MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 23, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 AM, on Friday, February 23, 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 Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Heather Dion, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board
Marc McDermott, Chief, Electronic Services Division, State Gaming Control Board
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board
William Bible, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers
Frank Cassas, Attorney
Philene O’Keefe, Lobbyist
Chairman James opened the hearing with the introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-469. Currently the state statute states that anything grown under 100 pounds is not considered to be felonious. BDR 40-469 would redefine the amount of marijuana manufactured so that it would be considered a felony.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-469: Prohibits growing, cultivating, or propagating of marijuana (Later introduced as Senate Bill 242.)
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-469.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator James opened the hearing Senate Bill (S.B.) 100.
SENATE BILL 100: Requires gaming licensees to pay person who operates gaming device to make wager if device indicates person won wager regardless of malfunction of gaming device unless person making wager intentionally caused malfunction. (BDR 41-201)
Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4, began the testimony on S.B. 100, stating S.B. 100 is based on an issue that was brought to his attention through watching television. He said the television program was about an individual who had won a jackpot, but was not paid by a casino in Las Vegas. Senator Neal said the casino was Arizona Charlie’s Hotel and Casino and, according to the statement by the individual and his lawyer, the gentleman had been playing the slot machine for quite some time. The individual decided to play his last few coins when a $430,000 jackpot lined up. Senator Neal continued the story stating that an attendant was called who told the individual that the machine had malfunctioned. Apparently this malfunction was not the result of the individual, who was playing the machine based on the advertisement on the front of the machine, which represented if certain bars on the reel were lined up then he would be paid a particular jackpot. Senator Neal stated that the man was under the assumption that the jackpot would be paid to him because the reels did line up. Nevertheless, the jackpot was not rewarded to the man.
Senator Neal explained that the State Gaming Control Board was called in, and the representative tested the machine. The attendant notified the Gaming Control Board representative that the machine had malfunctioned. Nevertheless, Senator Neal testified, a lawsuit ensued from the incident, and the gentleman lost.
Senator Neal remarked he is concerned about what the public policy is under which the Gaming Control Board operates and how such situations are handled. Senator Neal stated that Nevada invites people to come into the casinos to gamble, and it is unfair to the individuals when the machine malfunctions. Senator Neal continued that it is his opinion that the individual should be paid, unless there was notification that malfunction was a risk to the player, who indicates he understands that the “gamers” would not be paid if a machine malfunctions.
Senator Neal testified that because it is the Legislature that makes the policy on such issues, he recommended they (Nevada lawmakers) decide if the current statute was appropriate for the state’s gaming industry. Senator Neal stated that he did not claim to be an expert on the issue; however, with the current electronic machines and technology, he wondered if the state statutes were still appropriate. Senator Neal stated that it was time to take a look at the image of the state, and said he believed the state’s image is jeopardized by allowing a casino not to pay a jackpot that indicates a win.
Senator Neal continued his testimony by referring to three articles that were distributed. The first article by the Associated Press in the February 16, 2001, Las Vegas Sun, “Gambler loses jackpot dispute” (Exhibit C), discussed a Mississippi Supreme Court’s upholding of a lower court ruling that a Chicago man did not win a jackpot at the Isle Of Capri Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, in 1995. The second article, by the Associated Press in the July 13, 1998, Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Retiree fighting casino over disputed jackpot” (Exhibit D), discusses a 71-year-old woman who apparently won $1.1 million at a tribal casino in Arizona but did not receive her earnings, and disputed the matter. Senator Neal said the third article, from the January 14, 2000, Las Vegas Sun, “Alliance Gaming ordered to pay disputed jackpot to Californian” (Exhibit E), discusses the decision from the Nevada Gaming Control Board to award $112,600 to a woman who hit a jackpot with a malfunctioned machine. Senator Neal commented that the articles suggest the problem is not isolated.
Senator Neal concluded his testimony by referring again to the Arizona Charlie’s case. He said the machine at Arizona Charlie’s was taken down and destroyed, according to the testimony of the individual and his lawyer, before they were able to have the court examine it. Senator Neal suggested the committee might want to look at the circumstances of a machine repeatedly malfunctioning, and also circumstances under which the Gaming Control Board should examine a machine.
Senator Porter asked Senator Neal to explain the circumstances around the machine at Arizona Charlie’s. Senator Neal replied that the individual believed he had won a $430,000 jackpot, on the pretense that the reels lined up. The advertisement on the machine indicated that when a particular group of reels line up, then a specified amount of money is rewarded to the player of the machine. However, when the attendant looked at the machine, he told the individual he had not won, only that the machine had malfunctioned. Senator Neal noted in such instances the Gaming Control Board was called to examine the machine.
Senator Porter further inquired if the Gaming Control Board was immediately called out to examine the machine. Senator Neal told Senator Porter that the examination happened in “conjunction within the period of time it would take an agent to come to the casino to examine the machine.” Senator Neal continued that the agent from the Gaming Control Board made the judgment that the machine had malfunctioned. According to the statement of the agent, he put coins into the machine and it was no longer malfunctioning, stated Senator Neal. Therefore, the individual player attempted to appeal the decision, but he lost. Senator Neal commented that under Nevada statutes the courts defer to the Gaming Control Board’s decision in such instances.
Senator Porter asked Senator Neal if such problems were occurring frequently. Senator Neal stated the problem was not happening frequently, but “if it happens at all, it is bad for the image of the state.” Senator Porter expressed concern, asking if there had been other complaints. Senator Neal responded that he had heard from individuals since he had introduced the bill. Senator Porter then asked Senator Neal if through his research he was finding similar sequences of events as to those in the Arizona Charlie’s case. Senator Neal replied that his general understanding was the Gaming Control Board was required to send an agent to the casino if there was a malfunction accompanied with a supposed jackpot.
Chairman James noted that the random selection process of the slot machines make it a “game of chance.” Senator Neal clarified the “random selection process” is actually a random number generator. Chairman James continued, stating the indication that a person has won is by the “thing with all the bells, whistles, and reels.” He continued, saying that he is concerned about the aspect of the bill which states a win has occurred even if the “device displays an externally visible notice” the play is voided if a malfunction has occurred. Senator James continued stating:
I am thinking about a case where the bars line up, but the machine has malfunctioned, and the agent says it has malfunctioned, and therefore, it is not a real win. And in this case, the casino would have to pay the individual, regardless of a malfunction. This is what your bill addresses. But if we put this law into effect, what would happen in the case where the bars did not line up and the individual won the jackpot. And the rule is that the bars have to line up. In this circumstance, under your bill, the fair thing to do would be to not pay. Because then . . . the determining factor is not the random number generator, but what happens on the outside of the machine.
Senator Neal responded to Senator James’ comments, stating his scenario would be correct because the player is playing the machine based on what they visibly see, in terms of the payoff. He continued his remarks, saying if a player is playing the machine based on the fact that they will receive a certain amount of dollars in return, then the expectation is that they will receive the money. Senator Neal stated, “Nothing in or on these machines requires an individual to become an expert of electronics on the machine.” He followed this statement by saying that players play the machine based on what the advertisement is, and if the bars line up, and the player does not receive the advertised amount, then there is a problem.
Senator James replied to the statement of Senator Neal, suggesting that in the second case described, the bars should have lined up. And since the bars did not line up, the player did not win. Senator Neal responded that in such a case the malfunction become apparent to the player. But when the bars are lining up, and the win is not given, the expectation is that the person who is playing the machine to line up the bars should be paid. However, if there is a stair-stepping of the bars, then it is an indication that something has gone wrong with the machine, stated Senator Neal.
Senator James stated he is concerned that the “basis of payment [is] whatever the machine does, and not what the chance is.” Therefore, a player is not playing the odds if the basis of payment is if the machine malfunctions. He continued with additional concerns:
You have an individual up in Elko who is playing Megabucks. Then there is an individual in Las Vegas who is playing Megabucks. So the individual in Elko pulls the handle, the bars line up, and he wins Megabucks. But really the machine malfunctioned. And then the individual in Las Vegas pulls the handle at the same time, and he really won but the bars did not line up correctly. Now who should get paid . . . since we are not just dealing with one machine? And the issue becomes fairness to all the people who are playing these progressive machines. So really, the individual in Las Vegas should get paid because he played the game of “chance” and the number came up. The individual in Elko just had a machine that broke. Between the two individuals, what is fair? And under your bill, Senator Neal, I am afraid we will change the whole basis for how we pay these things out, and that might be the real injury to the integrity of the state’s gaming industry.
Senator Neal replied that he could see the problem described being an issue. He continued, stating he is not an expert on the technicalities of the machines. “But as a legislative body, we could develop some type of public policy that would deal with the problem,” he said, adding that the policy would have to be in conjunction with those who understand the mechanics of the machine, such as the Gaming Control Board.
Senator James asked if the cases referred to earlier were linked to other machines. Senator Neal replied he did not recall that the machine in the Arizona Charlie’s case was linked to any other machines or stores. Senator James commented that it was important to keep in mind that even when the machines are not linked, they are “theoretically linked.” The odds that a player is going to win refer to the odds that the machine is in the position to pay off, stated Senator James. Nevertheless, if a machine malfunctions and the rules governing the payoff change, then the theoretical interplay between all the machines are also affected, stated Senator James.
Senator Neal indicated that he understood the chairman’s concerns but it was not the same concern as his. Senator Neal stated his concern is the invitation that is extended to players and the advertisement presented to them is not what actually happens. He continued, saying either there should be a payoff when there is indication of a win, or there must be a notification of the chance of malfunction, which would result in a non-payoff.
Moreover, stated Senator Neal, since most of the money taken in from casinos comes from slot machines, it is very important to recognize these problems. Senator Neal stated that out of the $9 billion the state receives in gaming money, $6 billion comes from coin-operated machines. Senator James also expressed concerns over the idea that when the random number generator shows there was a win, but the outside of the machine does not indicate there was a win, how do players know they have won?
Senator Neal suggested there might also be some problems with the “trip switches” on the machines. He stated that those who testify after him might be able to explain more about the actual machines.
Senator Porter asked about the individual Senator Neal spoke of earlier, asking how a player is notified that a machine has malfunctioned. Senator Neal responded that once the bars line up and no money is spit out, an attendant is required. Senator Porter clarified that the only notice would be that the machine did not pay. Senator Neal stated that in the case of large sums of money, the payoff is not deposited into the well of the machine, but an attendant would acknowledge the jackpot. Senator Porter again clarified that the machine does not indicate there was a malfunction.
Senator Wiener referred to one of the articles that Senator Neal provided (Exhibit E). She noted the “Betty Boop” jackpot at the Sands Regency, the article commented that the expectation would be different if an individual was “standing or sitting.”
Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, introduced Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, and Marc McDermott, Chief, Electronic Services Division, State Gaming Control Board. Mr. Neilander stated that the Gaming Control Board had brought a slot machine to the meeting to demonstrate how it works. He recognized Mr. McDermott, whom he said would be conducting the demonstration.
Marc McDermott, Chief, Electronic Services Division, Stating Gaming Control Board, stated the slot machine brought in for demonstration was a standard three-reel machine. He indicated the random number generator, which is a piece of software that is running on the inside of the machine, and is similar to a microprocessor in a home computer. Mr. McDermott stated that all of the software in the slot machines is frequently checked to make sure they are running properly.
Mr. McDermott continued his demonstration by characterizing the random number generator as the “heart of the game,” saying it is what determines the outcome of the game. The random number generator continually cycles and the actual selection process for the game does not occur until after the reels are spinning, Mr. McDermott said. Once the reels start to spin, the random number generator gives a number, which corresponds to the first reel. Mr. McDermott testified that as the reels stop — one, two, three — the random number generator “kicks out” numbers, and each time selection occurs the numbers are immediately stored in memory throughout the machine.
Mr. McDermott stated that once the reels stop, a number-evaluation routine kicks in to determine if the outcome is a jackpot. The process occurs through looking back into the memory of the machine. Everything that happens within the machine — indications, evaluations, paybacks — goes back to the random number generator, stated Mr. McDermott. He continued, saying the machine consults the memory of the random number generator, not the reels, to determine if a win has occurred. The machine understands where the reels need to go and it controls the reels and, therefore, sends the reels to the correct destinations.
Mr. McDermott testified if there is a malfunction, it is indicated by a slow spin. The reels are run by electric motors, and once the door of the machine is opened, play is suspended. He continued, indicating if there is a problem within the machine, a light flashes that says, “call attendant.”
If there is a malfunction, Mr. McDermott stated, by looking at the machine an attendant would have a relatively good idea where the problem had occurred. “Because of the frequent use of the machines, there are times when the switch for the door opens, and an indicator signal of ‘M’ notifies the attendant of such a problem,” said Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott continued his demonstration, showing other problems that could occur through the frequent use of the machines.
Mr. Neilander commented on Senator James’ previous question, clarifying what happens if “the two reels are spinning in a slow spin because the play has been interrupted [and] if the random number generator has already decided the winning combination.” Mr. Neilander stated that as the door is closed, the random number generator kicks in again and continues to “kick out” numbers. If the result of the random number generator is a winning combination, then the machine pays out, he stated.
Senator Neal asked what would happen if there was a malfunction of the random number generator. Mr. McDermott answered there would have to be a catastrophic failure on the “main motherboard.” He continued, stating that something in the process would have to fail, such as the memory. The machine follows a very specific set of directions, and if a portion of the machine fails, then the whole process comes to a halt.
Mr. Neilander, responding to Senator Neal’s question, stated in the event of a catastrophic error, an agent from the Gaming Control Board would come to the casino to examine the machine. However, it would not be possible to determine on-site what happened, the machine would have to be taken into a lab for further examination. If it could be determined that a win took place, then the money would be issued. And, he continued, in the very rare instance when the Gaming Control Board could not determine if there was a win, then no payment would be issued. However, in these instances, the play is void and the player is entitled to his or her wager back.
Senator Porter commented that the problem is that the patron only sees the number in the window of the machine, and they know nothing of what is going on inside the machine. He continued, stating, “The patron has faith and trust [that] when they put money into the machine, what they see is going to pay.” Mr. McDermott responded to Senator Porter’s concern, “For the game to select a winning combination, it is virtually impossible for that to be hidden from the player by some other occurrence.” Senator Porter asked Mr. McDermott to clarify what could be hidden from the player. Mr. McDermott stated, “If the game actually selects a winner, it will be displayed.”
Senator Porter asked if the display board shows three 7s, whether there is an assumption of a win. Mr. McDermott stated yes, if there are three 7s displayed but no reward, there would be an indication on the machine of a malfunction.
Senator James asked what if there were not three 7s or if they were not aligned, and there was not an indication of a win, but according to the random number generator there was a win and then the person moves on to another machine without collecting his or her winnings. Mr. McDermott responded that there would be an indication that an error has occurred. Senator James commented that this scenario is a problem, an error is indicated but the win is not indicated.
Mr. McDermott continued to explain if the machine were unable to drive the reels to the specific section it is looking for, it would cause a malfunction indication at that point. Mr. McDermott stated the machine would notify the patron that there was a problem. He further stated, “When the evaluation routine runs, if it can get that far, depending on the error, then it will pay.” Mr. McDermott said the evaluation routine does not check to see where the reels are; it evaluates the random numbers that were selected.
Senator Porter inquired whether there was consistency in the machines, and how the notification process occurs. Mr. McDermott stated yes, there are regulations that describe what the machine has to do, and there is a “candle” on top of the machine that will flash, and also there must be an indication for the player. Senator Porter commented that neither indication meant anything to him. He asked if all the machines would indicate that “something has tilted.” Mr. McDermott stated all of the machines would indicate “something has tilted.”
Senator Care asked Mr. McDermott if it was possible to have a scenario where the machine operates entirely the way it is supposed to, but the only problem is that the player does not receive his or her winnings. Mr. McDermott responded no, unless it was a losing combination. And, he stated, if the random number generator selects a winning combination, the player would be paid. The numbers that are stored are the output of the game, not of the reels.
Senator Care inquired if there was a precise legal definition of what malfunction means. He stated that the casino could argue “a machine indicates you should be paid, everything indicates you should have been paid, but because the machine malfunctioned, we do not have to pay.” Mr. Neilander suggested the term “malfunction” is often used loosely, “when an error code comes up to indicate such a malfunction of tilt and error.” He stated the Gaming Control Board’s definition of malfunction, within the laboratory environment, is “catastrophic to the extent that discovery of the winning combination cannot be discovered.” Mr. Neilander extended his comments, “As you can see in the one article, the meaning of malfunction by the court is used loosely.” He also stated that for the purpose of the bill and for the way patron disputes are dealt with, the term “malfunction” is used for anytime something goes wrong with a machine.
Mr. Neilander pointed out the regulations require that when a malfunction has occurred, the machine suspends play and locks up. Once the malfunction is cleared, the random number generator picks up where it left off, stated Mr. Neilander.
Senator Porter asked, “Regarding the Arizona Charlie’s situation, it did not sound like the machine kept spinning. It sounded like the machine locked with a win showing, and again, the patron assumed he had won.” Mr. Neilander responded there are a few devices that, when a malfunction occurs, the reels would stop and the error code would be displayed. Nevertheless, there have been cases that looked like there was a line-up, as in the one Senator Neal referred to. Mr. Neilander continued, “Today that would not happen because the regulations do not allow for it.”
Mr. Neilander continued, saying that in the cases where players put in their money if the reels line up, they expect a pay off, “but I would add the caveat that part of the wagering contract is that if there is a malfunction, play is void.” He stated the contract is clearly indicated on all machines. Moreover, if that indication were not on a machine, the Gaming Control Board would take it under consideration.
Senator Porter asked what the sequence of events is that gives “confidence to a patron that the machines are actually being checked.”
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, stated:
In the Arizona Charlie’s case, the reels did come to a slow spin, which was indicated by the machine. According to the patron, the reels did show a win, and it was a linked progressive machine. As a board, one of the concerns is those individuals who attempt to cheat machines. However, in the case of the Arizona Charlie’s case, we do not know where the reels wound up. And, nevertheless, it does not take much for two patrons to claim that the reels showed a win, even when the machine indicates otherwise.
Mr. Neilander added, “The fact that the machine recognizes a malfunction . . . [requires it] to stop briefly before it spins.”
Senator Neal asked if the random number generator could be programmed for a malfunction. Mr. McDermott answered no it would not get past the board, “and not get passed up by the board.” Senator Neal inquired further, “You do not stand guard on every machine?” Mr. McDermott replied that he personally signed and reviewed every software modification that is approved in the state. Senator Neal asked if the software could be changed after it is approved. Mr. McDermott answered it was not possible, as there are two inspection teams who go out daily to check the machines to assure the software has been approved by the Gaming Control Board. Senator Neal sought to clarify Mr. McDermott’s answer, “What you are telling us is that you cannot program a random number generator where the malfunction would appear on a 7-7-7.” Mr. McDermott responded that the random number generator is of first concern, and anytime there is a change to it, an evaluation follows.
Mr. McDermott continued to demonstrate on the slot machine other malfunctions that could possibly occur.
Senator Porter noted Mr. McDermott’s testimony, “the reels have nothing to do with the outcome,” and stated:
As a culture we are accustomed to the numbers we see at the ATMs [Automatic Teller Machines] and the gas stations; we trust the numbers we see. What you are saying is that the numbers we rely on [here] have nothing to do with the outcome, which is part of the problem.
Mr. McDermott clarified his answer, stating the numbers will indicate the outcome, invariably, unless the machine malfunctions. He continued by saying the machine understands what numbers “the different symbols are” and the machine will pay properly. Senator Porter stated that is what the processor is supposed to do, but that is not what he is seeing through the demonstration. Mr. McDermott remarked if the reel is on the machine properly, and the symbols are correct, the processor sends the information to the correct place; if not, it tilts the machine.
Mr. Neilander stated there are an excess of 10 billion “handle pulls” per calendar year in Nevada. He said that of the 10 billion “handle pulls” in calendar year 2000, Gaming Control Board agents were contacted 727 times with disputes. Of the 727 contact times, only 310 were not resolved and only 40 cases went to an administrative hearing, stated Mr. Neilander. He stated he believes the majority of the time there would not be an issue of dispute and this is the reason the Gaming Control Board disputes S.B. 100.
Mr. McDermott restated if the patrons do have a concern, they only have to call an attendant to evaluate the machine through random recall. If something else is wrong with the machine, it can be taken to the lab to recall the numbers for the particular game, he said.
Mr. McDermott demonstrated random recall, which is required by regulation for every device. His demonstration entailed an explanation of how agents review a specific game. Mr. Scherer volunteered that the game recall actually tells the date and time the game was played. Mr. McDermott added that the game recall also indicates the exact reel stops of the game.
Mr. McDermott then put the machine into malfunction mode. Mr. Neilander testified that once the machine is in malfunction mode, the door opens, and the patron sees the reels spinning and then knows that something is wrong. Also, the candle on the top of the machine indicates to the slot attendant that the machine has malfunctioned.
Senator Porter asked Mr. Neilander to clarify if there is a minimum standard on the machines. Mr. Neilander clarified that there is a set of technical standards, adopted under Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 14. Senator Porter asked if there could be machines that are 10 years old, which do not have these standards. Mr. McDermott answered that they would still have the indicators to notify when there has been a malfunction.
Mr. Neilander commented that if the amount in dispute is over $500, there is a requirement to report it to the Gaming Control Board, and the Gaming Control Board agents go to the casino to examine the machine. He stated if the patron is still not satisfied, he or she has the ability to appeal the initial decision.
Mr. Neilander stated that S.B. 100 is written in a way that “an individual could jam the door and try to cause a malfunction and then he or she could say they saw three 7s.” Mr. Neilander noted, “The bill could actually encourage cheating.”
Senator Care commented that Senator Neal had read something regarding the case of the Arizona Charlie’s patron that alleged the Gaming Control Board took the machine somewhere and destroyed it. Senator Care asked what happens to the impounded machines and where they are taken. Mr. Neilander responded that the Gaming Control Board seals the machine to preserve the evidence. He continued that he was unaware of the facts in the Arizona Charlie’s case, but if the licensee destroyed evidence, it would constitute disciplinary action by the Gaming Control Board.
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, followed Mr. Neilander’s comments, adding, “Usually the first responding agent is an enforcing agent, who is trained in chain of custody and would seal the machine and preserve the evidence.”
Mr. Neilander stated that Senator Neal’s concerns are respected. However, he said, the current system is functioning well, and the bill is unnecessary. He continued that the evidence the Gaming Control Board has submitted should clarify any concerns.
Mr. Scherer added, with regard to Senator Wiener’s mention of the “Betty Boop” case, when a licensee has done something that the Gaming Control Board believes has misled the player in any way, the burden is placed on the licensee. And in the “Betty Boop” case, the Gaming Control Board ruled in favor of the player because of the way the machine was designed, stated Mr. Scherer, adding that the burden lies with the licensee to establish clear indication of the rules of the game.
Mr. Neilander commented that in the “Betty Boop” case, there was not a malfunction, but the rules were not clearly laid out for the players of the machine.
Senator Care noted in the case of “Betty Boop,” Steve DuCharme, ex-Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, was quoted as saying, “The board felt the decision of the hearing was well founded in law.” Senator Care asked if the “founded in law” idea was also referenced in other cases. Mr. Neilander responded it is a matter of contract law.
Senator Porter stated he assumes it is in the best interests of the state and the resort communities that as much notice as possible is given to patrons so there is not the possibility of these disputes. He then asked if there is new technology on the drawing board. Mr. Neilander responded that the Gaming Control Board is constantly revising the regulations. He continued that a new regulation was adopted just last month.
Mr. Scherer stated the Gaming Control Board pushes the industry to do everything it can do. He continued that the industry is pushed by the regulations and standards to find solutions to such problems. Nevertheless, putting the burden on the licensees also helps to push the industry to clarify its own rules. He added that the Gaming Control Board is looking at the issue of maximum payout statements, and how they are worded.
Senator Neal asked if the Gaming Control Board has the authority to recall a machine that has had repeated malfunctions. Mr. Neilander stated that it is something he has given thought to, and typically if there is a machine that is having malfunctions the Gaming Control Board requires the manufacturer to fix the problem. However, he stated, the board does not have any statutory authority to recall a device.
William Bible, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, identified himself and stated he had helped to adjudicate the Arizona Charlie’s case, as it was a rare case that was heard by the Gaming Control Board. [Mr. Bible served as chairman of the State Gaming Control Board from 1988 to 1998.] Mr. Bible stated, “In the Arizona Charlie’s case there was a dispute of facts. The device showed that there had not been a winning combination, and that the reels had spun properly.”
Mr. Bible stated that once he had taken a look at the case, the Gaming Control Board had investigated it. There had been much dispute about the evidence, but the random number generator clearly showed there had not been a winning combination, stated Mr. Bible.
Mr. Bible responded to Senator Porter’s earlier concern about technology. He stated the recall feature was one of the features that the regulators had insisted upon, to determine if there was a win. He continued, stating that the Supreme Court has agreed it is within the discretion of the Gaming Control Board to review the evidence.
Mr. Bible concluded his testimony stating that it should be a consideration of the committee to adopt legislation granting authority for the Gaming Control Board to recall devices that malfunction.
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM), came forward to testify with regard to S.B. 100. Mr. McMullen introduced John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers.
Mr. McMullen referred to a written statement (Exhibit F), which describes the reasons for AGEM’s opposition to S.B. 100. Mr. McMullen’s written testimony included descriptions of the consequences of potential unintended consequences of the legislation. Also, the unintended consequence of the bill being made applicable to malfunctions caused by acts or circumstances beyond anyone’s control.
Mr. McMullen referred to S.B. 100 as “unnecessary because the Gaming Control Board is applying the law appropriately, and the courts of the state are fair and just in their applications of the law.”
Mr. McMullen referred to a list of the manufacturers, which was attached to the written testimony (Exhibit F).
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 100, and said the committee would hear proposals for committee introductions.
Frank Cassas, Attorney, testified concerning revising the Uniform Arbitration Act (enrolled as chapter 38 of the Nevada Revised Statutes). Mr. Cassas stated that he believed the act was very important. He gave an example, citing the back of a real estate contract, where an arbitration clause would be found. Mr. Cassas pointed out that most service contracts include an arbitration provision.
Mr. Cassas said he recognized that currently Nevada does have a statute on arbitration, the Uniform Arbitration Act, but he stated the initial bill was passed in the 1960s, and is based on the state of the law 50 years ago. Because of the proliferation of arbitration, the subject has undergone an extensive review, including a joint review by the Commission on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association.
Mr. Cassas remarked that because Nevada already has a statute covering arbitration, it is time to adopt the revised arbitration act. Mr. Cassas referred to his prepared draft of proposed provisions (Exhibit G).
Senator James asked for a motion to introduce the amended arbitration act.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO ADOPT THE REVISED UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 336.)
*****
Philene O’Keefe, Lobbyist, came forward to ask the committee for an introduction of her requested bill. Testifying in her own behalf, Ms. O’Keefe stated she had a problem with her child support case. She said the District Attorney had modified her court-ordered support payment by lowering it. Ms. O’Keefe pointed out she did not receive public assistance, and her order was 9 months old at the time it was reduced.
Ms. O’Keefe testified that she found out 15 minutes before the hearing that the amount in her order was going to be lowered because the father of her child had another child. Ms. O’Keefe stated that she requested, at the time, for the case to be closed as she was going to proceed in taking the father to court with a show cause order. Ms. O’Keefe said the District Attorney told her that it was too late to close the case.
Ms. O’Keefe stated the District Attorney went into the case with the recommendation to lower the amount in the order, that recommendation was followed by the court. Ms. O’Keefe said she subsequently hired a private attorney to appeal the decision, and the District Attorney represented the father in the appeal. Ms. O’Keefe stated that the District Attorney, in a reply brief, said it was appropriate for the father to have a reduced child support amount since Ms. O’Keefe had the ability to work a second job to earn income. Ms. O’Keefe stated she does not believe that is what the Legislature intends for the custodial parent.
Ms. O’Keefe continued, stating the particular District Attorney also, in the reply brief, said Ms. O’Keefe’s child’s rights of adequate support did not outweigh the possible disruption to a new intact family. The District Attorney lowered the father’s child support to $190 per month, which is $6 per day, she stated.
Ms. O’Keefe asserted that the district court upheld the hearing master’s recommendations. She said she appealed the case to the Supreme Court, in propria persona [in one’s own proper person], which was dismissed. Ms. O’Keefe said she is currently filing a lawsuit against the District Attorney in district court for violation of civil rights.
Ms. O’Keefe restated that the District Attorney did not give her prior notice that the order amount was going to be lowered. Ms. O’Keefe stated that through her personal research she has found due process laws in the child support statutes. However, she maintained, the enforcing agencies are not abiding by the due process laws. Ms. O’Keefe remarked that the due process clause states, “Anybody requesting a modification holds the burden of proving that a change circumstance occurred.”
Ms. O’Keefe stated that the District Attorneys are not following the due process of the statutes. She noted that they look at the order, and look to see whether or not any of the deviation factors apply. Ms. O’Keefe stated whether or not the District Attorney believed she had a case that could be appealed, she believes that they do not have the right to represent the noncustodial parent.
Ms. O’Keefe also called attention to the fact that the hearing was January 14, 2000, however, her child support began in October of the prior year. Ms. O’Keefe questioned who was advocating on her child’s behalf.
Ms. O’Keefe said she believes that the District Attorney’s role is not clearly defined, and needs revision. Also, she stated she believes there needs to be an adequate time notification of change of the court order.
Senator James noted he was concerned, saying, “If you have child support, the District Attorney is the one who is supposed to pursue the case, and the enforcement of the child support.” He continued that in this particular case, there was a child support order entered and no child support paid. At that point, the District Attorney represented the individual who had not paid the child support, against the custodial parent. He added this should not be the way the law works. Senator James said the role of the District Attorney should be defined. He continued, stating if there is a switch of “sides,” where the District Attorney is representing the other parent, there needs to be notification.
Senator James asked for a motion to introduce.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REQUIRING DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES PERTAINING TO CHILD SUPPORT.
SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 285.)
*****
Senator James noted the final item to be introduced was requested by Ron Sailon, Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson.
Senator James described the situation surrounding the request:
There was a violent crime committed, and there were witnesses to the crime who were leaving. The police attempting to secure the area asked the witnesses to stay to report their knowledge of the crime. The witnesses replied they did not have to stay at the scene and they left without providing information to law enforcement. Mr. Sailon wrote an article for the law journal, the case of Terry v. Ohio, a case of stop and frisk. Terry v. Ohio [392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968)] would constitutionally allow a police officer to stop someone who is not suspected of a crime for the purpose of finding out who they are, as a witness to a violent crime.
Senator James asked for a motion to introduce.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT TO AUTHORIZE PEACE OFFICER TO DETAIN WITNESSES TO CRIME UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 549.)
*****
Chairman James continued with committee introductions, noting Bill Draft Request 16-435 comes from the Legislative Commission’s Audit Subcommittee and Bill Draft Request 16-416 comes from the Nevada Association of Counties.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 16-435: Revises provisions relating to certification panels that must determine whether certain prisoners who are eligible for parole health, safety, or morals of others. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 241.)
Senator James asked for a motion to introduce.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-435.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 16-416: Authorizes county or city to seek reimbursement from nonindigent prisoner for cost of booking and releasing prisoner. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 240.)
Senator James asked for a motion to introduce.
SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 16-416.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
There being no other business, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:16 a.m.
Heather Dion,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: