MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

May 17, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Thursday, May 17, 2001, in Room 2149 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 Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Clark County Assembly District No. 13

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dennis DeBacco, Program Manager, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Vicki N. Wright, Lobbyist, Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Girl Scouts of the Frontier, and Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby

Barbara Robinson, Ridge House

David Warfe, President and Chief Executive Officer, YMCA of the Sierra

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association

Jeff Hunt, Executive Director, Boy Scouts of America, Nevada Area Council

Nancy E. MacCartney, Director, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of Reno

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens

John Ruby, Pastor, South Reno United Methodist Church

Tom Stoneburner, Director, Alliance for Workers Rights

Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board

Kalene Dickerson, Police Services Manager, Reno Police Department

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

 

Vice Chairman Porter opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 331.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 331:  Makes various changes concerning dissemination of records of criminal history by central repository for Nevada records of criminal history. (BDR 14-304)

 

Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Clark County Assembly District No. 13, indicated there had been a great deal of controversy with regard to A.B. 331 and he expressed the desire to allay any fears or discomfort with the bill.  He stated the intent of A.B. 331 is to expand the amount of information that may be obtained by nonprofit organizations on volunteers with felony convictions.  Currently, the statute provides that a non-profit or volunteer organization doing a background check on a volunteer can only receive information related to sexual offenses with children.  Assemblyman Nolan pointed out information regarding drugs, drug convictions, and driving under the influence (DUI) are precluded.  He noted that type of information is valuable when an organization utilizes a volunteer to drive busloads of children from point A to point B.  In addition, Assemblyman Nolan said, fraud and/or embezzlement information cannot be obtained if a volunteer is engaged to work with money in an organization. 

 

Continuing, Assemblyman Nolan declared the Assembly Committee on Judiciary hearings went without opposition, with the exception of Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, who offered some initial amendments.  He said Ms. Lusk followed A.B. 331 diligently throughout the process and had been quite helpful.  Assemblyman Nolan indicated opposition to A.B. 331 was due to a bill drafting oversight that provided a level of exposure to liability that was not previously in the statute.  He noted it was clearly not his intent to cause any liability or exposure. 

 

In conclusion, Assemblyman Nolan submitted “Proposed Amendment to Assembly Bill No. 331” (Exhibit C).  He said should the amendment not seal the loophole appropriately he was open to another amendment that would do so. 

 

Dennis DeBacco, Program Manager, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History (central repository), Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, indicated he shared some long-standing problems in the process of doing background checks as related to nonprofit or volunteer-type organizations with Assemblyman Nolan.  Currently, and for a long time in the past, agencies have accessed the state’s criminal history records repository through Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 179A.100.  He noted nongovernmental entities who have a need to obtain criminal history record information from the national system, which is on file with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are precluded from obtaining information.  Mr. DeBacco said only governmental regulatory agencies can obtain criminal history record information. 

 

Continuing, Mr. DeBacco pointed out a number of years ago Chapter 179A of NRS was expanded to include a provision allowing people who are working with children to undergo a background check that would include a national check.  The provision stated when a background check is done the central repository would stand as the screening agency for nongovernmental entities who could not receive FBI information directly.  Mr. DeBacco noted as part of the screening the central repository limited the review of the information received from the FBI to sex offenses or crimes against a child.  He indicated many times he will ask a member of his staff to provide him with examples of the problem, and within minutes they are able to gather illustrative records.

 

Further explaining, Mr. DeBacco said the central repository receives FBI information for volunteer organizations, and it is screened.  Should the information not contain a crime relating to a sex offense or a crime against a child, the central repository reports to the entity that there is no disqualifying information.  However, he said, the “rap sheet” contains some very significant offenses that, perhaps, the organization would find interesting, including homicide, armed robbery, sale of narcotics, and possession of drug paraphernalia convictions.  He said the rap sheet could include offenses that “stretch from floor to ceiling” and, should it not contain a sex offense or a crime against a child, the volunteer organization is led to believe the person is “clean.”  Mr. DeBacco stated, tongue in cheek, “After all, everyone knows that if you check a person’s criminal history through the repository and the FBI system, the person has to be clean.”  He noted the central repository reports to the organization that there is no information to be found, when, in fact, that is not true.  

 

Continuing, Mr. DeBacco cited the example of an individual who applied to work with children.  He said the individual had been arrested and convicted, and his record included 52 entries; however, because none of the entries were sex crimes, the organization learned from the central repository that the person is not disqualified from working with children.  Mr. DeBacco noted the individual had been arrested and convicted of obstructing a peace officer, possession of an unregistered firearm, being a fugitive from justice, armed robbery, possession of dangerous drugs, sale of dangerous drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, burglary, assault with intent to commit murder, and so forth.  Mr. DeBacco said as a matter of public policy he felt an obligation to bring the issue to the attention of someone, and noted this is not an isolated case and happens “all day long.”  He pointed out he brought the issue to the attention of Assemblyman Nolan last summer, and the Assemblyman brought it to the Legislature.

 

Assuming A.B. 331 becomes law, Senator Care inquired whether the recipient of the information must keep it confidential.  Mr. DeBacco answered, yes, it is stated in NRS 179A.140, as well as in NRS 179A.180 through 179A.240, that anyone who receives records of criminal history and/or anyone who receives notice of information relating to criminal history, is precluded from releasing it to other entities, unless pursuant to a court order or authorized by statute.  Therefore, he said, it is treated as confidential to the recipient. 

 

Senator Care queried whether or not there is an enforcement mechanism.  Answering, Mr. DeBacco said he knew of no enforcement mechanism, other than the central repository periodically doing reviews and audits of entities who receive information to ensure they are “playing by the rules,” particularly law enforcement criminal justice agencies who access information directly.

 

Further, Senator Care commented, when a record is sealed, it is, in reality, only “sort of” sealed.  He noted the central repository has access to records that are sealed; therefore, the records are not really expunged, they are just shrouded.  He remarked the information could be 5, 10, or 20 years old, except where the bill states 7 years in some cases.  In response, Mr. DeBacco indicated page 1 of A.B. 331 discusses records that are sealed.  He said records are sealed for the purpose of those provisions; however, the central repository would have access to it should the record include a sex offense.  Mr. DeBacco stated he peruses the record and informs the entity of a disqualifying offense that has been sealed.  He noted the State Gaming Control Board has access to sealed records through the central repository as well, pursuant to that regulatory purpose.  He commented Senator Care was absolutely correct, and explained that when a record is ordered sealed by a court, it does not necessarily mean it is not accessible to various groups or organizations through a specific statute that “carves it out.” 

 

Senator Care said he was trying to establish a nexus between someone who goes to work in a volunteer organization as a bus driver, but had an arrest for embezzlement 15 years prior.  Mr. DeBacco answered the central repository would report there is no disqualifying information; however, an arrest for a crime constituting a sex offense would be reported to the entity that the person falls into a prohibited category. 

 

Assemblyman Nolan said:

 

Relating to the opposition on A.B. 331, I do not get too upset about too many things in this Legislature, but I became very offended by the fact that . . . and I have no problem at all with anybody being in opposition or expressing their opposition to any piece of legislation, myself included . . . or supporting it . . . or the public process.  You and I have been victims of a campaign on a bill that lobbyists have taken out to the people and expressed . . . I believe they have distorted the intent of a bill . . . and mass mailed to a constituency, which they represent, information which did not reflect the intent of this piece of legislation.  To me, it was a “Chicken Little” runaround, screaming “the sky is falling,” and we have good-intentioned people and citizens out there who deluged us with opposition to a bill which clearly, I think you will agree, has good and honest intent. 

 

The liability which this created, in my opinion, really is already there.  If an organization chooses not to do a background check on the volunteers that are working in close proximity of children, and one of those little boys or little girls are sexually molested by one of these volunteers, you know what . . . there is not going to be anything that will protect this organization from the liability exposure that is already there.  When I read through some of the letters of opposition . . . I had no idea there was any opposition.  If they would have come to me . . . the same organizations that asked me to support their bills and their efforts, and everything else, if they would have come to me on the first hand, this amendment would have been prepared and would have been sitting in front of you.  It would have been a done deal and we would not have a lot of good people in our communities upset about something they really should not have been upset about.  I wanted to make that statement for the record.

 

Mr. DeBacco opined A.B. 331 would not greatly change what is currently in existence.  He noted sealing records provisions have been in place for years and would not interfere with this legislation.  He said A.B. 331 would broaden the offenses on which he can provide notice of information to employers.  Mr. DeBacco indicated the provision of allowing background checks to be done for people who are working with children has been in place for a number of years.  He pointed out the only thing the central repository was providing notice for were sex offenses, and A.B. 331 would simply broaden the scope to include other offenses. 

 

Referring to page 9, section 10, lines 29 through 48, of A.B. 331, Senator Wiener asked if all the offenses are appropriate to the bill, are there any offenses that do not apply, are there some offenses that are not as significant as others, and are there any offenses missing that should be there?  In response, Mr. DeBacco said much of the list was taken from NRS 200.5099, the nursing-home statute, in which persons working with the elderly are screened.  He said the offenses listed in A.B. 331 are perused and screened out in order to determine whether or not a person is precluded from working with the elderly.  Mr. DeBacco said he believed some offenses were added by the bill drafters in the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).  He indicated he did not know of anything excluded that should be on the list, nor did he see anything that should be removed.  Mr. DeBacco emphasized notice should be provided for things other than sexual offenses as public policy; however, the onus is on the Legislature to make that determination. 

 

Noting that NRS 200.5099 considers elder abuse, Senator Wiener asked whether the rationale for A.B. 331 was the vulnerability of children.  Answering, Mr. DeBacco indicated nothing concerning A.B. 331 was his rationale, but he stated if one abuses the elderly it would be an easy leash to abuse children. 

 

Senator Care asked Assemblyman Nolan:

 

Let me ask you about the liability.  This is one of those public-policy questions, of course.  I suppose the theory here is that the beneficent work done by the organization . . . you want to encourage this . . . that outweighs the price that someone would pay, I suppose, if you attach liability for failure to do the background check that would be available . . . and so the results are just, I guess, suffered by the victim.  There is no remedy for that.  Could you just . . . I know you must have given some thought to that . . . but just, kind of, give your philosophy on that approach . . . the weighing of those two interests.

 

Responding, Assemblyman Nolan indicated he is very sensitive to the benevolent purpose of so many organizations that deal with youth.  He said the fact is volunteers are needed in the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and the entire plethora of different organizations.  Assemblyman Nolan pointed out the need for volunteers is weighed against the cost associated with performing background checks and making sure people who work with children are protected.  He indicated Nevada is either ranked number one or two for the number of sexual assaults upon children within youth-related organizations.  Assemblyman Nolan stated:

 

You can open a newspaper on any given day and read an article in northern or southern Nevada . . . and I am sure all of you can easily call to mind several incidents with these organizations in which somebody has molested a child.  Will a background check prevent it?  No, not always.  Background checks are as much a deterrent for those people who do not have a criminal background yet, or those who come from another state trying to evade their activities in another state before they were arrested or convicted there, or caught, or run out of town . . . because of their activities . . . and they come to Nevada.  A background check is as much a preventative measure as anything. 

 

In regard to the liability question asked by Senator Care, Assemblyman Nolan said each organization must make a determination as to whether or not the cost of exposing a child to a predator, having a child molested, damage to the reputation of the organization, let alone damage to a child, and financial damage to the organization, outweigh the cost of doing a background check in the first place.  He expressed the opinion that it does not.  Assemblyman Nolan indicated he is aware of at least three highly publicized cases that are still occurring in Nevada involving Boy Scout leaders.  Although he is a “huge” supporter of the Boy Scouts, he pointed out the problem has been in existence since he was in the Boy Scouts and experienced an incident as a child.  He said it is up to the organization to decide at what point the cost, damage to children, and the reputation of the organization, will outweigh the cost of doing a background check. 

 

Senator Care queried if there would be liability in a case in which a background check has been done and there is knowledge of prior arrest and conviction, and because the offense was 10 years ago and the person’s record has been clean since then, the organization decides to hire the volunteer and give him/her a second chance.  The Senator said it was his understanding, should the organization not request a background check, there would be no liability; however, it leaves open the possibility that should the information be obtained, there could be liability. 

 

Assemblyman Nolan responded:

 

I believe you are right in your assumption, but I also believe there are a number of organizations who do background checks, and in a civil case, if the attorney was to say, “Let’s take a look at what is the standard that exists within nonprofit organizations” . . . because I have had testimony in four sessions on bills like this . . . there are a number of organizations who come in and say, we would not be in business if we did not do background checks, because you would be surprised at the number of people that we weed out through background checks.  And so, some attorney is going to say, well, you know what, this organization and this one, and this one, and this one, do background checks and they do it because they have caught offenders who would get in and certainly molest children.  You have elected not to do that based upon a cost factor.  So, where is the liability now?  It is right back on their shoulders.  I do not think there is a way that a nonprofit organization is going to avoid liability if they employ a volunteer who they could have found out had subsequent convictions or any type of performance which would have alerted them to the fact this person may offend a child.  And if they do offend a child, you know what, I think they are filleted.  There is no protection for somebody who could have prevented that type of abuse of a child, but failed to do so.  

 

Senator Porter asked Assemblyman Nolan to explain how he envisioned A.B. 331 would impact nonprofit organizations.  Assemblyman Nolan said A.B. 331 would have a negligible impact on all organizations.  The bill would allow organizations that do background checks to request information on more than just sexual offenses.  Senator Porter clarified the areas listed under section 10 of A.B. 331 would be expanded.  Assemblyman Nolan answered, “That is correct, the intent of the bill is to benefit those doing background checks, and it would be negligible to those that are not.”  Senator Porter queried, “How would it be negligible to those organizations not currently doing background checks?”  Assemblyman Nolan pointed out if they are not currently doing a background check they are not making themselves privy to any information, whether sexual-offense related or expanded scope, at present.  He said the organizations will have elected not to do background checks and are not interested in receiving any information about the prospective volunteer.  Assemblyman Nolan indicated he wished to ensure, through the amendment, that the nonprofit organizations are not impacted in a negative way.  He emphasized that was the intent of the bill as stated before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. 

 

Further, Assemblyman Nolan pointed out, there is one additional benefit to the bill.  Referring to page 5, line 15, of A.B. 331, Assemblyman Nolan said private schools were not included in the statutes prior to this bill.  This bill adds the ability for private schools to seek information on prospective employees.  He said public schools already have the ability to do background checks.  Assemblyman Nolan noted A.B. 331 would not have an impact on private schools; however, it would provide additional information for private schools, who employ volunteers. 

 

Senator Porter asked about the current process nonprofit organizations follow when signing up a volunteer.  Assemblyman Nolan responded:

 

For those who are committing to do a background check . . . today is a little bit different than if that question was asked 2 years ago, because the process now is much faster than it was.  The criminal repository is one of the first to be on line with the FBI, and Dennis [DeBacco] could expand on that.  They are real close to completing some compact information.  At one time, a volunteer who came into an organization would fill out an application and, typically, there would be some type of declaration that the person had not been convicted of any felony crimes.  That, in some organizations, is the extent of their level of protection.  I will say that the Boy Scouts, in their defense, having already hammered on them a little bit, have probably one of the best programs in place on protecting kids.  They call it “the three Rs” and they require their volunteers and the kids to go through training on how to recognize when somebody is potentially profiling a child, or grooming a child for abuse, how to recognize, how to report that . . .

 

Senator Porter clarified this would take place after the volunteer is hired.  Assemblyman Nolan agreed and indicated after the volunteer is hired they go through the training. 

 

Senator Porter queried, currently, what are organizations doing before hiring a volunteer in regard to a background check?  Assemblyman Nolan pointed out some organizations do background checks, which include fingerprinting.  Asked whether volunteers undergo the fingerprint check voluntarily, Assemblyman Nolan answered, “Yes.”  He noted after fingerprinting the fingerprints are submitted to the central repository . . .

 

Mr. DeBacco interjected, and said the turnaround time within the criminal history records repository (central repository) is approximately 5 to 7 working days.  Senator Porter clarified this process is for organizations using background checks.  Mr. DeBacco said this process is used by anyone conducting a background check through the state screening process.  Senator Porter queried whether organizations that do not perform background checks require their volunteers to sign a release.  Assemblyman Nolan answered it was his understanding that volunteers are required to sign a release.  Senator Porter commented it is predicated upon the volunteer being truthful on the application.  Assemblyman Nolan said a volunteer might provide references; however, in any event, a person with these types of problems, obviously, will not identify any organization or individual with whom they have had problems.  He indicated there is a fallacy with the process.  He pointed out, should a perpetrator be identified within an organization, many times they skip town before they can be reported, arrested, or convicted, and sometimes the organization dismisses them to continue their behavior elsewhere. 

 

Senator Porter speculated volunteer applicants may not fill out application forms truthfully and, therefore, he asked whether Assemblyman Nolan was comfortable that organizations seeking volunteers adequately protect participants.  Assemblyman Nolan said, “That is correct.”  Senator Porter clarified the intent of A.B. 331 is to ensure the information is accurate before a volunteer begins to work in the organization. 

 

In reference to the aforementioned individual with the criminal background, Mr. DeBacco pointed out the person used eight different names, social security numbers, and dates of birth over the course of the arrest record.  He said the only way to cull out those kinds of individuals is through the submission of fingerprints.  Mr. DeBacco indicated this situation is quite common and occurs regularly throughout Nevada and nationwide.  He said the only way to protect the integrity of the process is through fingerprinting.  He remarked the time frame for a fingerprint check is 5 to 8 working days.  Mr. DeBacco pointed out in the past it took approximately 90 business days; however, currently, through technology and automation, the turnaround time is 2 to 3 weeks.  He pointed out, “We are still not where we need to be.”

 

Senator Porter asked whether the turnaround time is one of the arguments brought forth by the opposition to A.B. 331.  Mr. DeBacco remarked when an individual is trying to work in a protected occupation, or adopt a child, the background check delays the process.  He noted the central repository, through technology, has established electronic interfaces with the FBI system.  The FBI has established electronic links with fingerprint systems in other states and experiences a 2-hour turnaround time. 

 

Senator Porter maintained the complaints he has heard are not about turnaround time, but he appreciated Mr. DeBacco’s clarification.  He asked what the liability is should a well-intentioned scout leader volunteer who works for the scout organization not receive proper information, and a sexual offense or any other type of abuse occurs. 

 

In response, Assemblyman Nolan said:

 

If they employed a person who had a background . . . I think there is actually two levels that you deal with.  One is, was there information that could have been obtained which would have clearly indicated the person was a danger to children?  If the information was not obtained, then you have a standard at that point to say, was there negligence involved in not making an effort to find and secure the information?  Once you determine that, if in fact, there was information available on the person and you did not make an effort to find out that information, the question becomes, now is there liability exposure . . . and there probably is.  

 

On the other hand, if there is no information available on the person . . . let us say it is a person who is a beginning offender . . . who has offended several times but has not been arrested, has not been convicted, there is no information available on them . . . there still is a standard and a duty to protect those children through supervision.  Currently, there is a widespread standard in youth-related organizations of a one-on-one standard.  The Boy Scouts have adopted it, a lot of organizations have, that say, an adult cannot be in an environment with a child, one on one, without being able to be monitored by another adult.  I think there are several levels at that point that you say, did the organization itself breach a duty to protect that child from anybody when there is . . .

 

Senator Porter pointed out what is being said by A.B. 331 is that the honor system does not work.  Assemblyman Nolan said:

 

The honor system . . . I think Mr. DeBacco and what he showed here . . . and I just happened to glance over at the name of the organizations that pulled these . . . oh, I am not going to say it . . . but the names of the organizations that they pulled these volunteers for . . . these people who are applying for positions are going out after the organizations who are in opposition to this stuff.  It is just amazing. 

 

Well, you can tell I get a little impassioned about this because I think more should be done, and I just really become discouraged reading in the newspaper on almost an every other day basis, in Las Vegas, that this stuff still goes on and it could be prevented.  I have a file box that I will commit to dropping on the attorney’s desk of the victim the next time I read about one of these things . . . with the testimony in opposition from these organizations in there if I read about it in the paper again.  It is a mean-spirited thing to say, but I think it is the right thing to do.

 

Senator Porter said in his four sessions in the Legislature he has heard about sexual predators and the theory “once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator,” and there is no treatment, even after spending time in prison.  The Senator pointed out while he and his wife were working on a literacy program in southern Nevada last winter, the principal of a school showed them a list of names, received from law enforcement, of sexual predators who live in the neighborhood.  Senator Porter indicated sexual predators move to a neighborhood to be near a school.  He noted the school is located in a low-income community and, literally, sexual predators case the school choosing the children they wish to abuse.  The predators follow the children when they leave school, and many times the child is home alone.  He said the committee has heard all the horror stories, but emphasized the stories are reality.  Senator Porter expressed hope that those who oppose A.B. 331 have checks and balances in place that give them confidence children will be protected.  He stated, “That is why we are here today.”

 

Senator Care indicated he would give some thought to the amendment regarding liability.  He said one scenario that has not been discussed is one in which the organization does not do background checks, and, therefore, is not liable.  However, should the organization subsequently learn of an arrest or conviction, and do nothing about it, Senator Care pointed out, “You do not want to say, in that case, they would still escape liability.  We may have to tinker with the amendment a bit.”  Assemblyman Nolan expressed respect for Senator Care’s legal prowess, and acknowledged that he understood the intent of A.B. 331, which is not to cause nonprofit organizations any additional exposure.  However, by the same token, Assemblyman Nolan said he did not want to provide them a level of protection for negligence. 

 

Senator Wiener mentioned the term “employee” is used in the amendment.  She asked whether that was the definition provided in section 9 of A.B. 331, which states, “’Employee’ means a person who renders time and services to an employer, with or without compensation . . . ,“ includes volunteers.  Assemblyman Nolan answered the definition was consistent with other sections of the statute that define a volunteer. 

 

Vicki N. Wright, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada, indicated she represents all Girl Scouts in Nevada.  She submitted her prepared statement and an article entitled, “Bill Could Curb Volunteer Efforts” (Exhibit D).  She expressed support for the intent of A.B. 331 to protect children.  Ms. Wright said all organizations want to ensure children are safe, but have different methods of doing so.  She indicated the whole discussion of background checks is interesting.  She pointed out the cost for the Girl Scout organization to do background checks on the leaders of approximately 600 troops would be $52,000.  Ms. Wright noted a background check is good for the moment in time when a person does not have a criminal history related to sexual offenses; however, should the person be convicted tomorrow, the youth organization would never know.  She said the way the system is currently set up, the only organizations that receive notification of offenses that occur after a background check is done are schools.  Ms. Wright asked, “How often should background checks be done to make certain offenders are kept out of organizations?”

 

Continuing, Ms. Wright indicated the central repository has a fund available to nonprofit organizations that can be accessed to have background checks done on volunteers.  She pointed out at the present time there is $12,000 in the fund, $9000 has been allocated to Clark County, and $2800 has been allocated to Washoe County and the remainder of the state.  She reiterated it would cost the Girl Scout organization $52,000 to do background checks.  Ms. Wright said a nonprofit organization cannot access more than 50 percent of the funds within a 30-day period, therefore, the money would not go very far.  She indicated she was unsure whether or not there was any plan, or effort, to raise more money. 

 

Further, Ms. Wright said, both federal and state background checks must be done in order to be effective.  She indicated the current system in the central repository requires a volunteer working for multiple organizations to have a background check for each organization because the information cannot be shared.  Therefore, expense will incur for either the volunteer, or the organization, to have multiple background checks.  Ms. Wright noted volunteers in Girl Scouts also volunteer in Little League and other organizations. 

 

Ms. Wright indicated the Girl Scout organization has a process in which a volunteer submits an application, accompanied with references, which are investigated.  She pointed out occasionally a reference will inform an organization that a potential volunteer does not work well with children, and that individual is screened out of the program.  She said it was her understanding that Assemblyman Nolan’s amendment exempts liability for employers using volunteers with children; however, the remainder of A.B. 331 is still unacceptable to the Girl Scout organization.  Ms. Wright said, although she understood the central repository could access FBI information, the bill was confusing as to the effect on nonprofit organizations. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Wright said it would be good for organizations to have information regarding offenses, other than sexual offenses, when selecting volunteers.  She pointed out if a volunteer is going to drive a car or van for the Girl Scouts, a copy of their Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) record is obtained.  In regard to the list of felony offenses on page 9 of A.B. 331, Ms. Wright said currently a background check will inform an organization as to whether or not a person is suitable to be a volunteer, only from a sexual offense perspective.  She indicated should A.B. 331 pass, a nonprofit organization would not receive the list of an individual’s offenses, only a yes or no as to whether or not they are qualified.  Ms. Wright queried, “Do we really want the central repository to make the decision regarding who can be a volunteer for an organization?”  She pointed out the organization would not know why a person was unqualified to be a volunteer, it would just be told the person is not qualified to be a volunteer. 

 

Moving on, Ms. Wright stated two years ago a woman applied to be a Girl Scout leader, filled out an application, answered “yes” to the question of whether or not she had ever been convicted of a felony offense, explained she had been convicted of embezzlement a number of years ago, and had learned her lesson.  Ms. Wright said the organization followed up with some additional references to check out the woman’s character, and placed a stipulation that she would not be allowed to handle finances for the Girl Scout troop.  Ms. Wright affirmed the woman was a good troop leader and there had been no problems over the 2‑year period.  She noted, should A.B. 331 pass, that woman would not be able to work with children.  Ms. Wright stated, “That is not fair.  There are people out there who do learn their lesson and can be good volunteers with work, some stipulations, and understanding.”  She pointed out A.B. 331 would remove any discretion from nonprofit organizations. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Wright said yesterday the committee congratulated Assemblyman Wendell Williams on his bill against racial profiling.  She said the Girl Scout organization believes A.B. 331 is felony profiling and should be struck down and not put into law.  Although the organization wants to know information about volunteers to protect children, Ms. Wright stated A.B. 331 has problems and, therefore, she could not support it.

 

Senator Wiener asked whether or not Ms. Wright had made an effort to work with the sponsors of A.B. 331 to alleviate the concerns.  In response, Ms. Wright indicated she missed the bill on the Assembly side, but pointed out she attempted to work with Assemblyman Nolan for three legislative sessions on various bills related to background checks for volunteers.  She noted Assemblyman Nolan and Mr. DeBacco have been aware of past opposition from various nonprofit organizations, but have not availed themselves of their comments and suggestions. 

 

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Girl Scouts of the Frontier, and Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada, indicated every organization competes for volunteers.  She said volunteers are very special people and do not usually volunteer for just one organization.  They are usually Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), soccer moms, Little League, and church volunteers.  She pointed out all nonprofit organizations would come to a screeching halt without volunteers.  Ms. Berkley said, should volunteers be required to pay $39 to volunteer for each organization, they would become more discriminating as to which organization they choose.  She maintained money should not be the reason a person does, or does not, volunteer.  She said the state of California deemed the obtaining of fingerprints for volunteers important enough to make it no cost; therefore, millions of dollars are taken from their General Fund to defray the costs. 

 

Senator Porter noted, even should fingerprinting be gratis, there are still many other problems faced by nonprofit organizations.  In response, Ms. Berkley said nonprofit organizations are not anti-fingerprinting, they are concerned with cost.  She noted representatives of the Girl Scout organization were present at every hearing on Senator James’ sex-offender notification bill, at both the commission and legislative sessions, to ensure they obtained information.  They have continued to be in contact.  Ms. Berkley indicated at the last legislative session one of Assemblyman Nolan’s bills included a training packet put together by the Girl Scouts that could be distributed from the state.  She pointed out the Girl Scout organization met with Assemblyman Nolan on fingerprinting issues.  Ms. Berkley said nonprofit organizations have made efforts to communicate with legislators and will continue to do so. 

 

In conclusion, Ms. Berkley said many people would make good volunteers; however, should a background check be negative, the organization would never know the nature of the offense in order to ascertain whether or not the individual would be an appropriate volunteer.  She affirmed, should the offense be a DUI, the volunteer would not be assigned to drive a bus; however, he/she might be assigned to read to a child in a classroom.  Ms. Berkley noted the Girl Scouts contact the DMV to ensure a bus driver does not have a DUI on their record.  She indicated the Girl Scout organization has done as much as it can with available resources to protect children, and there has never been a problem. 

 

Senator Porter queried if nonprofit organizations would still have the same argument if the fingerprint check is free of cost.  Ms. Berkley answered the point is the organizations would not get the information.  Senator Porter said assume for the moment that the information would be available to the organizations.  In that event, Ms. Berkley said, “Absolutely.  It would be another tool.”  Senator Porter asked whether or not nonprofit organizations would have a concern in knowing the information.  Ms. Berkley responded, “No.” 

 

Further, Senator Porter pointed out Moms and Dads want to be able to take their child, or an elderly person, to an organization they trust and know has taken every step possible to ensure their family members are safe.  He stated Assemblyman Nolan is trying to accomplish the same.

 

Based on Senator Porter’s question and Ms. Berkley’s affirmative response, Senator Wiener asked whether it is constitutionally appropriate to provide specific information on an individual through the background check.  Mr. DeBacco answered the statute currently allows the central repository to only provide whether or not the person is qualified or disqualified because of an offense constituting a sexual offense.  He explained the reason for that pertains to FBI restrictions imposed upon the central repository.  The central repository cannot release criminal history record information to nongovernmental entities; therefore, the various volunteer organizations are precluded, by federal statute, from receiving FBI criminal history records.  Mr. DeBacco said the central repository is able to obtain the records, and through specific statutory authority has the ability to screen the record for offenses that constitute disqualification-type crimes.  Should an organization wish to make an inquiry against only Nevada records, under NRS 179A.100 there is ample authority to release the entire record.  Mr. DeBacco explained when a record is obtained from Ohio, Utah, or California, through the FBI, the central repository is precluded from providing the specifics of the information.  The only information the central repository can provide, at present, is whether or not a person has been convicted of a disqualifying offense.  Should A.B. 331 pass, those disqualifying offenses would be expanded significantly.  If an organization is checking Nevada DMV/PS records, they only receive Nevada DMV/PS information.  The organization may not receive information on Utah, California, or Idaho, regarding how many times a person has had a DUI offense.  He affirmed that can only be done through the central repository check for other states. 

 

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, expressed concern regarding groups such as the Gang Alternative Partnership program in Reno.  She noted many of their volunteers are ex-felons who have changed their lives and have much to offer, and A.B. 331 would exclude them from participating.  Ms. Gilbert said that would be a shame because they are setting an example for young people by demonstrating they have turned their lives around, which, in her opinion, is the best example that can be given.  She called attention to Robert Nerey, who is an example of someone who changed his life.  She noted Mr. Nerey directs the Gang Alternative Partnership program.

 

Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, indicated she neither supports nor opposes A.B. 331.  She said her organization probably would have been opposed to it; however, the amendment appears to have changed things.  She indicated for the past two legislative sessions the Nevada Woman’s Lobby has opposed similar bills introduced by Assemblyman Nolan for many of the aforementioned reasons.  Ms. Gang said she missed the bill in the Assembly, but noted, the way A.B. 331 is written, it is difficult to recognize that it applies to volunteers. 

 

Continuing, Ms. Gang said several members of the Nevada Women’s Lobby voiced concerns about the timeliness of background checks and being able to obtain the information in time to put a volunteer to work.  She explained when a volunteer expresses interest in working for an organization, it is important to put them to work immediately or they go elsewhere.  Ms. Gang pointed out approximately 12 years ago she headed up the Office of Volunteerism for the State of Nevada.  In that capacity, she said, she traveled around the state and trained organizations how to work with volunteers.  She indicated, essentially, volunteers are referred to as unpaid employees with the same criteria in regard to hiring and firing.  Ms. Gang declared recruiting volunteers is extremely difficult and organizations do not want to lose them to other groups.  She said emphasis is placed on avoiding liability issues and making sure the organization understands and complies with the law, and communicates those requirements to the volunteers.  She pointed out any omission could make the organization liable. 

 

Ms. Gang further pointed out she received correspondence from a member of the Nevada Women’s Lobby who works with an organization that recruits many volunteers to work with youth.  Ms Gang said the member indicated her organization “has interpreted existing law as requiring that we also modify volunteer applications to volunteers to close any other convictions.”  She noted this organization fingerprints all people who come to them.  She said the organization feels if they do not do this, they will be liable.  Ms. Gang indicated the member would like to see a procedure created that would allow volunteers to authorize release of their fingerprints to avoid taking duplicate prints.  It is a big problem that has not been settled in three successive legislative sessions.  Ms. Gang noted several people told her they had been fingerprinted numerous times and asked whether those findings could be accessed.  Her answer was, “It cannot be done due to the way the law is currently written.”  Ms. Gang said the member went on to say, in regard to funding, “If the Legislature believes this is important, they ought to find a way to provide funding in order to prevent nonprofit organizations from being required to do so.” 

 

In conclusion, Ms. Gang said, until Assemblyman Nolan can work out a solution to the problem of making fingerprints available to successive groups, the proposed legislation is unworkable.  She indicated making the information available to organizations and making it easier for them to access the information would be a plus. 

 

Barbara Robinson, Ridge House, indicated she did not have a position on A.B. 331 at this time.  She said she was unfamiliar with the bill and came to the Legislature to listen and learn about the bill.  Ms. Robinson stated Ridge House employs felons, but they do not work with children.  She said the majority of felons had problems when they committed crimes; however, they had rehabilitated themselves.  Senator Porter asked whether Ridge House was aware of a volunteer’s background when hiring.  Ms. Robinson answered, “Absolutely.”  She noted all employed felons have been fingerprinted and Ridge House has their criminal records.  Ms. Robinson said Ridge House utilizes volunteers.  She pointed out sometimes children come into the home to visit their parents; however, staff members and several adults are always present and available. 

 

David Warfe, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), YMCA of the Sierra, indicated the testifiers who preceded him offered extremely good points and, in general, he agreed with them.  However, he said he was against A.B. 331 for some of the aforementioned reasons.  He pointed out organizations in the not‑for-profit field are constantly told they should always collaborate.  He said the ability to collaborate and not be allowed to share information, particularly with legislation such as A.B. 331 that requires fingerprinting of volunteers, is difficult.  Mr. Warfe indicated he asked one of his fiscal directors about a program called the Youth Basketball Association.  He noted this year the program includes 2000 children from Sparks and Reno, and more are expected in the coming year due to the fact a Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) opened in Fallon.  Mr. Warfe said he asked the director how many volunteer coaches and referees are involved in the program.  The answer was this year there were in excess of 600 volunteers.  He said the director told him about one coach with two children, who is an assistant coach for one team, coaches another team, is a Little League coach, and is heavily involved in his church’s youth program.  Mr. Warfe stated it is illogical to consider fingerprinting a person that many times. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Warfe indicated the YMCA is the fiscal agent for a grant from a local casino in Reno, from which money is funneled to the Northern Nevada Youth Soccer League.  He noted YMCA volunteers service 600 children; however, the YMCA receives nothing for this service.  Mr. Warfe commented asking all the coaches and referees to be fingerprinted would destroy the program.  He said there are many reasons a number of people in the community would not wish to be fingerprinted, one of which might be the possibility they could be deported, and so forth. 

 

Mr. Warfe pointed out in August 1995 Jessica Arrenas, a resident of Neil Road, was killed in a drive-by shooting at Horseman Park.  He noted the YMCA moved into Neil Road and began working, despite the fact there was no money to accomplish the project.  He stated the YMCA remains in Neil Road to this day, there is no building, and the people in the community have formed reading circles and tutoring services.  He said it would be too costly to fingerprint all the volunteers from high schools, colleges, businesses, and service clubs, in order for them to volunteer at the library and read to a group of children.  Mr. Warfe asked, “Do we deny them that possibility?” 

 

Mr. Warfe indicated in the year 2000 the YMCA provided $278,000 in financial assistance to children who could not participate in programs due to lack of money.  He said the YMCA was able to raise approximately $210,000 through the United Way gift, community-support campaign, and golf tournament proceeds.  It meant the YMCA had to fund $68,000 out of the operating budget in order to ensure the children have a good program.  Mr. Warfe asked, “Must we put another $40,000 on top of that, to ensure all volunteers are fingerprinted?”  He said it comes down to the point of denying children an opportunity to participate in programs, especially with their parents, when parents are asked to volunteer to lead a scout troop or coach a Little League or basketball team.  He asked, “Do we deny them the opportunity to participate and establish in their minds that it is good to volunteer?” 

 

Senator Porter pointed out the YMCA is a very sophisticated nationwide organization.  He said parents want to know their children are in a safe environment.  Although most parents are not aware of the legislation, are listening to these hearings, or know this is happening, Senator Porter emphasized they just want to know, with confidence, that they can drop their child off at an organization and every step possible will be taken to protect their family.  The senator remarked 50 years ago things were different regarding sexual predators, and asked what steps are being taken before a volunteer is accepted to ensure they are not a sexual predator, or any other type of violator, to alleviate parental concerns.

 

In response, Mr. Warfe said in the area of youth sports, there is an extensive process of training volunteers.  Senator Porter inquired before a volunteer signs on, what steps are taken to ensure the person is a good and honest individual without a problem past.  Mr. Warfe explained meetings are set up with all coach and referee volunteers to talk about the four character values used by the YMCA in all its programs, which are:  caring, honesty, respect, and responsibility.  He said the YMCA also works closely with volunteers regarding the requirements.  The volunteers are told they may not take their teams out for practice without notification, and they are tied in heavily to YMCA staff.  Mr. Warfe pointed out he worked with the YMCA for 30 years, and it is his deep desire and goal to make sure no child is placed in peril under his watch. 

 

Senator Porter inquired whether or not it is an honor system, and the YMCA takes the person’s word that they are “okay.”  Mr. Warfe answered, “Yes.”  He noted last year a man volunteered to coach in the Youth Basketball Association program.  A parent came to the director and pointed out a situation that occurred with the prospective volunteer.  Mr. Warfe indicated the person was undesirable, therefore, the YMCA denied him the opportunity to coach in that league.  He stated the YMCA staff is very cognizant of what is going on.  He said he recently toured the “kid’s cottage” and foster homes through a group in Reno, and is currently setting up a tour for his staff.  Because the YMCA does a great deal of childcare and before and after school care, it is extremely important that instances of potential molestation or mistreatment of a child are reported.  Mr. Warfe said he is attempting to make it easier for YMCA employees to report any mistreatment or abuse of a child.

 

Senator Porter queried if, in the over 30 years Mr. Warfe has been with the YMCA, there have been many changes in the manner in which volunteers are recruited.  Mr. Warfe answered things are a lot “tighter” now.  He said in his early days he would take a caravan out, and if, at the last moment, a counselor could not go, he would pick up another counselor.  He noted there was no time to take fingerprints, nor was it required at that time.  Mr. Warfe indicated all nonprofit organizations have become more aware in recent years about the need to make sure all avenues are utilized in order to protect children. 

 

Senator Porter said there is a delicate balance between finding good volunteers and having proper background information, and he understood the difficulty of achieving that balance. 

 

Senator Washington pointed out he coached YMCA basketball teams and Pop Warner football.  He said one of the coaches he worked with quit, he was asked to volunteer, and he did so.  The Senator noted many times volunteers are not necessarily recruited, and may be the friend of a friend, an acquaintance, or an associate.  A volunteer may be needed quickly and an extensive background check could hamper a program or movement of an activity.  Senator Washington stated, “If I had to be fingerprinted in order to be a coach, I probably would not have coached.” 

 

Robert L. Crowell, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, indicated he had no difficulty with the intent of A.B. 331.  He said it was his understanding that the intent of the bill is to prevent unworthy volunteers from associating with children.  He expressed concern regarding the issue of mandatory fingerprinting for volunteers.  To put the issue into perspective, Mr. Crowell pointed out within the last 6 months he was asked to become a member of the board of directors of the Children’s Museum in Carson City, and he agreed to do so.  He mentioned he is also on the Carson City school board.  He said the first time he visited the board of directors of the Children’s Museum, he was told he would be required to pay for his own director and liability insurance, approximately $80, and, in addition, it would be his responsibility to obtain his own fingerprint check at local law enforcement, another $40.  Mr. Crowell maintained there was no difficulty doing the fingerprinting; however, from the standpoint of operating as a volunteer board member of the Children’s Museum, it seemed to him it would be difficult to recruit volunteers by requiring them to go through the drill and spend money to be a volunteer.  He indicated that is the major concern with A.B. 331, and added it would apply to not only the Children’s Museum, but to Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and other nonprofit organizations.  Mr. Crowell pointed out should there be a way to rectify the concerns the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association would support the legislation.

 

In response, Senator Porter said the committee understands the balancing act between having proper information and finding good volunteers.  He confirmed the committee’s goal is to find that balance.  Mr. Crowell expressed understanding.  

 

Jeff Hunt, Executive Director, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Nevada Area Council, expressed opposition to A.B. 331.  He said the content and intent of the bill is very sound; however, there are points he wanted to make, as well as explain the BSA organizational process and leadership selection.  Mr. Hunt indicated the BSA, as a private organization, believes it is most important to maintain the right to determine its own membership standards.  He explained there is a process entitled “two-deep leadership,” which means a child cannot attend a camp out without two-deep leadership, which is required by the BSA.  Volunteers must undergo an application process that asks whether or not a person has ever been convicted of a felony.  Mr. Hunt pointed out the process is screened at the local level through religious and community-based organizations, and the BSA collaborates with agencies, such as the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs.  He noted in his 16 years in the profession he met many people with good intentions who wanted to become volunteers, and he believed A.B. 331 would discourage volunteerism, especially in the BSA. 

 

Continuing, Mr. Hunt pointed out a situation took place about two years ago in South Florida involving a gentleman who was a lawyer and an outstanding citizen; however, he had been convicted of “something” in the past.  Mr. Hunt indicated he worked with the man for a long time and found him to be of good character and with the best intentions as a volunteer.  Mr. Hunt said he met with the pastor of the church and they discussed whether or not the man should be allowed to volunteer.  He indicated the pastor wanted the man to be a volunteer, regardless of what occurred in the past, due to his activities on behalf of young people.  Mr. Hunt said the BSA agreed because the way the organization selects its volunteer leadership is through community-based organizations that determine whether or not a volunteer is fit to be a leader within their institution.

 

Further, Mr. Hunt opined the BSA is at the forefront in preventing child abuse.  He said all volunteer leaders and children are required to attend youth protection training, which stress the “three Rs”:  recognize, resist, and report child abuse.  Mr. Hunt explained there are five types of child abuse, the first of which is mental abuse.  He said all leaders are required to view videotapes and study support material to help them identify mental abuse.

 

Mr. Hunt maintained the second type of child abuse is physical abuse.  Although he has only been in his current position for 3 or 4 months, Mr. Hunt said there have been 3 or 4 occasions when volunteers reported bruises on children, and he went through the correct reporting procedure process.

 

Continuing, Mr. Hunt indicated, the third type of child abuse is emotional abuse.  He said leaders are trained to recognize and report emotional abuse.  He noted the fourth type of child abuse is sexual abuse.  Mr. Hunt said he was pleased with law enforcement’s practice of identifying sexual predators, which is helpful to the BSA organization. 

 

Further, Mr. Hunt said the fifth type of child abuse is neglect.  He noted many children from every economic aspect suffer neglect.  He expressed the opinion that A.B. 331 would discourage well-intentioned volunteers from giving their time to provide programs for young people. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Hunt said from a financial standpoint 38,000 Girl Scout cookies equate to approximately 15,000 six-packs of popcorn sold by the Boy Scouts.  He said it would cost the BSA approximately $100,000 to do fingerprint checks.  He noted the BSA is an organization that struggles to meet its day-by-day operations to provide programs for young people.  Mr. Hunt reported BSA summer camps and facilities need improvement, and he believed A.B. 331 would severely hinder the ability to administer the program.

 

Senator Porter asked if the BSA organization, as a whole, is taking every reasonable step possible to ensure volunteers are above reproach.  Mr. Hunt answered, the BSA two-deep leadership, the screening process . . . Senator Porter interjected, “There is no higher profile organization that has had more problems in the past than your organization.”  Mr. Hunt indicated the BSA is doing everything possible to ensure positive adult role models are in place by using the application process, following up on references, checking with employers in some cases, and, if required, collaborating with community-based organizations who sponsor Cub Scout packs or Boy Scout troops, to decide whether or not an individual should be a leader within the organization.  He reiterated the BSA organization believes it should have the right to determine its own membership standards and selection of leadership. 

 

Nancy E. MacCartney, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, City of Reno, indicated the city of Reno has partnered with everyone from whom the committee has heard testimony in providing programs for children.  She noted, however, the committee has not heard from the “little partners” that do not have paid staff, and would find A.B. 331 a logistical nightmare because the leadership are, themselves, volunteers.  In addition, Ms. MacCartney said many organizations are running on shoestring budgets that have limited fund‑raising abilities and the fees charged the children are the only way they remain operational. 

 

Ms. MacCartney further pointed out the other partners of the city of Reno are:  Special Olympics; Reno Youth Sports Association, which includes Little League, Pop Warner football, soccer, softball, and track programs; Northern Nevada Tennis Association, with volunteer tennis instructors; Sky Tavern Junior Ski Program; Corporate Challenge; Kid’s Health Fair; the youth advisory board that puts on events; tutors at the youth centers at the Neil Road and Sibayan Recreation Centers; the Junior Golf Association; and swim teams.  She noted none of these organizations have paid staff to administer a fingerprinting program, and would have to pass the cost on to families who cannot afford it. 

 

Barbara Clark, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teachers Association (NPTA), expressed agreement with previous testimony.  She gave the following testimony:

 

We [NPTA] understand the intent behind Assemblyman Nolan’s bill [A.B. 331] and appreciate his desire to protect children.  This has always been the mission of the PTA beginning in 1897, an organization with millions of volunteers selflessly dedicated to furthering the welfare, safety, and education of children.  The NPTA is addressing parent volunteers in supervised settings in the schools and in the classrooms.  Unsupervised attention needs to have checks.  We feel, however, that there is a delicate balance we need to strike between the evasion of parent’s rights to privacy and their ability to parent and to participate in their children’s lives while protecting those same children.  The list of offenses that are listed in the bill, and the people who have committed these crimes, and, again, it even includes those who aid, abet, and are attempting to do the crimes, is indicating that it equates to being a bad parent.  They would have an inability to act properly in the classroom in front of their own children.  Or, those children who love their parents will have the benefit of that parent in their classroom.  We know through 30 years of research that the key to academic achievement is parent involvement, and that parent involvement means the ability to monitor a child’s progress and to advocate for their academic needs. 

 

I heard Assemblyman Nolan indicate on the news last night that parent volunteers are role models and need to be of high character.  This is a wide open debate.  I may feel that someone who has been convicted or in possession of pot would be better suited to be around my child than an adulterer or tax evader.  The list, as you indicated, does include some, but may not include things that are of offense to other parents.  This is really a path that we want to take. 

 

As to parent involvement in supervising settings, there is already law notification of sexual offenders for the schools to access.  Society has also indicated that a person who has been convicted and served time has paid their debt to society.  They would still be unable to try to be a good parent and help their children to succeed. 

 

We would still have concerns about the liability with the amendment, although we do not have the law background to make those determinations.  We have parents who go on field trips on a one-time basis, and we are talking about volunteers who step in and go on a field trip once a year, and that is all they can do. 

 

Ms. Clark continued:

 

We would support training and education for parents and school staff, but we would not support fingerprinting or background checks on parents who volunteer in their children’s classes.  There are thousands and thousands of parents that we would have the costs involved with that are going to be converted from the academic needs.  Again, we are talking about supervised settings.  Embezzlers even need to be able to advocate for their children.  We are concerned also about the populations that it may discourage from coming to the schools.  How many people have the time and resources to be able to go get fingerprinted, to be able to come into the classroom or into the school setting.  There are thousands and thousands of hours that are donated to the education system in the state that, quite frankly, K-12 [Kindergarten-twelfth grade] education would probably suffer in the negative if those parent volunteers were not there to be able to support our academic success.  Thank you very much. 

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, indicated she followed A.B. 331 from its beginning in the Assembly.  She said, “Frankly, I thought we were okay with the protections from liability that are in the bill for nonprofits.”  She noted information that has arisen over the past couple of days, along with the amendment offered today, makes clear that all volunteer organizations are now defined as employers, which creates a whole different world.  Ms. Lusk pointed out the issue is not only cost, it is feasibility with the many occasional and short-term volunteers who volunteer in multiple organizations.  She remarked, should it be the committee’s desire to proceed with A.B. 331, several things need to be done.  Number one, provide not just a notice of information, but the actual criminal history from Nevada.  She noted a statement has been made that information cannot be provided on FBI material; however, actual criminal history from Nevada could be provided, plus a notice of information should there be additional disqualifying information from the feds. 

 

Second, Ms. Lusk said, there must be a way to release a person’s background check to the number of organizations in which they volunteer, without having to do it multiple times.  She indicated during different phases of her history she would have had to go through a background check six, seven, or eight times, because of the various volunteerisms with which she has been involved.

 

Senator Porter deemed Ms. Lusk’s remarks well taken, and commented many people volunteer for every organization.  She noted, tongue in cheek, many volunteers might find it an excuse for not doing so much.

 

Third, Ms. Lusk suggested the confusion of what constitutes an employer must be eliminated.  She said an organization should not be an employer if it has no paid employees.  That does not constitute an employer, although it would, if A.B. 331 were to pass as written.  Ms. Lusk recommended using the no liability amendment for employers, on page 2, of Assemblyman Nolan’s amendment, but not redefine employer by adding volunteer.  She suggested instead to state an employer may also request notice of information on volunteers, but is not liable, as stated on the amendment.  Ms. Lusk pointed out the second portion of the amendment is deletion of existing language that is protection for nonprofit organizations, and asked it not be deleted.  She expressed the opinion that it is not duplication because she did not believe nonprofit organizations and employers that have no paid employees are, in fact, the same thing.

 

John Ruby, Pastor, South Reno United Methodist Church, indicated he was connected with almost every youth volunteer organization in town in one way or another.  He stated A.B. 331 would be “absolutely” unworkable in a church.  He said his church wants all children to be safe and protected at all times and has instituted policies and procedures that ensure it will happen as much as reasonably possible.  However, the pastor gave the example of a mother who is a first-time guest in his church whose child is crying in the nursery.  He said, should A.B. 331 pass, the volunteer in the nursery would not be able to comfort the crying child unless he/she had a fingerprint check.  He said it is unworkable and illogical.  Pastor Ruby noted his church has many volunteers which span from casual contact to having a youth-oriented job description.  He said most every adult in his church is involved with children and youth in some way, and he could not foresee how everyone could be fingerprinted.  He said it would be more appropriate to have sexual offender information in order to guard against those types of individuals. 

 

In addition, Pastor Ruby expressed concern regarding minor teenage children who have contact with younger children, but do not have discoverable records. 

 

Assemblyman Nolan indicated the fingerprint-check proposition has been broadly explored.  He stated the bill does not require any organizations that are not currently doing fingerprint background checks to do them.  He said:

 

Some of the language . . . included in there [A.B. 311] implied that there was additional liability exposure, which is subjective, for those people who do not . . . in some organizations feel that information would compel them to have to do fingerprint background checks.  We offered an amendment to do away with that.  We expressly, I think, demonstrated that it is not our intention to create any additional liability, and at the same time, it is not our intention to diminish any of the liability that would currently exist with organizations in the event they commit any act of negligence.  So, with that, Mr. Chairman, and I think that really gets to this . . . we did not hear opposition from one organization who does background checks.  I would be glad to work with you, Mr. Chairman, or whomever you put together in a committee to take a look at this.

 

Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 331 and opened the hearing on A.B. 466.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 466:  Provides for issuance of statewide work permits for gaming employees.  (BDR 41-244)

 

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27, indicated she was presenting A.B. 466 on behalf of the Alliance for Workers Rights.  She said she had been working on the legislation for more than a year to bring interested parties together to develop a bill that would work for everyone.  She noted there are representatives present at the hearing from all parties, including gaming workers, industry, law enforcement, gaming regulators, and the central repository.  Assemblywoman Leslie stated everyone has agreed it is a good idea to update the 40-year-old law regarding gaming work cards. 

 

Continuing, Assemblywoman Leslie submitted a document containing the definition of a gaming worker (Exhibit E).  She noted the statute specifically excludes bartenders and cocktail waitresses, as well as maids, porters, valets, and so forth.  Assemblywoman Leslie indicated those from Clark County are familiar with the controversy surrounding the requirement of work cards for those occupations.  She said A.B. 466 does not address that at all, but exclusively addresses gaming work cards as defined by the list already in statute, which are basically employees that deal directly with gaming cash. 

 

Further, Assemblywoman Leslie stated her goals for the legislation are as follows:  to standardize the work card process and inspire more confidence statewide; to reduce the cost and aggravation for gaming workers; to establish reciprocity whereby a worker can be investigated once and then be able to change jobs within a set time period, and 5 years is suggested, without undergoing another background check; and, to establish clear guidelines and criteria for denial of the gaming work card. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie explained, in 1965, work permits were first required of casino-gaming employees.  Since 1965, the state’s local jurisdictions have developed their own particular methods of carrying out the intent of the law.  She said the statutes provided that the permits are issued in accordance with ordinances or regulations of each county or city in which the duties are performed.  In all counties, other than Clark or Washoe, gaming cards are issued by the county sheriff’s office.  Assemblywoman Leslie pointed out, in Clark County, gaming cards are issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) and the police departments of Henderson, Mesquite, and North Las Vegas.  In Washoe County, the cards are issued by the Reno Police Department, the Sparks Police Department, and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. 

 

Continuing, Assemblywoman Leslie said as part of her research she did a survey of the 22 agencies that have 22 different ways of administering the program.  All agencies responded to the survey, with the exception of Humboldt County.  She noted the survey found there is very little uniformity in the process for issuing gaming work cards, or fees being charged.  Some jurisdictions do a local scope to see whether a person is wanted or has arrests or convictions which would result in a denial.  Others check locally and at state level, and some do a full background check that include local, state, and FBI. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie further said the cost of obtaining a gaming work card and the length of time it is valid also vary widely.  In one rural county, the cost of obtaining a card is $5 and good for 1 year.  In two other rural counties, the cost is $5 and good for a lifetime, as long as the person works in that county.  Assemblywoman Leslie pointed out at the other extreme is the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, which charges $74 for a full background check, and the card is good for 5 years.  The cost varies from $5, $10, to $20, and other jurisdictions charge $45, $49, $50, $52, or $64.  She said reciprocity varies as well.  For example, Washoe County honors Carson City’s work card, but not gaming work cards from Reno or Sparks, and the city of Reno does not honor anyone else’s work card. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie stated the point is there is no consistency in the depth of the background check, the charge, the renewal provisions, or reciprocity, which are the things addressed in A.B. 466.  She indicated the Assembly amended the bill to give gaming regulators more time to create regulations to address some of the issues, such as the criteria for denial of the gaming work card.  Assemblywoman Leslie said she agrees with the gaming control board that more time is needed for it.  She maintained the criteria is very important as a worker-protection issue.  She said, “We need to make sure all gaming workers across the state are treated fairly and equally.”

 

In closing, Assemblywoman Leslie said everyone involved in negotiations has worked very hard to come up with amendments to A.B. 466 in order to address the issue.  She indicated everyone is making a good-faith effort to reform the work card system to protect both workers and the industry. 

 

Senator Porter clarified A.B. 466 requests consistency to simplify the process around the state to obtain a gaming work card.  Assemblywoman Leslie said it would help workers because they would be able to possess one card and change jobs without doing repetitive background checks.  She stated it would also help the industry because gaming work cards would be consistent across the state.  Assemblywoman Leslie pointed out it would be win-win for everyone.

 

Referring to section 2, subsection 8, of A.B. 466, “However, each such employee shall notify the board within 10 days following any change of his place of employment . . . ,” Senator Wiener inquired whether a firing would be an example of something deemed appropriate.  Answering, Assemblywoman Leslie said the employee would be required to obtain a gaming work card every time they accept employment; however, under A.B. 466, they obtain it once and have one background check which is good for 5 years.  Senator Wiener said she understood the work card would give a person mobility and flexibility to go from place to place, and it says, “each such employee shall notify the board within 10 days following any change of his place of employment at a gaming establishment . . . ,” and then it says there may be an investigation if the board deems it appropriate.  In reference to that, Senator Wiener asked, should a person be fired, the board may want to know the reason.  Assemblywoman Leslie indicated people must provide notification when they change jobs in order to keep track of where they are, however, the 10 days’ issue was requested by law enforcement in the event of a subsequent conviction within that time period.  She said she did not believe there was any intent in regard to firing.  Assemblywoman Leslie deferred to law enforcement to address it more specifically.

 

Senator Porter inquired whether A.B. 466 had consensus by most of the individuals who would be impacted.  He also asked whether or not her presentation at the hearing was based upon the proposed amendments.  In other words, he queried, “Is there a lot of support for the bill?”  In response, Assemblywoman Leslie said, “Yes, that is my belief.” 

 

Tom Stoneburner, Director, Alliance for Workers Rights, indicated his organization’s interest in the issue emanated from complaints and concerns of people who work within the gaming industry.  He said inconsistency in the law and lack of reciprocity arose continuously.  He indicated everybody in the industry understands that moving from one property to another can result in expense.  He noted people must stand in long lines at their local jurisdictions to obtain a work card because they have taken employment with another establishment located only a few blocks from the old one.  Mr. Stoneburner indicated gaming work cards are obtained in response to a state statute, and he opined the card should be good throughout the state; however, government has not responded to the suggestion.  He explained that is what brought the Alliance for Workers Rights to the hearing.

 

Continuing, Mr. Stoneburner indicated the Alliance for Workers Rights perused the issue and, after some examination, they discovered workers were right.  He said there are issues that need to be resolved and changes that need to take place as soon as possible.  He asked the committee to move A.B. 466 on because it is a good bill.  He pointed out workers around the lunch table will say the legislation is needed and long overdue, and they would appreciate the Legislature’s support. 

 

Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, expressed support for A.B. 466 as currently written. 

 

Senator Wiener asked what would be deemed appropriate for an investigation following change of a work place.  Mr. Scherer responded, currently, if a person changes jobs he/she is required to obtain a new work card, including filling out a new application, going to local law enforcement, and paying a new fee.  Mr. Scherer said although the State Gaming Control Board does not think all that is necessary, it does want the ability to peruse any subsequent offenses the person committed since obtaining the work card.  In regard to being fired, Mr. Scherer indicated the board might wish to peruse the record should the reason for firing be for cheating or stealing from the employer.  However, he said, other reasons for being fired would not give rise to an objection to a work card.  

 

Kalene Dickerson, Police Services Manager, Reno Police Department, expressed support for A.B. 466 and appreciation for Assemblywoman Leslie’s efforts in addressing their concerns.  She noted, one caveat is in regard to a cap on the $75 fee, and pointed out, $39 comes out of her jurisdiction, of which $24 goes to the FBI, $15 goes to Nevada Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), and it would impact local agencies should either of them raise their fees.  Ms. Dickerson said the reason they are not opposing the bill at this time is because they have instituted new technology and believe they can reduce their overhead and, hopefully, would not have to increase their fees.  However, she said, the City of Reno asked for a 4 percent increase across the board on all licensing.  She remarked she was able to convince them to hold off until an auditor could do a cost-based audit; therefore, she may appear before the committee in 2 years.  Ms. Dickerson stated she was in favor of A.B. 466.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said both he and Ms. Gilbert agreed with Ms. Dickerson’s testimony.

 

Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 466.

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, Vice Chairman Porter adjourned the hearing at 10:44 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Barbara Moss,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE: