MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 16, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:42 a.m., on Friday, February 16, 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 Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Edwin R. Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
Steven Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association
John Slansky, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Prisons
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Chairman James opened the meeting with a discussion of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 16-311, a bill Chairman James requested after visiting some prisons in the state.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 16-311: Makes various changes concerning the department of prisons. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 193.)
Chairman James said this bill made some very important changes to formalize and adopt some programs the state had in place in prisons. He said he had toured Lovelock Prison (Lovelock Correctional Center) this past summer and stated how impressed he was with what he saw. He said he toured the prison with Nicolas C. Anthony, Policy Analyst for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. Chairman James noted the Director of Prisons, Jackie Crawford, was the Warden at the prison when the programs started; after his tour, Chairman James said he asked the Department of Prisons to come up with the things that are covered in BDR 16-311. Chairman James asked for a committee introduction of the BDR. He explained the bill would require a system for offender management in each facility, provide for an Assistant Director, and change the name of the Department of Prisons to the Department of Corrections.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-311.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James then opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request 16-107.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 16-107: Makes changes pertaining to interstate compacts for supervision of offenders. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 194.)
Chairman James noted BDR 16-107 would make changes to interstate compacts for supervision of offenders and ratify the interstate compact for adult offender supervision by renouncing the existing compact for supervision of probationers and paroles. He added that 11 states have already adopted the interstate compact.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-107.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James next opened discussion on Bill Draft Request 14-466.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 14-466: Authorizes magistrate to permit examination of witness if defendant waives preliminary examination. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 192.)
Chairman James said BDR 14-466 is from the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association authorizing the magistrate to permit examination of a witness if the defendant has waived preliminary examination. There are no cameras involved in this bill.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 14-466.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
The registry of sex offenders (Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History) was next discussed. Senator Maurice Washington stated the original registry, established sometime in the late 1980s, required that such offenders register their addresses. He said that during the 1993 Legislative Session, the judiciary committee discovered this registration information was only available to law enforcement; then in 1993, a bill (Senate Bill [S.B.] 191 of the Sixty-Seventh Session) was passed that gave limited access to the information to child care providers, schools, churches, and other agencies that deal with the custody of children.
SENATE BILL 192 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Revises provisions for registration of sex offenders. (BDR 43-143)
In 1995, Senator Washington continued, a sex offender notification bill (S.B. 192 of the Sixty-Eighth Session) was passed that required that information could be given to anyone upon request.
SENATE BILL 192 OF THE SIXTY-EIGHTH SESSION: Makes various changes related to provisions pertaining to sexual deviants. (BDR 15-171)
Senator Washington said this bill established tiers (notification requirement levels) of sex offenders, based upon the severity of their crime history and their likelihood to re-offend once they have served their time and been paroled or released. In conjunction with this, the federal government passed the “Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994” that required states to have certain sex offender notification and criminal records repositories of these kinds of offenders. Senator Washington continued, Nevada complied with this federal law in 1997, (with S.B. 325 of the Sixty-Ninth Session) and 1999 (with S.B. 515 of the Seventieth Session) and made a few changes to our laws, though he said Nevada was ahead of most states on this law.
SENATE BILL 325 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Revises certain provisions governing convicted persons and the criminal justice system. (BDR 14-76)
SENATE BILL 515 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Revises provisions governing registration and community notification of sex offenders and offenders convicted of crime against child. (BDR 14-664)
Currently, Senator Washington said, there is a movement by some states to make the information even more readily available through use of the Internet. Senator Washington said he has been working on this and studied, in committee, an analysis of what other states have done. He said he is now asking the committee to recommend legislation to adopt the Internet access to the registry of sex offenders, which would allow anyone to go to the website and verify if a sex offender has registered. Senator Washington noted the central registry is cross-referenced by city, county, zip code, or street address. He added that Dennis DeBacco (Program Manager, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety) has worked with this and is prepared to support this legislation.
Senator Washington also added that regarding sex offenders and especially the “Deviance Bill,” a panel known as the “revisory” committee was to oversee and make suggestions to legislators concerning any changes or new amendments to the current statute. This suggested revision came from that committee, he noted, continuing that the information is already available but difficult to access; these revisions would simplify the process. Senator Washington said officials at the state repository of information have been in agreement and the repository already has the technology in place to comply with this bill. It is only a matter of readjusting some of our existing statutes to accommodate this measure, he said. Thirty states currently provide this information through the Internet, he noted, although some only give information about “tier level 3s,” the worst offenders in the state. Currently, he said Nevada has 36 tier level 3 offenders, and 100 tier level 2 offenders. “We are looking to track, on the Internet, tier level 3 offenders and some level 2s, depending on the severity of their crimes,” Senator Washington said.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO MAKE INFORMATION CONCERNING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. (LATER INTRODUCED AS S.B. 479.)
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James began discussion on Senate Bill 19 by calling upon Senator Washington to present the need for legislation providing for liens for work performed and materials furnished by appliance repair people.
SENATE BILL 19: Provides that person who repairs appliances and electronics has lien for work performed and materials furnished. (BDR 9-171)
Senator Washington said a constituent in the repair business who works on washing machines, televisions, videocassette recorders (VCRs), and other electronics requested S.B. 19. The problem occurs when the equipment is repaired and the owners fail to pick it up within 30 days, he said. This bill makes it legal to put a lien on the repaired item by sending out a notice to the owners informing them if they fail to pick it up, the item will be sold; the bill also specifies a notice to this effect must be clearly posted at the business.
Senator Washington explained this is already policy for jewelers and dry cleaners. Senate Bill 19 would codify electronic equipment and appliance repair people to enable them to sell repaired items as opposed to storing it. Senator Washington said his constituent had a backroom full of televisions, VCRs, appliances, and other items that he could not legally sell and had to store.
Senator Porter asked if a repair shop could not simply post the 30-day stipulation as its rules and questioned whether a law is necessary. Senator Washington responded that legislation is needed because, unless it is in the statutes, the items cannot be legally sold. Senator Care suggested that an additional declaration be included that states that the item is sold free and clear, without consideration to the person who failed to claim it. He also suggested the time frame for claiming repaired items be extended to 60 days.
Senator Washington countered with a compromise suggestion of 45 days and stated the shop he visited regarding this bill was quite crowded. He reasoned that 60 days would be too long in a limited area not designed for storage space.
Senator Titus indicated she also felt 30 days was not long enough and though she appreciated the compromise, she too, thought 60 days was a reasonable amount of time to claim repaired items.
Senator Wiener voiced concern over section 5 of S.B. 19 that would provide for the waiver of a lien to sue for the amount of labor and materials furnished. She wondered why that was part of the bill and under what circumstances it would be considered.
Senator Washington responded that existing statutes that apply to jewelers and dry cleaners are written similarly, and he chose to keep this bill uniform, in practice, to existing statutes. Current statutes give lien holders the option of suing for time and materials.
Senator McGinness pointed out if the customer does not pick up the repaired item within 30 days after completion of work; there already is a 60-day time period built into this bill. He added if the time period is extended to 60 days, it is really 120 days. He questioned which appliances or electronic equipment would be covered, and suggested an all-inclusive list might be replaced by drafting it “without limitation.”
Senator Washington concluded his presentation, agreeing to accept an amendment of 60 days. Chairman James closed the discussion on S.B. 19 and opened discussion on S.B. 76.
SENATE BILL 76: Requires correctional officers employed by department of prisons to complete program for facility training. (BDR 16-796)
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Capital Senatorial District, described the background and genesis of S.B. 76, which deals with a facility-training program for correctional officers. He said he started working on this last session, and brought it back this session in a new form. Senator Amodei explained his interest in the bill is due to the unique position his district, Carson City, is in because it has three major correctional facilities within its city limits. To date, he said, those facilities have excellent records regarding performance of their duties without adverse incidents in the city. He added that because of the nature of the facilities, there is an obvious interest in making sure the people who operate and staff those institutions are as well-trained as possible.
Senator Amodei said other issues involved are the matters of the budget, employee turnover, and the pay issues attendant with the corrections business, but this committee is concerned with policy issues. He reported it is accurate to say there is turnover, and it is expected to increase due to the pay disparities there. Therefore, “training issues are even more important in terms of how we staff the personnel who operate these facilities,” he stated. Senator Amodei said he had spoken with Jackie Crawford, the new director of the Department of Prisons (which may become known as the Department of Corrections); Ms. Crawford had indicated there are no funds in the Governor’s budget to fund this training. He added he met with her regarding S.B. 76 and understands she is duty-bound to support her boss’s budget recommendations. Senator Amodei urged the judiciary committee to examine the policy issue and pursue ways to innovate. He asked the committee to consider allowing an opportunity to discuss the cost benefit of such a program in terms of re-referring it to finance. Senator Amodei commented it is the Legislative Branch of government that appropriates the funds. He asked the committee to consider a pilot program for correctional institutions that are located within the limits of a city with a population of 50,000. Senator Amodei said he would appreciate the committee considering at least one of the institutions in Carson City to be the site of such a pilot program. He queried, “What is the harm in doing this here and see how it works in the context of policy?” Senator Amodei said he yielded the floor to Mr. Flagg of the Nevada Corrections Association who would explain the technical aspects of the training program. He closed by reiterating the validity and importance of said training.
Senator Wiener asked Senator Amodei about section 1, subsection 1, of S.B. 76 “wherein completion (of a facility training program) is required within 1 year,” and asked what an officer does from commencement of this program, what is his job? This, she said, is the policy issue. Senator Amodei deferred the majority of the answer to Mr. Flagg. He did say, that as is the case in most jobs, after a while on the job, one gets better at it.
Senator Amodei explained there is a level of P.O.S.T. (Peace Officers Standards and Training) training comparable to “on-the-job” training. He said he did not foresee radical pay increases for correctional officers and felt that offering this training would be a motivation to stay on the job.
Edwin R. Flagg, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, opened his testimony with a general statement that “hands-on” experience is the only way to learn a job, no matter what the level of one’s education. He stated that no amount of college prepares anyone to be a correctional officer, or a caseworker, or a maintenance person inside the confines of a prison. The Field Training Officer (FTO) program was started at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) in 1992, and went on for 5 years and then, suddenly, stopped because of lack of resources and lack of staff, Mr. Flagg said, noting that when staff is lacking, problems begin because there is no staff to train new staff members. In considering a $3.7 billion budget, the cost of training is limited and insignificant, he said. Mr. Flagg explained that currently employees of 6 or 7 months are training new people. He said this is neither safe nor effective.
Senator Porter asked for clarification about officers who are not properly trained performing duties. Mr. Flagg answered that there are officers who have completed the academy training, which is 4 weeks long and, he reiterated, there is a problem with having someone who has only a few months on the job training a 21- or 22-year-old rookie officer. He confirmed Senator Porter’s suspicion that there is a shortage of staff. Therefore, he added, without funding or adequate staff, officers are placed in units who have no training at all beyond the academy.
Senator Porter asked if it is cheaper to hire someone without training; Mr. Flagg answered in the negative, saying there is no pay differential. He then added that a training officer is given one-half hour comp time for training other officers which, over an 8-week period, amounts to 10 hours comp time.
Senator Washington asked how the time allotments for training are determined. Specifically, he wanted to know how the 40 hours for facility training, 80 hours for instruction in search and escort, 80 hours instruction in general population and housing, and 80 hours in special population housing, and 40 hours quasi-solo activity were determined.
Steven Barr, Lobbyist, Nevada Corrections Association, responded that program was originally a pilot program in 1992. Mr. Barr said Greg Smith, (then-Sergeant Gregory W. Smith, Northern Nevada Correctional Center) Department of Prisons, set up the program referred to as the San Jose Model, which is currently used nationally in law enforcement agencies. Each of the above-mentioned phases was designated as an observation period for both the training officer and the trainee, during which training officers observe the proficiency of the trainee. Search and escort is responsible for institutional security and responses to instances occurring within the institution. Special housing entails management of lock-down units.
Senator Washington asked what kind of training he would need if he were in a special housing or general population of the prison. He asked if there is some specific knowledge he needs.
Mr. Barr explained the difference between special housing and general population housing concerns the stress factors that occur more often in a lock-down unit. He went on to say most incarcerated in a lock-down unit do not want to be there and have difficulty with interpersonal relationships and are considered dangerous. Therefore, he said, an officer must be more security-minded and prepared to deal with aggressive people.
Senator Wiener asked if there is special therapeutic training for various kinds of prison communities and facilities. Mr. Barr responded that the Warm Springs Correctional Center does not have the FTO program, though it once did, the Lovelock Correctional Center has discontinued the program, and NNCC reinstituted the program. He said the problem is the decision to have or not have the program is determined by the wardens or new directors who come and go; therefore, there is nothing to lock the training into place as a standard procedure for prison officer training. Without this training mandated, a new officer may be on the job for 6 to 8 months with no formal training at all. He said it is common for some officers to be employed for up to 2 years without training, which leads to problems with proper procedures in the prison.
Senator Care said he does not dispute the need for training, but asked to focus on the practical application of FTO training. He noted that 320 hours of instruction during the first year of employment as a correctional officer would be equal to 20 weeks of training, or the equivalent of a semester of college. He asked if there is homework or an examination.
Mr. Barr responded that the FTO Program is 8 weeks in length, each one a 40‑hour week. He explained homework is entirely optional, though time is allotted during the workday for review. He compared the Department of Prisons to a hypothetical Acme Airlines, saying an airline would not allow a pilot to fly its airplanes without some practical instruction in flying. He compared pilots to officers, passengers to prisoners, and private citizens to those in the flight path. He concluded there is not a major law enforcement agency in this country that does not have an FTO Program.
Senator Washington wanted to know if there is a fiscal note attached to this bill. Senator Amodei responded affirmatively, and reaffirmed that the goal is to establish the need for this training and then go to the fiscal department. He stated he wanted to reiterate the need for formalized training for prison officers.
Chairman James stated the judiciary committee is the same as last session during which this bill was passed (Senate Bill 321 of the Seventieth Session).
SENATE BILL 321 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION: Requires correctional officers of department of prisons to complete certain training during their first year of employment. (BDR 16-1072)
Senator Amodei acknowledged appreciation for the judiciary committee’s concern and suggested there may be a better idea, citing Senator Care’s commentary on 320 hours of training. He added even a scaled-back program would be sufficient just to get one started. He said the bill is better this time and urged the committee to respect the judgment of the new director of prisons because she responded very positively to having this training program. He said he was aware there is not money budgeted for this program, and to that end, he was asking for a better record of Chairman James’ findings at the prison.
Chairman James responded with appreciation for the benefit of testimony heard, but added, “We can hold this bill and decide how to better present it.”
Mr. Barr referred to the proposed amendment requested by the Nevada Corrections Association and the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The amendment, drafted by the Legal Division, requires an officer to attend the P.O.S.T. academy prior to employment. He noted that currently this is not required before assignment in a correctional institution. He said no law enforcement agency would place someone in an environment that could be detrimental to him or the citizenry served.
Chairman James confirmed this amendment requires providing some training. He asked if that was not the way the bill was changed last session. Mr. Barr responded that last time, the bill did not have “category 3” peace officers included. He added that a similar bill introduced to the judiciary committee is not attached to this one. Chairman James suggested they give some thought to the last amendment proposed. The Chairman asked for further testimony on S.B. 76.
John Slansky, Assistant Director, Operations, Department of Prisons, said he came forward to clarify, rather than oppose, this bill. He said he is opposed to the current draft of the bill, speaking for the Department of Prisons. In concept, the department shares the same concerns as Mr. Flagg and Mr. Barr, Mr. Slansky said. He enumerated improvements that have been made since he started working in the prison system 32 years ago. Training, he said, is the most important thing done for staff at the Department of Prisons. And training, he added, must have a purpose, realistic, useful, practical, and appropriate for trainees. He said the department must constantly change to respond to the needs of the various institutions around the state. He claimed the needs are not the same at every institution and that S.B. 76 codifies a five-part training program that does not respond to the training needs of the Department of Prisons and its staff. He said, in many cases, it is a duplicate of what is already done. Trainers must have objectives, measurable performance objectives and this bill is not specific enough about certain objectives, Mr. Slansky said, adding, it completely eliminates department/facility discretion. Lectures, he explained, could be given for the proposed 40 hours of facility training. He said that, again, he does not have a quarrel with the concept, but he thinks the wording is too obscure and ambiguous. Mr. Slansky added that sometimes designating specific numbers of hours is too much or too little. He said he opposed the specific things missing the theory supports. He asked who would do the training, and stated there is not staff enough to provide it. He read a list of the training all officers are given within the first 5 weeks on the job (Exhibit C). Mr. Slansky concluded his remarks with a statement of the departmental desire to work together with lawmakers without codifying directives. He then referred to S.B. 76 as too rigid, and said, as written, it opens up the possibility of inmate lawsuits against the Department of Prisons.
Chairman James accepted Mr. Slansky’s comments and conceded that S.B. 76 could be better written. He stated, “We could set up guidelines for training with restrictions, but with ‘discretion.’” Chairman James noted that at a commencement exercise he addressed in Lovelock, he was made an honorary correctional officer, but he had not had training. He added that every officer he met there had completed the training. Chairman James stated the bill provides minimum guidelines and boundaries for training and said he felt that was an appropriate function for the Legislature. He reiterated the importance of including a discretionary clause as a provision of the legislation.
Mr. Slansky again stated his opposition to codifying specifics that, he said, opens the door to lawsuits from inmates.
Senator Titus stated her understanding of the FTO Program was that it is similar to student teaching after completing coursework in education. She asked if the concept is the same practical application. Mr. Slansky agreed, stating that each classroom situation is different as is the case with prison populations. He emphatically stated that discretion is the essence of teaching. He said he had experience working with students with limited abilities, and the value of presenting material several different ways before some students understood it.
Chairman James asked, specifically, if Mr. Slansky agreed with the value of on- the-job training as proposed in S.B. 76. Mr. Slansky affirmed. Chairman James and Mr. Slansky agreed the problem was codifying. Mr. Slansky stated, once more, his willingness to work on the specifics of this bill.
Senator Care asked if Mr. Slansky had precisely stated his objections to the bill. He then immediately asked if Mr. Slansky had objections to what is currently being done, and if that would be acceptable to him to codify. Senator Care also asked what was being done in other Western States and what kind of statutes governed correctional officer training.
Mr. Slansky replied he had no knowledge of any codified training in other states. He then repeated his objections to the wording of the bill. He would not have a problem codifying what is currently happening in prison training.
After Chairman James asked if there was any further testimony, Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified in support of S.B. 76. Mr. Wolff said he was given permission to represent the following organizations: the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, State of Nevada Peace Officers Council, Communication Workers of America, Teamsters Local 14 and Teamsters Local 553, and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. Mr. Wolff said these organizations do support this bill. He said he has served as a police officer for 31 years and experienced every phase of law enforcement. He said he was amazed at what he is hearing because, he said, the State of California requires and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department require even more training than this bill is requesting. California, he said, requires between 16 and 22 weeks of training. He noted he did not see anything wrong with S.B. 76. He suggested someone do a study on the effects of a lack of training and the liabilities risked by not training.
Chairman James thanked Mr. Wolff and stated appreciation for his perspective and that of the organizations he represented. Chairman James asked that the proponents study the bill closely and decide if any issues can be addressed and then return to the judiciary committee. He noted he recognized the importance of training as a safety issue and closed the hearing on S.B. 76.
Chairman James announced the commencement of the work session scheduled and noted the document (Exhibit D) would be used for the work session. He then opened the hearing on S.B. 7, noting the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Wiener, established a fund to finance a program of restitution for juvenile offenders.
SENATE BILL 7: Revises provisions concerning certain programs for children. (BDR 5-84)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 7.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James instructed Senator Wiener to take care of the bill on the Senate floor and opened the hearing on S.B. 16.
SENATE BILL 16: Requires seller of property adjacent to open range to disclose information to purchaser regarding grazing on open range. (BDR 10-56)
Chairman James stated S.B. 16 was sponsored by Senator Rhoads and would require the seller of property adjacent to an open range to disclose information regarding grazing on the open range. The chairman noted that realtors wanted language removed in subsection 2 and a change to reflect that the seller is resolved of all liability for any damage suffered from open range livestock problems once a purchaser is given the disclosure. Chairman James questioned whether the language was too broad.
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, suggested limiting the liability as a result of “failure to provide (disclose)” as the only liability the seller is released from with this disclosure. Mr. Wilkinson said he did not understand why the desire is to eliminate subsection 2 that requires a copy of the disclosure document be kept. He said it serves as proof the disclosure has been made.
Chairman James said the language would be changed to say that once the disclosure has been delivered and signed by the purchaser, the seller is relieved of all liability in respect to “failure to provide” the disclosure. He asked Mr. Wilkinson if that was what he was trying to say. Mr. Wilkinson’s answer was affirmative.
Senator Care suggested with regard to litigation about damage from open range livestock that, “disclosure shall be an affirmative defense on behalf of the seller.” He said he was very uncomfortable with including a blanket release from all liability. He thought the judge should decide.
Chairman James concurred that an affirmative defense is a good way to write this because, in the event of a lawsuit, it would shift the burden notwithstanding the disclosure and the sellers would be liable if they made a misrepresentation. He concluded saying, the request of the Realtors would be reworded as an affirmative defense, and the committee would leave subsection 2 as written. He asked for other questions.
Senator Care voiced concern about the effective date of S.B. 16, and clarifying the date when disclosure notice applies.
Mr. Wilkinson reported the effective date on this legislation is October 1, 2001, and S.B. 16 will apply on or after that date. He said the emphasis of this bill is when the document was executed, that is signed and delivered, complying with the statute of frauds. Chairman James mentioned there had been a request to expand this bill, but the sponsor had felt it was not germane to the bill, therefore, the committee is not considering those requests. He asked for a motion.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 16.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James next opened the hearing on S.B. 29, which he identified as the ratification bill and to which, he stated, there were no changes.
SENATE BILL 29: Ratifies technical corrections made to NRS and Statutes of Nevada. (BDR S-1072)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 29.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 33.
SENATE BILL 33: Revises various provisions governing probate. (BDR 12-853)
Chairman James said S.B. 33 was requested by the probate people at the bar association to modify the existing statute to clarify the manner in which a deceased child’s inheritance is distributed. Chairman James noted Don W. Ashworth, Probate Commissioner, Eighth Judicial District Court, proposed a clarification that addresses the situation of what happens to the estate of someone who dies intestate leaving children and the surviving spouse remarries and has another child.
Senator James stated a proposed revision to S.B. 33 would move the last sentence of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 134.070 to become subsection 2 of NRS 134.080, and would modify it (by including “without issue” in the description of the deceased child). A third revision would clarify the deadline for filing an appeal to a final order proposed for NRS 137.040 by S.B. 33. The fourth revision would add “conflict of interest” as a reason for disqualifying a potential administrator of an estate; and the last suggested change would change the order of priority for appointment as an administrator to provide that the public administrator would be listed before creditors in NRS 139.040.
Chairman James asked Senator Wiener if the changes satisfied her concerns regarding S.B. 33.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 33.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James agreed to present S.B. 33 on the Senate Floor. He then opened the hearing on S.B. 37, noting that it was requested by Senator Wiener. This bill would leave the decision of filing a yearly report regarding children under informal supervision to the court, he said.
SENATE BILL 37: Revises provision requiring filing of annual report regarding children placed under informal supervision. (BDR 5-112)
Senator Wiener asked if S.B. 37 could be placed on the consent calendar. Chairman James asked for the motion for do pass and place on the consent calendar.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE S.B. 37 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James returned to Senate Bill 19 discussed earlier in the meeting.
SENATE BILL 19: Provides that person who repairs appliances and electronics has lien for work performed and materials furnished. (BDR 9-171)
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 19 CHANGING TIME LIMIT FOR CLAIMING REPAIRED APPLIANCES AND ELECTRONICS FROM 30 DAYS TO 60 DAYS.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
To protect buyers of such unclaimed items, Senator Care asked that language stating abandoned goods are free of any encumbrances be included in S.B. 19.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 19 INCORPORATING LANGUAGE TO PROTECT BUYERS OF UNCLAIMED GOODS.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman James appointed Senator Washington to present Senate Bill 19 on the Senate floor.
Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:18 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ann Bednarski,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: