Judge Porter, referring to page 8 of Exhibit E, compared judicial productivity with judicial salary and pointed out that Clark County, by comparison, is the lowest paid at $48 per filing per judge. He called attention to judicial productivity and case dispositions and again, Clark County, by comparison, was the lowest paid at $54 per disposition per judge.
Senator Raggio, referring to Page 6 of Exhibit E, asked how many district judges currently are in southern Nevada. Judge Porter responded that there are 30. Senator Raggio asked whether 11 are Family Court judges, and whether they are exclusively Family Court judges. Judge Porter said there are 11 and they are exclusively Family Court judges; the other 19 are in the Civil/Criminal Division.
Senator Raggio asked whether any judges are assigned to only criminal matters, or if they have joint jurisdiction. Judge Porter answered that a split system was established 3 years ago. He explained that, with this system, half the judges in Clark County did only criminal and half only did civil. He said this system was “out-voted” and they have since gone to a hybrid system. This new system, he added, gives some judges the option of doing only civil or only criminal, and the rest of the judges do half civil and half criminal.
Senator Raggio remarked that the caseload in Family Court appears to be higher than in District Court. Judge Porter commented, “There is no doubt about it.” Senator Raggio inquired whether “Masters” are utilized in both Family Court and General Jurisdiction court. Judge Porter said they are. Senator Raggio asked how many “Masters” are utilized. Judge Porter said in the Civil/Criminal Division, they have an arbitration commissioner and a discovery commissioner. He added that in the Family Court Division, Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel could better answer that question.
Senator Raggio reiterated his question whether “Masters” are assigned to cases as well as commissioners. Judge Porter said that in Clark County, when they move into the binding arbitration system, they go in front of the arbitration commissioner. Senator Raggio asked whether the Family Court uses many “Masters.” Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel, Department G, Family Division, Eighth Judicial District, commented that they have two temporary domestic violence commissioners. She added that they have two child support commissioners and one discovery and guardianship commissioner.
Senator Raggio asked whether his terminology of “Master” is correct or “Commissioner” is correct. Judge Steel said both these positions do support work for judges, including preliminary hearings, and they prepare recommendations for orders.
Judge Steel added that they also have two “Masters” who work fulltime in the Juvenile Division. Senator Raggio asked what the salary is for “Masters” in the Juvenile Division. Judge Steel said that, some of these “Masters” currently make more than District Court judges, around $107,000 annually. She added:
They are paid according to a scale that we’ve agreed to with the county. The county takes care of their salaries, and we can start them at a midway point on some range that they’ve got. Some of them start around $78,000 and they’re making upwards of $121,000 in some instances.
Senator Raggio requested that Judge Steel’s staff provide the committee with a list of those individuals and their salary schedules. Judge Steel said they would.
Senator Raggio asked whether any similar information for other judicial districts is available, because the prior information is all Eighth Judicial District. Judge Porter said, “Mr. Chairman I have, and I did that for a reason, because I tried to take the highest common denominator and extrapolate it out as opposed to taking the lowest, and I know the Second Judicial District is here.”
Senator Raggio asked whether the Second Judicial District has similar information for the committee. Judge Porter said he does not know. Senator Raggio requested that this information be submitted to the committee.
Judge Porter testified that at the close of calendar year 1997, the Supreme Court pending case inventory was 2,521 cases, one of the five largest inventories in the country. He noted that three years later, at the end of calendar year 2000, 1,720 cases remained pending; a reduction of 801 cases. He said members of the judiciary have paid great dividends in continuing to increase productivity and accountability to the people of our state.
Judge Porter stated that a recently published annual report has been implemented, which contains uniform caseload statistics for every district in Nevada, including justice and municipal courts. He remarked that comprehensive case management rules, the development of uniform standards for performance, and other programs have also been implemented to increase the judiciary’s productivity and accountability.
Judge Porter pointed out that the Nevada Judicial Council has been upgraded to develop uniform standards for judicial administration performance, court facilities, and court security. He mentioned that the Supreme Court formed a committee of judges, law enforcement representatives, and family advocates to develop standards, including forms to be used in domestic violence cases. He noted that a manual has been developed for trial courts to improve collections on all levels. He testified that with help of the “private bar,” completion of an appellate practice manual, to aid lawyers and their clients, is near. Rules have been enacted, he added, to implement the short-trial program passed as part of the Nevada Arbitration Act by the 1999 legislature. He remarked that a blue ribbon committee has been created to revise and modernize the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, making litigation in trial courts more user friendly. He pointed out that the Court Annexed Arbitration System is continually being improved.
Judge Porter called attention to an appearance by the judiciary before the Subcommittee on General Government, which took place on March 8, 2001. He said it was suggested at that meeting that the judiciary’s focus should center on workload reduction rather than compensation concerns. He added that Page 6 of Exhibit E demonstrates that they are “far behind the curve” in Clark County, and even with the addition of five judges, the caseload per judge is only reduced to 2,067, which is still 600 cases higher than neighboring states.
Judge Porter said Nevada judges are currently prohibited from receiving an increase in salary during their term of office. He pointed out that all judges, with the exception of a few Supreme Court justices, and the Family Division of the Eighth Judicial District court, must sit for re-election in 2002. He pointed out that the salary decided on by the 2001 legislature will be the salary that is paid in 2009.
Senator Raggio asked why some Family Court judges remain in that same election period. Judge Porter answered that it is because of their first election cycle, which started in 1992. Senator Raggio asked how these judges are covered under S.B.184. Judge Porter said he didn’t understand the question. Senator Raggio reiterated that all judges will be up for re-election in 2002; however, Family Court judges will not. Judge Porter said the Family Division judges would be up for re‑election in 2004.
Senator Raggio commented that in the Eighth Judicial District there are several Family Court judges that are not on the same election cycle. Judge Porter said this is correct. Senator Raggio asked how S.B.184 affects these judges. He pointed out that their salary cannot be raised during their term and it would stay at a lesser salary until they are re-elected, or a new judge is elected. Judge Porter replied this is the way he also understands it.
Senator Raggio asked how many judges would be affected in this manner. Judge Porter answered that there are eight Family Court judges that are not up for election in 2002.
Judge Steel said:
There are six judges that are out of the rotation, as far as salary is concerned in Clark County, and Washoe has two other judges that are not in the rotation because of the way they started up the family courts. They started them up with their forced six-year-term, two years after all of the other judges were running. So they have always been the recipient of a lower salary while new judges come in at a higher salary for the first two years while they are there.
Senator Raggio commented that Section 2 of S.B. 184, as he understands it, states that District Judges’ salaries will remain at $79,000 until 2003, and then go to $100,000. Judge Porter said the way S.B. 184 is written, the $79,000 salary for District Judges that was approved in 1995 is crossed off and it is changed to $100,000. He explained that he was elected as a District Judge in November 1996, and his annual salary became $100,000 on January 3, 1997. Senator Raggio asked Judge Porter whether his term expires at the end of 2002. Judge Porter said this is correct.
Senator Raggio asked whether salaries would go to $130,000 under S.B.184 in 2002. Judge Porter said this is correct. Senator Raggio question whether some Family Court judges would not receive this increase in salary at that time. Judge Steel said this is correct. Senator Raggio said S.B.184 does not address this issue. He added that if there is a restriction against raising salaries for judges during their term, those judges whose term does not expire at that time are not going to be affected. Judge Steel said they will not be affected; they will receive the lower salary until their re-election.
Senator Raggio asked whether S.B. 184 will provide for Family Court judges salaries when their term is up. Judge Steel said when Family Court judges are re‑elected they would assume the higher salary at that time.
Judge Porter pointed out that the judiciary received its last pay increase in 1995, and it was a 4.5 percent, per year, increase over a six-year cycle. He concluded that the Governor’s task force has recommended, and the judiciary is asking for, a one-half of one percent increase in their base salary per year over their last salary adjustment.
Senator Raggio asked if there is a bill in the legislature to increase the number of judges in the Eighth Judicial District. Judge Porter said there is, and it is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 109.
Bill Martin, President and Corporate Executive Officer (CEO) of Nevada State Bank, said he was asked to serve on the Governor’s Task Force for Salary Compensation Review. He said this committee is formed every 6 years and he is currently serving as Chairman. He said everything presented earlier reflects the data that his committee considered. He pointed out that three areas were focused on regarding judiciary pay increases. He commented that these areas included pure data, case workload, and the amount of time since the last pay increase. He noted that is how they concluded with the recommendation presented in S.B. 184.
Mr. Martin said the task force went beyond its charter and stated the obvious, which is a system that waits every six years for pay increases, creates “sticker‑shock” when it comes time to give those raises. He said they also felt there was an inequity in raises not being given to individuals who are in office and serving their term. He said:
As a subset having nothing to do with the bill today, but we thought it was important to mention, if there is a way to address the 6-year term period and if there was a way to address “no raises during term of office,” we think that would be good and we would also recommend some form of indexing and we also use the average wage increases in the private sector as opposed to the consumer price index (CPI). The CPI can take a big jump, as you know, and it would create some inequity.
Senator Raggio said the reason he asked about district judges is that this is a situation where there is inequity. He added that, particularly in the Supreme Court, under S.B. 184, there would be a significant inequity. He said the inequity for some of the justices will be over $40,000, and asked how this will affect the court system if S.B. 184 is passed in its present form.
Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, State Supreme Court, said if there is no wage equalization, it will result in substantial inequities. Senator Raggio asked how this would affect the present court system if S.B. 184 is passed. Justice Rose explained that those who are elected next year and start in 2003 will get the raise automatically. Senator Raggio asked whether their annual salary would then be $150,000. Justice Rose said this is correct and five of the Supreme Court justices would not get the raise. Senator Raggio asked what the pay level is for those five Supreme Court justices. Justice Rose said their salary would be $107,000 annually. Senator Raggio pointed out this is more than a $40,000 differential. Justice Rose agreed with Senator Raggio.
Senator Raggio remarked that this issue has been raised in the past and at that time the Assembly took exception to the pay for ex-officio duties. He asked whether there is a constitutional prohibition against the recognition of this inequity, so that it might be avoided. Justice Rose said he believes this inequity can be avoided. He added:
I would suggest this, if the legislature had any interest in this area. Statutes and the Constitution are subject to rules of statutory construction. Statutory construction says that a constitution or statute shall not reach an absurd or truly unreasonable result. And we would say that as applied to this ”watershed,” …and it should be interpreted as though the founding fathers or the Legislature did not intend to reach an absurd result and another alternative should be had.
Justice Rose pointed out that this is a pay schedule brought about, in part, because this is a “watershed” pay equalization bill, and that judicial raises for state judges only occur every six years. Therefore, he said, the inequity falls on the same judges all the time. He mentioned, for instance, when A. William Maupin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, was sworn in four years ago, his salary started at $22,000 per year higher than Justice Rose’s salary. Justice Rose added that after four years, Justice Maupin has made $88,000 more than himself. He pointed out that he was in the middle of the pay schedule for the judiciary. He said many justices of the peace make more than he does. He pointed out that this is absurd.
Justice Rose said the Constitution can be interpreted to say that this situation and the result were not intended by our founding fathers. He remarked that this included 13 judges who are “out of cycle.” He added that every time there is a salary increase, they are the ones that bear the burden. He pointed out that if Cliff Young, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, chooses not to run for office again and a new justice takes his “slot,” that new justice would be making $35,000 to $40,000 more than five of the Supreme Court justices already in office.
Senator Raggio asked for a recommendation from Justice Rose. Justice Rose said:
My recommendation would be to determine that the salaries…its an absurd situation and that you are permitted to fund it, …to fund all the judges in the state system beginning January 2003, …its only for six months in this biennium, and the Family Court judges were running the numbers and it comes up to $250,000 to $260,000.
Senator Raggio questioned whether, in order to conform to the Constitution, it would be necessary to provide for the difference of differential in salary to be for some specific duties. Justice Rose answered it could be paid through the Pardons Board, as in the past, or Library Trustee. He added that it could be said that the provision in the Constitution is inexplicable to this “watershed raise,” because it creates a truly absurd situation.
Senator Rawson said he believes this is an ideal spot for a preamble to whatever bill is passed. He stated that the overriding public purpose would be required, and in this case addressing the development of an absurd situation. He remarked that the Legislature, for that purpose, can enact a preamble to give legislative intent.
Justice Rose added that he wholeheartedly supports S.B. 184 as it is written.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Martin whether there had been any discussion in his task force about a differential based on the workload in any particular districts. He also asked whether recognition should be given to some districts that are much busier than others. Mr. Martin said a differential was not addressed.
Senator O’Donnell said:
We have a situation where some of the rural district judges are not burdened with the caseload that Clark County and Washoe County and some of the other counties that we have here are… and my question would be, would it be out of line, or would it be inappropriate to suggest that we set a cap or we set a level, not to exceed, however, and a floor, and have the counties pick up the differential between the floor and the cap, or just put a floor on it and allow the counties to go ahead and increase it over the floor. The problem we have is that as you can see by the charts, …certain counties really have a tremendous workload, other counties they may not.
Charles M. McGee, District Judge, Department 2, Second Judicial District, said he is the immediate past Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District Court. He explained that, in that capacity, he worked with several others from the Eighth Judicial District and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). He said he has since formed a judicial council. He added that this judicial council will be given some “teeth” by the Supreme Court, under regulations proposed by Justice Rose and approved by Chief Justice Maupin. He said he believes that the council can increase rural judges’ workloads by having them “circuit ride.” By doing this, he added, there will be no reason to differentiate between the kinds of work, and the dignity and station of the jobs in the “cow-counties” as opposed to the burdensome workloads in the Eighth and Second Judicial Districts.
Senator O’Donnell remarked that this would increase the workload of rural judges to equate to the Clark and Washoe County judges. Judge McGee said that rather than ask for new rural county judges, to provide an equivalency, judges with smaller caseloads in rural counties can help their colleagues who have larger caseloads and that require assistance.
Mr. Martin said the Governor-appointed task force he represents did not place 100 percent emphasis on caseload. He added they also looked at pure data, amount of time since the last raise, and the CPI. He noted that they did try to balance these three main components in their decision.
Senator Raggio said another factor is that, if an attorney gives up a law practice, whether it is for an urban or a rural district, it is much a similar situation. He commented that he raised the issue, because he thinks it ought to be discussed and believes that most of these practitioners that become judges, could probably earn a lot more in their practice.
Justice Rose commented that this issue was discussed and he agrees that the job of being a judge, considering the scope of duties it encompasses, justifies a higher salary.
Senator Raggio stated that any requested information will be helpful to the committee. He added that all other districts, particularly the courts of the Second Judicial District, should also supply the committee with the same information. Judge McGee said Scott Jordan, Family Court Judge, Department 11, Family Division, Second Judicial District, along with Janet J. Berry, Chief District Judge, Department 1, Second Judicial District, have some statistics on S.B. 184. Senator Raggio requested that they provide the information for the committee.
Scott Jordan, Family Court Judge, Department 11, Family Division, Second Judicial District, said that in his division, they have four full-time “Masters” that work with judges. He pointed out that the judges in the Second Judicial District utilize “Masters” slightly differently than the Eighth Judicial District handles their “Masters.” He indicated that without the “Masters,” it would be impossible to manage their caseload. He noted he will provide the committee with salary information for “Masters.” Senator Raggio asked whether four full-time “Masters” are utilized. Judge Jordan said they are.
SENATE BILL 137: Increases number of district judges in second judicial district. (BDR 1-521)
Senator Raggio inquired whether all counties within the state are in agreement with S.B. 137. A handout entitled “Selected Statistics”(Exhibit F) was presented to the committee from the Second Judicial District Court in support of S.B. 137.
Judge Berry, stated that she is the Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District Court and the immediate past-president of the Nevada District Judges Association. She said the state judiciary had an annual meeting and the state judges voted unanimously to support S.B. 184 and S.B. 137, as well as A.B. 109.
ASSEMBLY BILL 109: increases number of district judges in eighth judicial district. (BDR 1-520)
Senator Raggio said A.B. 109 increases the number of District Judges from 30 to 35, and, of these, the number of Family Court Judges from 11 to 12. Judge Berry said this is correct. She noted the Nevada District Judges Association, also unanimously supports S.B. 184, S.B. 137, and A.B. 109.
Judge McGee said the requested increase in the number of district judges in the Second Judicial District would start in 2003. He pointed out that in areas such as domestic violence, divorces, guardianships, dependency cases, and juvenile cases the caseloads have plateaued, with the exception of juvenile cases and dependency (abuse and neglect) cases. He maintained this is because these types of cases require greater diligence on the part of the judge. Similarly, he added, divorce cases are currently sky‑rocketing, in a statistically significant way.
Judge McGee said:
We think that that might be attributed to the fact that we set up in both ends of the state, these pro-se (proper person) divorces. People who come in and without benefit of counsel are able to get a divorce and get some measure of clarity relating to child support, to child custody and visitation, and to the division of property.
Judge McGee commented that once this program started, it was as if the “flood‑gates were opened” and many people came in. He summarized that judges are “doing things that they have never done before,” which adds to their existing calendars and dockets. He noted, for example, Drug court has been instituted, to help avoid having the state spend more money on prisons.
Judge McGee said Peter I. Breen, District Judge, Department 7, Second Judicial District, has recently put together a committee to start a mental health court in Reno. He added that they are also planning to start a business court, which Las Vegas already has. He pointed out that the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, is a federal unfunded mandate, requiring Family Court judges to hear dependency (abuse and neglect) cases more frequently than ever before. He said the combination of this new work together with the demographics and spike in populations, justifies the favorable consideration of the committee to consider a new Family Court judge starting in 2003.
Judge Jordan referring to Exhibit F, pointed out that not only in the Family Court, but also in the General Jurisdiction Division, caseloads and work involved for these cases are increasing. He said the increase is most dramatic in the Family Division, which includes juvenile delinquency, child abuse and neglect, and divorce cases. He said this increase is due to the court facilitator’s office, which has made the court accessible to a population that was never able to access the court before because they could not afford attorneys.
Judge Jordan said not only is the number of cases increasing, but also the amount of work per case is increasing. He added that when attorneys are not involved, the work for the court, judges and staff is much greater. He added:
The need is there. We have recognized the need for additional help for quite some time, under the guidance of our Chief Judge, Judge Berry, we have worked with our General Jurisdiction Division and the General Jurisdiction Division has come to our assistance and has agreed to take on a portion of our caseload, hopefully, until this bill is enacted and we get our new judge.”
He mentioned that divorce cases not involving children are now being assigned to the General Jurisdiction Division. He summarized that increased caseloads also translate into increased delays in getting cases decided. He added the faster these types of cases are resolved the better for everyone and most importantly, better for the children. With an additional judge, he pointed out, cases can get calendared faster, get resolved faster, and result in a greater cost efficiency.
Senator Raggio inquired about the facilities and whether more space would be needed with respect to the Fiscal Note that was provided by Washoe County. He said it shows an initial cost of over $1.1 million, and asked where that facility would be located. Judge Jordan explained that chambers, a courtroom and office space for staff would be needed. He said courthouse space in Washoe County has been a significant issue for the last few years. He added he does not know the answer to the question, but one reason they do not want to implement this bill for two years is to give them the opportunity to properly plan for development of this space.
Senator Raggio commented there is not room in the existing building for an additional courtroom. Judge Berry said this issue has been looked at, and they will have to make space in the existing family court building. She noted that she has advised Judge Jordan, that they will look into spaces currently used by support services. She explained that support services would then be moved to another area.
Senator Raggio reiterated that if S.B. 137 is processed, there will be some capability to respond to the need for more space. Judge Berry said there would be, and it may necessitate a remodel, but they intend to keep the judges together and move other support groups out of the building.
Senator Raggio asked what Washoe County’s position is on S.B. 137. Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Washoe County, said the board reviewed the situation and directed that S.B. 137 be supported. She added that Washoe County is prepared to come forward with the necessary funds, and realizes the biggest issue is extra space. She added that they are continuing to work on that issue. Senator Raggio said the Legislature will not process this type of bill unless the county is willing to assume the cost that goes along with it. Ms. Shipman repeated that Washoe County fully supports this measure.
Deborah E. Schumacher, Family Court Judge Department 5, Family Division, Second Judicial District, added that the Second Judicial District has done everything as responsibly as they can to develop alternative dispute resolutions for their cases. She pointed out that they hold settlement conferences in every case that goes to trial, and utilize other programs as well. She said they are now at a point where these alternative mechanisms have reached their limit and they need another judicial officer to responsibly handle the caseload. She remarked she is completely grateful to her General Jurisdiction colleagues for assuming part of the divorce caseload.
Judge Schumacher noted that the Legislature has created a Family Court, and if they have to send part of the caseload to General Jurisdiction, they are diluting the concept that was approved, which is specialized individuals handling this specialized caseload.
Senator Raggio said he appreciates the comments, but the Legislature is not mandating that anybody in the General Jurisdiction court take on those assignments. He added that this is a suggestion by the components of S.B. 137. Judge Schumacher maintained that it is not part of the bill, but rather it assists the Family Court judges and their colleagues in the General Jurisdiction made that offer that is presently in place.
Senator Raggio clarified, “If they wanted to present an amendment, and ask for more judges, I suppose we’d honor it if the county would support it, …it depends on your caseload.” Judge Schumacher mentioned that creating an interim solution to assist the family court judges is what was done.
Ann P. McCarthy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said she is a lawyer practicing primarily in the area of family law in Carson City. She indicated that, on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, she is here today to support S.B. 137. She commented that the interim solution of having General Jurisdiction judges hear contested “non-children” divorce cases is an interim solution at best. She said that the concept of Family Court in “family court cases” cannot be over‑emphasized. She remarked that in the Second Judicial District, several General Jurisdiction judges have heard family law and divorce cases prior to the institution of the Family Court. She added that some judges were elected to the bench after the institution of the Family Court. She pointed out that many of these judges did not practice family law in their law practices prior to ascending to the bench, because many did not want to.
Ms. McCarthy testified that the Family Court is very important. She stated that she believes that General Jurisdiction judges would rather do what they were elected to do, not family court. She remarked that S.B. 137 is important to all families in the state, whether they have children or not.
Senator Neal asked whether there is a specific standard governing the number of cases that a judge should handle. Ms. McCarthy remarked she does not know of any statistic.
Ron Longtin, Court Administrator, Second Judicial District, stated that the American Bar Association (ABA) distributes standards, but those standards are not used to determine what is too much, as regarding caseload per judge. He mentioned that the National Center for State Courts also distributes statistics and information, which gives a basic standard.
Mr. Longtin testified, as a court administrator, he studies courts of similar size regarding the judicial officer makeup, and he determines what their caseloads are. He said he uses “weighted case indexing” which incorporates the time it takes to dispose of a case from filing to disposition. He pointed out that there is a workload problem developing if a judge spends less time per case because of the number of cases filed.
Judge McGee said that courts in the nation that have 1,800 cases or more per judicial officer, are extremely busy courts. He added that courts handling 1,200 to 1,800 cases are moderately busy, and those that have less than 1,200 or 1,000 are “lucky.”
Senator Neal asked where the Second Judicial District falls on this scale. Judge McGee answered that both the Second Judicial and Eighth Judicial Districts fall in the “extremely busy category.”
Judge Breen remarked that the drug court is doing “phenomenal.” He said they are doing better than the national standards in recidivism. Less than 20 percent of their graduates are rearrested, he added.
Senator Raggio inquired how many individuals go through the drug court on an annual basis. Judge Breen responded that in the Second Judicial District, about 300 per year, in the Eighth Judicial District about 1000. He pointed out that a diversion court has been added in Washoe County, which is for people who do not have the finances to go to drug court, and about 120 people go through that court yearly.
Senator Raggio asked how many judges participate in the drug court program. Judge Breen testified that he is the adult drug court judge in Washoe County, District Judge Jack Lehman, is the adult drug court judge in Clark County, District Judge McGee is the family drug court judge, Family Court Judge Schumacker is the juvenile drug court judge, which totals about three judges per district.
Judge Breen said this type of justice, which produces excellent results, requires more time than other cases.
Senator Raggio asserted that this is a great program. Judge Breen added that the rural judges work hard and they do not have the benefit of discovery commissioners. They also travel long distances, and their caseload may be less, but they put forth a great deal of effort, he added.
Senator Coffin commented that the pressures on the small county judges are just as great as the pressures on the large county judges. He added that they frequently settle “disputes between friends” as opposed to “disputes between strangers,” as is more likely in the larger counties. Judge Breen agreed with him.
Judge Berry said they just had an annual meeting, and the Nevada District Judges Association voted unanimously in favor of S.B. 137, and this association has the highest regard for their rural colleagues. She commented that rural judges do not indicate that their counties would ever support any type of a pay differential. Nevada judges remain united behind this bill, and they will continue to work as a “unit,” she added.
SENATE BILL 145: Revises provisions governing apportionments of money from state distributive school account among school districts and charter schools. (BDR 34-169).
Mark Winebarger, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller, referring to a statement (Exhibit G), explained that S.B. 145 would basically extend the time for payment to school districts, from the Distributive School Account (DSA), from the first day of the month to the fifteenth day of the month. He added that because of cash flow issues in the General Fund, the Controller has not been able to make the full quarterly distribution on the first day of the prescribed quarter, for five of the last eight payments.
Mr. Winebarger pointed out that these delays were mainly due to the fact that sales tax receipts are received and posted several days after the first of the month, but the DSA is due the first of the month. He indicated that to further compound the problem, the decision to make the payments must be made four days in advance because of the Integrated Financial System (IFS), and because school districts are on the electronic payment system.
Mr. Winebarger testified that in October 2000, Jeannine Coward, Assistant State Controller, and he met with the Department of Education and the financial representatives of the different school districts to discuss their plan to introduce a bill to delay the DSA payment from the first of the month to the fifteenth day of the month. He added there was no opposition voiced at that meeting from any of the parties.
Senator Raggio inquired whether this would merely extend the payment date from the first to the fifteenth day of the month of each quarter. Mr. Winebarger said this is correct. Senator Raggio asked whether there is any objection to S.B. 145.
Douglas C. Thunder, Deputy Superintendent for Administration and Fiscal Services, Department of Education, said they are not taking a position on S.B. 145, but can support it either way. Senator Raggio said it sounds as if there is a practical problem, in that collections are not coming in until after the date that the law says they are to be distributed. Mr. Thunder said, “The department would much rather have the payments going out full, so from that standpoint, we’re more than willing to go along with the fifteenth.”
Rose McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, brought a technical concern to the attention of the committee. She explained that she was not aware of a meeting where this issue was discussed. She introduced Pat A. Zamora, Director, Accounting Department, Business and Finance Services Division, Clark County School District. Mr. Zamora, referring to his written testimony (Exhibit H), said at this time the School District is opposed to S.B. 145. He explained that delaying each of the distributions from the actual date that Clark County School District receives DSA funds, to the fifteenth of the month, would cost the Clark County School District over $1 million in lost investment earnings in the General Fund for the current unfinished biennium.
Senator Raggio asked how the problem, as stated, should be dealt with. In other words, he said, if you do not have the collections, how can you distribute it? Mr. Zamora stated that for the first two quarters of the current school year, the entire payment was received on time. He explained that those two payments to the school district were in excess of $80 million each. He added that in the third quarter, the school district received two-thirds of the distribution on February 1, with the following one-third being received on February 8.
Mr. Zamora pointed out that the school district would rather receive the money when it is available, than just delay it every month to the fifteenth.
Mr. Winebarger indicated that the Office of the Controller fully intends to pay as soon as it can. He said that, currently, the law states if there are not sufficient funds in the General Fund, monthly payments can be made. He added that when those funds are available, the Office of the Controller does not wait until the first day of the next month to pay, but rather, pays as soon as those funds are available. He noted that allowing the due date to be changed to the fifteenth would make the Controller’s job easier.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Winebarger whether he could suggest an amendment to S.B. 145 to accommodate all of these concerns. He added that the committee cannot leave S.B. 145 as it is, because it is impossible in some instances to meet the date that is in the statute.
Ms. McKinney-James remarked that the school district would appreciate an opportunity to prepare language for an amendment to S.B. 145. Senator Raggio said, “What if we said something like, when the funds become available, or not later than the fifteenth.” Mr. Winebarger said he would have no opposition to that. Mr. Zamora said he would agree to that, which is the current practice.
Senator Raggio pointed out that the problem is that this wording is not currently in the statute. He added that in order to make this feasible, a written amendment that meets everyone’s concerns, needs to be provided.
SENATE BILL 196: Revises provisions relating to eligibility of school districts for grants of money to purchase library books. (BDR S-1124).
Senator Mathews explained that this request is not in The Executive Budget, but it does include an appropriation. She explained that funds have already been appropriated to the Department of Education in the current biennium for distribution to the districts. She indicated that the deadline to meet the match requirements is July 1, 2001. The school districts are asking for an extension on this deadline, to keep these unmatched funds from reverting back to the state General Fund, she stated. She said this would allow the school districts to utilize these funds.
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education, testified that S.B. 196 would allow the Department of Education to utilize some of the funding that has been held for library purchases. He said part of S.B. 196 requires that school districts spend as many funds in FY 2000 as they did in FY 1999, in order to qualify for the second year of purchasing library books. He explained that in going through the process this past year, 10 school districts did not initially qualify for funds that were reserved for library book purchases.
Mr. Rheault pointed out that currently there are eight school districts that did not qualify because they did not expend enough money. He added that S.B. 196 would allow the department to waive, under good cause, that requirement, and the funds that are being held could be distributed. He mentioned that the amount currently being held by the Department of Education is from districts that did not meet the requirement of expending these funds is $51,000.
Senator Raggio asked which school districts are involved. Mr. Rheault said the school districts involved are Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humbolt, Lyon, Nye, and Pershing Counties. He added that Washoe County was just recently funded. Senator Raggio inquired how much is affected by this that would otherwise revert. Mr. Rheault responded that the department is holding a little more than $51,000. He indicated that if S.B. 196 does not pass, the funds would not be reverted, because the bill allows up to 50 percent to be reimbursed to school districts for library book purchases. He pointed out that in FY 2000, the districts spent $2,360,000 for library book purchases.
Senator Raggio said, “The thing that is troublesome, is that we’re always getting beat over the head here about not providing enough money for libraries and text books in schools, and this was an incentive to school districts, and yet we have 10 out of 17 that don’t utilize these funds.” He asked the administration staff whether this $51,000 was included in the anticipated reversion amount.
John P. Comeaux, Director, Department of Administration, said this amount was not specifically included in their reversion estimates.
Mr. Rheault said it was not included because it would have been reallocated to the school districts that qualified. He added that he believes some school districts can show “good cause” as to why they did not utilize these funds. He pointed out that Lyon County, for example, was asked to explain why they did not utilize these funds. Lyon County, he said, was able to show that through a 6-year history their funding cycle for library books has been and is every-other-year. He explained that Lyon County tries to reserve funds in case of a budgeting problem that might arise in buying library books the second year, and in this case would attempt to show “good cause” to the Department of Education as to why funds were not expended the first year.
Senator Raggio said, “Well then everybody is going to come in with a waiver of ‘good cause’ and they’re going to bargain away the money otherwise. That is exactly what’s going to happen if we put that language in here.”
Mr. Rheault agreed with him.
Senator Mathews commented:
We wanted that language, Mr. Chairman, because, some of these school districts are so small, and… you’re on the 2-year cycle, and if you don’t give them a waiver…I’m also asking for an amendment to June 2002, instead of June 2001, because we need an opportunity for them to get it in.
Senator Raggio said if the language on page 2 of S.B. 196 is added, which provides for the ”good cause” waiver and which alleviates the requirement that the same amount of money be expended, funds will be used for bargaining and the incentive to expend funds for the purchase of library books will be overlooked.
Senator Mathews said, “As long as they use it for library books.” Senator Raggio pointed out, “Yes, but they’re not putting up their match. That’s the problem.”
Senator Mathews called attention to an amendment request, wherein the date on Page 3, line 5 of S.B. 196, would be changed to read June 30, 2002. Senator Raggio said the committee would make note of this request.
SENATE BILL 139: Revise manner in which administrative assessments are distributed. (BDR 14-515)
Karen Kavanau, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, State Supreme Court, presented testimony in support of S.B. 139 (Exhibit I). She explained she is here on behalf of the Judicial Council of the State of Nevada. She remarked that the council represents all of Nevada’s judges, including the Supreme Court, District Courts, Justices of the Peace, and Municipal Judges, and they unanimously support S.B. 139.
Ms. Kavanau pointed out that the council submitted S.B. 139 to ensure that the Judicial Branch receives a full 51 percent of court assessments received every year by the State Controller from the justices of the peace and municipal courts.
Ms. Kavanau said that since FY 1996, the Judicial Branch has received less than 51 percent each year. She explained that in dollars, this equates to a loss of more than $1.5 million. By the end of FY 2001, she pointed out, the total loss of revenue to the Judicial Branch will be over $2 million. She said the purpose of court assessments is to pay for court improvements.
Ms. Kavanau explained that when the state controller receives more court assessments than what is in The Executive Budget for the Judicial Branch, the excess is forwarded to General Fund. She added that when court assessments are used for General Fund obligations, rather than court improvements, the argument could be made that this is a tax levied by the Judicial Branch and a “Judicial Branch Tax” is unconstitutional.
Senator Raggio commented the present law recognizes the 51 percent, but also recognizes budget issues and states the money shall be distributed to the extent of legislative authorization. This bill would strike that language, he noted. He asked whether the present budget proposes the allocation of the administrative assessment in this manner that is suggested, and is not less than 51 percent distributed to the Office of the Court Administration.
Mr. Comeaux said he believes that, included in the Supreme Court’s budget, is 51 percent of the full estimated amounts to be collected from court assessments. He added that if these estimates are reasonable, this provisions would have no direct effect on the budget. He further mentioned that the Supreme Court’s budget not only includes authorization to receive and expend court assessments, but it also receives funding from the General Fund.
Mr. Comeaux explained that if the authorized court assessments were increased, theoretically, the General Fund support that is provided would be reduced.
Mr. Comeaux said:
It seems to me, the effect of this bill, would be that if additional revenues from court assessments did materialize, the court would receive them and I would assume that, I believe it’s Section 5 of the appropriate bill that requires an equal amount of General Fund to be reserved for reversion. I assume that that would apply here. If it does, then there would be no net effect on the budget.
Senator Raggio remarked that a portion of the administrative assessment goes to criminal history records, peace officer training, highway patrol, and victims of crime. Mr. Comeaux said this is correct.
Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice, State Supreme Court, indicated that one overriding concern in this legislation is that this is not a tax. This assessment, he added, would not meet the specific standards and constitutional scrutiny that is required for a tax. He stated that as long as the judiciary gets more than one-half of these funds, and they are used for judicial improvement, it is an assessment and not a tax. He pointed out that S.B. 139 is a mechanism to preserve this assessment and meet the law as stated, and not have it declared to be a tax.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 34-282: revise the provisions governing millennium scholarships. (Later introduced as S.B. 391.)
Senator O’Donnell explained that BDR 34-282 changes the millennium scholarship to allow students that want to participate to have the choice to attend any college in the nation rather than only the University of Reno, Nevada (UNR) or the University of Las Vegas (UNLV). He said he believes that a scholarship is for the student and not the university system.
Senator Raggio pointed out that one reason for the millennium scholarship was to prevent “brain-drain,” and help to keep “better” students from leaving the state. Senator O’Donnell said,
That was one of the reasons, but this presupposes that every student that goes to UNR would remain in Las Vegas or Reno or supposes that anybody that goes outside the state would remain outside the state, and that’s not the case. If that was the case, then why do we have 6,900 people move into Las Vegas just last month.
SENATOR JACOBSEN MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 34-282.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-610: Provide for continuation of health care insurance for retired teachers. (Later introduced at Senate Bill 392.)
Senator O’Donnell said he was asked by Nevada schoolteachers to submit BDR S‑610, and he also disclosed that his spouse is a schoolteacher. He explained that this bill requires the state, if there are funds at the end of the legislative session, to provide compensation for retirees, so they will not be inundated with insurance premium costs after retirement.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-610.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
*****
Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Debra Petrelli
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: