SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

March 29, 2001

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 29, 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 Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Maurice Washington (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Carolyn Allfree, Committee Secretary

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6

Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman, Clark County Assembly District No. 2

OTHERS PRESENT:

Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board

Robert D. Faiss, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage

Daniel M. Wade, Vice Chairman, MGM Mirage Incorporated

Bill Timmins, President and Chief Operating Officer, Aladdin Resort and Casino

Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas

Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Boyd Gaming Corporation

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 101.

SENATE BILL 101: Authorizes facility that provides social or recreational activities for senior citizens to conduct bingo under certain circumstances. (BDR 41-330)

Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal Jr., Clark County Senatorial District No. 4, explained S.B. 101 would authorize bingo for the purpose of social and recreational activities in senior citizens’ centers. He said the request came to him from senior citizens’ homes within his district. One of the homes had attempted to put on a game, he said, and somebody called the State Gaming Control Board. He said they had not been aware they could not engage in this activity without State Gaming Control Board oversight. Included in the bill is a provision stating nobody can profit from operating the game, except as a player, he said.

Senator Neal distributed an article from the February 26, 2001 issue of the Las Vegas Sun, “Playing bingo could help keep seniors’ minds sharp” (Exhibit C). “So,” he said, “the bill not only provides for recreational activity, but it will also help senior citizens in . . . keeping their minds sharp and enable them to lead a very active life in their old age.”

Senator McGinness said he thought nonprofit or charitable organizations could have games on a quarterly basis under current regulations, and asked if this proposal would allow them to do it more often. Senator Neal answered that it would, but just within a senior citizen complex. Chairman James asked if this was different from a previous bill Senator Neal has presented, and Senator Neal replied this is the only bill he has had. Chairman James recalled the judiciary committee had a bill at an earlier time and he thought they had amended the law to address this issue. Senator Neal pointed to line 20 of S.B. 101, which
excludes games operated by charitable or educational organizations from the definition of “game” or “gambling game” in section 1 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 463.0152, saying it is probably what Chairman James is thinking of.

Senator Care asked if the bingo played in a senior center would be restricted to seniors, and Senator Neal replied the game would be restricted to a senior center, but a younger person would not be prevented from playing.

Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, stated the gaming control board supports S.B. 101, in concept, but had “ways to tighten the bill.” He said he thinks the bill Chairman James referred to is codified in NRS 463.409 and sets forth procedures for educational and charitable organizations, and did not require licensing, but required registration. Mr. Neilander said he discussed the following things with Senator Neal concerning S.B. 101: (1) Put a cap on bingo jackpots. This “tends to eliminate some of the mischief,” he said. (2) Merge this activity into the existing bingo statute. He said it now is in with card games in private homes, and this is different because the activity is open to the public.

Chairman James, looking at NRS 463.409, noted it sets up administrative procedures and gives the State Gaming Control Board the power to regulate charitable bingo games, and asked if it would not be better to amend NRS 463.409 and put senior center gaming under the auspices of the gaming control authorities. Mr. Neilander said it is an option, but the “disconnect” he sees is that some senior citizens’ homes are not charitable or nonprofit; they are for profit homes and would not fit within the definition. Chairman James said S.B. 101 provides that nobody make any money from the bingo games. Mr. Neilander replied that the senior citizen home itself does not make money from the bingo games, but it is a for profit facility. “That is why is does not fit into the existing statute,” he said.

Chairman James said he thinks it would be a mistake to create an exception here which did not give the State Gaming Control Board the ability to have some kind of supervision. Mr. Neilander said the third thing he was going to mention is the need for clear definitions of “senior citizens’ center” and “recreational activity” that capture to what Senator Neal has testified.
“Obviously, what he is talking about . . . is something that is just fine,” Chairman James said. Mr. Neilander said he would work with Senator Neal to fashion legislation providing what he is asking for.

Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 101 and opened the hearing on S.B. 283.

SENATE BILL 283: Revises various provisions governing gaming. (BDR 41‑761)

Robert D. Faiss, Lobbyist, MGM Mirage, explained S.B. 283 and its policy and purpose:

There are certain premium international casino patrons whose fortunes and interests in gaming result in wagers of tens of thousands of dollars per hand. Those patrons are accustomed to the highest standards of hospitality, which include security and privacy during their gaming activities. S.B. 283 requires the Nevada Gaming Commission to adopt regulations for the licensing and operation of international gaming salons, which will allow, for the first time, Nevada casinos to operate on an equal playing field in attracting those customers to Nevada, a business we do not now have. The policy statement that controls here is in [NRS] 463.0129 . . . : “To ensure that gaming is conducted honestly, competitively and free of criminal and corruptive elements, all gaming establishments in this state must remain open to the general public and the access of the general public to gaming activities must not be restricted in any manner . . . ” That is not the whole policy; the important part of it is these words: “except as provided by the legislature.” I read that to mean that only the Legislature can determine when access is to be controlled.

Mr. Faiss continued:

The legislature already has done that . . . in NRS 463.408, subsection 2 . . . You already have delegated to the chairman to restrict access to any gaming, on the casino floor or elsewhere . . . The only difference . . . with S.B. 283 is [to] not allow that to be used in this special circumstance, except under standards that you have defined . . . telling the commission that they must adopt regulations, but they have to assure that the standards are set. By that, I would assume you mean these salons are used for the exclusive purpose of bringing new patrons to Nevada; they are not to provide any veneer on the customers we already have, but to bring in premium players [who] without this provision will not come to Nevada . . . You also have required that surveillance and security systems be defined, and I assume from talking to Chairman Neilander and Member Siller [Bobby L. Siller, Las Vegas, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board] that the security for these salons be the highest of any place in the world. The industry understands that and supports it.

Daniel M. Wade, Vice Chairman, MGM Mirage Incorporated, said the gaming industry has been considering the concept of salon gaming for the past 2 years. He said, when he was in Asia 2 years ago, to market certain customers to come to Nevada, he “learned that they love us.” He added:

They like the name, they know that the security and integrity is [sic] there, but . . . they . . . will not come to Nevada, because they have their own beliefs and thoughts about their privacy. These folks that we have talked to are . . . very well-respected individuals within their countries and within their states and within their cities, but they do not care to have anybody else know what they do.

Bill Timmins, President and Chief Operating Officer, Aladdin Resort and Casino, stated the company, of which he is an executive board member, London Clubs International (LCI), also owns a substantial stake in the Aladdin Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. Mr. Timmins made the following statement:

London Clubs International is a company that is over 35 years old . . . We have presently six casinos in the United Kingdom, we run the casino in Lebanon in Beirut for the government in a quasi‑governmental operation, we have two casinos in Egypt, another one in South Africa, and we are opening another project in the Bahamas at the end of this year. LCI has a very good reputation worldwide; it is licensed in all these different
jurisdictions . . . and, of course, Nevada. We are particularly happy about that, as we know the quality and consistency of the Nevada gaming control system; it is regarded as the highest in the world at the present time.

Over the years, we have developed relationships in our clubs with very different cultures . . . We cater to very different ethnic tastes, from the Far East, the Middle East, European, Chinese, Thai . . . We are committed in Britain and in other jurisdictions to have . . . international gaming salons. They are regulated, they have been working very well over the years, and we are talking about people that range from our princess to industrialists in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East. Some of these people can win or lose millions of dollars. But, not all of them wish to be identified to the public. In the main, this is due to their aversion to publicity both in London and, more so, in their home country where, for various reasons, they do not wish to have their style of life and gambling to be reported in the press . . . We are not talking here about thousands of people. They probably number in the hundreds, but with the capability to generate substantial additional revenues for the different jurisdictions . . . Nevada has an opportunity to generate substantial additional revenues by creating this international salon . . .

Chairman James said S.B. 283 talks about financial criteria established by the licensee and approved by the board. He asked what sort of financial criteria was meant, and Mr. Timmins replied it could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars up to $20 million, $30 million, or $40 million. Chairman James asked if it is a betting threshold that is referred to. Mr. Timmins explained, for example, two huge players, who have $10 million, $15 million, $20 million in credit with the company, may come in with an entourage of people “of a lesser stature,” and the salon would want to be careful to deal to the entourage or it might alienate the prime customer. Mr. Wade added that minimum bets in blackjack would be $15,000 to $20,000 per hand, for example, and for baccarat is could be in excess of $100,000 to $150,000 a hand. “So, there are ranges . . . We need to work with the [State] Gaming Control Board, because they do not want privatization, which we understand very clearly. This is a credit-worthy bill, and the credit will be in excess of six figures, the wagers will be substantial.”

“So, it is a couple of things,” Chairman James observed. “They will be showing credit-worthiness at some threshold . . . and then, once they are in the salon, there is a minimum betting requirement,” he said. Mr. Wade said that is correct. Chairman James said the bill raises an interesting issue of persons with credit-worthiness wanting to bring people who may not want to gamble; he asked how that would be handled. Mr. Timmins replied, in other jurisdictions, who enters the salon is left to the discretion of the licensee, controlled by the regulatory body overseeing the licensee. Chairman James noted S.B. 283 indicates any dispute would go to a resolution mechanism already in existence in the law, and he asked what the cross-reference was. Mr. Faiss said anyone who feels he has been wrongly denied admission could call upon a board agent to resolve the issue; the board has the final voice in resolving a dispute regarding operation of the game.

Senator Care said he has some concerns regarding the policy contained in NRS 463.0129, wherein the legislature has reserved the power to itself to grant exemptions, as opposed to what is being sought in S.B. 283. He said the distinction he sees between what is being sought in S.B. 283 and the two exemptions that already exist is, under current law, application must be made for exemptions concerning special events. “This is different,” he said. He pointed out, once S.B. 283 is enacted, it would be the law and would have to be rescinded in a subsequent legislative session in order to be changed. He asked what would be an anticipated restriction under NRS 463.163 and the special event under NRS 463.408, and whether there was a financial criteria restriction. Senator Care said he is concerned about the financial criteria restriction. “I am thinking of the guy . . . who wants to go down to the neighborhood tavern and play video poker, and he would do it, but he does not want his wife to find him there,” he said.

Mr. Faiss replied:

The answer is that you are not doing it for these players; you are doing it for the state of Nevada . . . You are not doing anything for these players; they can enjoy luxury and service around the world. We are doing this for the state, for the industry, because without it they will not come. It is not being done for any present patron of the state . . . This is a policy decision and an economic decision that this will benefit the state of Nevada.

As to your question as to the difference, there really is no difference, there is no change in policy. The [State] Gaming Control Board chairman right now can determine what an event is; there is no restriction on that. It merely has to be shown, by whatever standards he describes, this is something that will enhance the situation. It could be a convention; it could be an international legislative meeting . . . In this area, have slot machines just for the legislators [for example]. They can grant that, so nobody else can come in. Under . . . [NRS] 463.408, the chairman right now can determine this entourage coming in at a special time, is a special event; there is no restriction on that. What you are doing is saying that power cannot be exercised except in this manner; it is not for the chairman or anyone else to set the standards. You will set the standards and require the commission to have regulations that cover any eventuality, including . . . financial criteria, to make sure this is not being used for any purpose except to enhance revenue for the state of Nevada. The admission standards can be anything the licensee wants. The reason the bill provides for the board to approve it, is that the board has to make sure those financial criteria are so high that it ensures we are getting in players that mean revenue for the state of Nevada.

Senator Care asked how it would work, how it would be decided who is permitted to go into the room. Mr. Wade said the State Gaming Control Board has requested it be notified before any play starts. Mr. Wade added:

The other thing is that these guests, since they travel so far (we have usually 2 or 3 days’ minimum advance notice they are coming to town), and I feel confident that we would be able to notify all regulatory bodies this type of guest and style of gambling would be well known in advance . . . We already have the guests who are obeying the limits . . . This is for the guests who would not stay with us because of the particular rules and [current] regulations of the state of Nevada.

Mr. Faiss said the questions Senator Care is asking are the same questions asked by the State Gaming Control Board. “So, it shows you are on the same level of sensitivity as they are, that the bill is adopted to give them complete flexibility to deal with it,” he commented. Senator Care asked if his understanding is correct, that in each and every case, advance notice would be given that the people are coming, and notice given when they leave. Mr. Timmins said the rooms would be equipped with the highest degree of surveillance equipment possible. He added:

So, you would not get, for instance, somebody coming in and saying, “Well, I want to play in my suite one night,” because there would not be the necessary sophisticated equipment to be able to do that. It would have to be an area set aside as an international gaming salon.

Senator Wiener asked if Nevada is the first United States jurisdiction to make an effort to reach this elite segment of the gambling public, and Mr. Timmins answered, to his knowledge, it is. Senator Wiener asked how Nevada can ensure it would continue to be the Mecca for these international gamblers, if other jurisdictions should look to Nevada as an example and begin to open their own international salons. Mr. Wade replied it was their responsibility as a company to take care of their guests, and added Nevada is “by far the most comfortable and well-recognized place to come.”

Senator Porter said he was surprised to learn Nevada gaming establishments are precluded from having private gaming rooms; he said he thought private salons already existed in Nevada. He said Nevada is facing serious challenges from around the world, from expansion of tribal gaming, to the power and economy problems in California, to questions of a stable economy across the country, and he appreciates the fact that they are looking for ways to help with Nevada’s tax base and a new way to entice individuals to Nevada. He said, “Mr. Timmins, I appreciate your testimony and your expertise [about] what is happening in different parts of the world. What about here at home; what do we see happening across the country?” he asked. Mr. Wade responded that these guests just do not come to Nevada, or to the United States, because of their caution regarding what they want to be exposed to. He said:

This will open the doors for us. This is a niche. Although it is a few hundred customers . . . it is huge in volume; it is an incredible handle for our properties that are here in the state of Nevada. So,
tax-wise, revenue-wise, it helps fight against all the competition that is out there in the 23 or 24 different states now in the United States that have gaming.

Senator Porter asked Mr. Wade if he anticipates seeing Native American gambling properties, Atlantic City, and other communities getting into this on a larger scale than Nevada. “Are we running in front of this big ball . . . trying to beat the competition?” he asked. Mr. Wade said he would not want to speculate, but MGM Mirage Incorporated does not take anybody for granted. Mr. Timmins said he thought the infrastructure in Nevada is far superior to that of other jurisdictions in the United States. Mr. Faiss pointed out S.B. 283 does not say, now that we have privacy, people are going to come here. “That is not the question at all,” he said. “The point is, Las Vegas . . . offers the finest gaming experience to these people. That is not enough, but if it is private, then they would look at the excellence we have,” he contended.

Senator Care asked who these people are who will fly half way around the world to gamble in privacy. “Who is it they do not want to be exposed to?” he asked. Mr. Wade answered, “I can not emphasize enough . . . these cultures each of the countries have, we have to respect.” He said it is not that what they do is illegal, it is just that they will not participate under Nevada’s current practices.

Chairman James said he thinks the most important thing for Nevada is that this bill will generate additional revenue for the state. He asked what magnitudes of revenue could be anticipated, and Mr. Timmins responded it would be difficult to quantify. These are people with a very high net worth, who can win or lose $20 million to $30 million, individually, he said, but it is difficult to say how much gaming revenue they will create. He added he thinks it would be substantial.

Chairman James commented that, unlike Senator Porter, he has been keenly aware of the current rule to keep gaming open, and S.B. 283 presents a new concept to Nevada gaming. He said he thinks, if it is done right, it will be a good thing. The Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary are the highest regulators of gaming, he said, and they have to be comfortable with the bill. He said he is interested in hearing from the gaming authorities and how they are going to regulate it.

Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, said the Nevada Resort Association supports S.B. 283, whole-heartedly.

Senator Care asked if there are properties within the Nevada Resort Association, other than the Aladdin and MGM Mirage properties, that would use this statute, and Mr. Whittemore responded there are. He said the standards developed would differentiate between the types of properties that can or cannot operate these international gaming salons. “It is not just going to be an MGM Grand issue or an Aladdin issue,” he said. He said there would be competition within the industry to attract these players. Senator Care asked why this is being proposed now. Mr. Whittemore replied this issue has been discussed internally within the industry for a number of years, and the industry realized it had to develop a product to compete internationally. He said they needed to reach a certain threshold, and now they feel they are ready to be competitive.

Mr. Neilander stated the State Gaming Control Board has licensed several international conglomerates over the past 4 years, including Mr. Timmins’ parent company, London Clubs International, and the most important issue about S.B. 283, from their perspective, is whether they can regulate this type of activity. And, he contended, yes, of course they can; it is easier to regulate than an entire casino floor. But, he said, they need flexibility within the regulation to address any unforeseen circumstances that might arise. The key phrase for gaming control, he said, is in section 5, subsection 2, which sets the standards for an international gaming salon, including the words “without limitation.”

Mr. Neilander said:

The bill does not limit our ability to . . . put whatever mechanisms in place we deem are appropriate. And, obviously, one of the big concerns is going to be surveillance . . . The bill calls for a separate license . . . The applicant has to come and demonstrate they [sic] are qualified for this separate license. It becomes part of their [sic] nonrestricted license, but it is a whole separate event. So, we can place conditions on that license which are relative to that individual property.

Chairman James asked what sort of criteria would be necessary for a nonrestricted licensee to obtain the special license. Mr. Neilander answered the licensee would have to submit the specifications for the actual area where the gaming would be conducted; gaming control would review them in detail and then “lock them into the particular thing they have proposed.” He said, during the application process, gaming control could place whatever conditions on the permit it deemed appropriate. Each particular property would have to meet whatever particular standards the board set for it, he concluded.

Chairman James asked if Mr. Neilander was “overlapping” his remarks, or if there are standards separate from those outlined in section 5, subsection 2, of S.B. 283. Mr. Neilander answered he was overlapping his remarks. He said there is a separate licensing event, then the regulations provide the general guidance, “but each and every room will be individually scrutinized on its own merits.” It would not be a blanket approach, he said. Chairman James asked, with respect to all the different games played now in open casinos, under existing regulations, if the level of insurance of fairness will be the same when they are conducted behind closed doors, in the restricted environments. Mr. Neilander said he believed it will be. “Our goals are no different with respect to how we regulate this and how we regulate everything else,” he indicated. Chairman James asked Mr. Neilander if he did not see any impediment by having it behind closed doors, and Mr. Neilander said he did not. Chairman James noted a casino proposing one of these salons would be subject to public review. He asked what kind enforcement mechanism exists in the case of a licensee who breaches the criteria set by the State Gaming Control Board, in particular, the criteria with regard to who may be restricted from entry. Mr. Neilander responded, under Gaming Regulation 5, a violation might be construed as an unsuitable method of operation. “The remedies available . . . include all methods of disciplinary action, including and not limited to . . . revocation of a license,” he said. But, once they have been issued a license, they have due process rights, and a disciplinary action would have to be initiated against them, Mr. Neilander added.

Chairman James asked Mr. Neilander what kind of revenue the salons might generate, and Mr. Neilander said he could not venture a guess, but members of the industry had indicated to him that the dollar volume is high enough to justify engaging in the risk involved.

Senator Wiener asked Mr. Neilander if the license revocation, under Gaming Regulation 5, referred to the special license or the general gaming license. Mr. Neilander said, the way he reads the bill, a casino with a nonrestricted license would apply for separate approval of the special restricted license, which would then merge into the nonrestricted license. So, depending on the severity of the violation, the entire license could be subject to disciplinary action, he concluded.

Senator Care asked if there would be a duty imposed upon the licensee to notify the State Gaming Control Board, or any other authority, if one of these people with a $100 million line of credit were known to be, or later discovered to be, someone who was wanted for a law violation half way around the world. Mr. Neilander said he does not believe there are any statutory mandates that govern a patron in that sense. “The full arsenal of regulations that already apply to high end play, now will apply in this room, plus some additional ones, with respect to surveillance and some of the things we’ve talked about,” he said.

Senator Care asked if there has been any discussion with the resorts about releasing numbers. Since the idea here is to serve Nevada with this legislation, he said, the public would have a right to know. “For example, some quarterly periodic summary of the income generated in international gaming salons, without identifying where they came from or identifying any specific resorts, would anybody be willing to release that information?” he asked. Mr. Neilander answered he had not had any discussions about that.

Chairman James told Mr. Neilander, if this should become law, they would want to know in future sessions how it is working, whether it is necessary to make amendments, and “whether some of the policies you are going to adopt in terms of the rules and regulations need to have a statutory footing.” Mr. Neilander said this is something they will be watching very closely, and they will make their records available to the committee.

Senator Porter asked Mr. Faiss to explain sections 8, 9, and 10, of S.B. 283, regarding limited-liability company, and Mr. Faiss said those sections have nothing to do with international gaming salons. “They do correct an inequity in the law,” he said. He explained, when the limited-liability company authorization was enacted, through oversight, directors and managers were treated differently for limited-liability companies than for corporations.

Mr. Faiss explained further:

For corporations, once the company is licensed, you may change your directors or officers as you see fit; the only obligation is that you file an application for a state gaming license within 30 days after you take office. Through oversight, directors and managers were treated differently for limited-liability companies . . . they cannot take office until they are licensed. That is a process that may take several months, and a limited-liability company operates through a manager; if one resigns or dies, it could stop that company from operating.

Chairman James recalled the legislature had provided for limited-liability companies and later made them available for gaming, and the wording was left out inadvertently, creating an ambiguity. He stated, “It is appropriate to have it here.”

Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 283 and opened the hearing on S.B. 171.

SENATE BILL 171: Revises standards for designation of gaming enterprise districts in certain locations. (BDR 41-116)

Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6, stated S.B. 171 arose from concerns expressed by people in residential neighborhoods. (Exhibit D is a summary of Senator Rawson’s remarks.) He said he has had more calls and mail on this issue than on any other thing he has faced as a legislator. What is proposed in the bill protects community interests, enhances the role of local government, and ensures gaming zones are honored and preserved, he said. He explained the bill proposes to increase the minimum distances a new casino must be from a developed residential area, a public or private school, or a place of worship. The most controversial part of the bill, he said, is the requirement of a three‑fourths vote of the members of the governing body of a county, city, or town, and the member who represents the geographical area in which the proposed establishment is to be located must vote in favor of a petition for it to be approved. He said it has been stated this gives veto power to a single councilperson, and he acknowledged it essentially does. But, the concern is over undesirable projects which get into neighborhoods, essentially because other members will support a petition that does not affect the voters in their own areas, he said. This bill returns control to the people who have invested in an area, and it seems appropriate, he commented.

Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman, Clark County Assembly District No. 2, said her district, on the west side of Las Vegas, has done an excellent job with neighborhood casinos maintaining a great buffer zone between the community and people they serve, and she would like to see more of these kinds of plans. Senator Rawson said it is important to note there are many good examples of responsible gaming properties. But, he said, the people who live in the areas should have some say, because there are examples where such properties have been very destructive to neighborhoods.

Senator Care disclosed his law firm represented one of the parties in litigation over this kind of issue and, after discussing this with the Legislative Counsel Bureau, he has determined he must abstain.

Senator Porter said he has received complaints about neighborhood casinos and about signs in the neighborhoods “lighting up the whole western hemisphere.” Senator Wiener, referring to the words “structure used primarily for” in section 1, subsection 6, said often strip malls have a church which is not a free‑standing structure, and she wondered how that would be dealt with. Senator Rawson said he would define it as the location of the church, not the location of the whole mall. If it is in an area that is a fairly commercial area, it may well be demonstrated that a casino would have no adverse effect, he added. Chairman James said, “For purposes of the legislative record, the way that has always been interpreted . . . is that the only real definitive line is the property line, for purposes of measuring those distances. So, you measure it to the property line and then . . . when the property line of the mall that the church is in is within the 3,500 feet, it is subject to that scrutiny.”

Referring to the requirement that passage of a petition for a project must have the affirmative vote of the person who represents the district, Chairman James said a question arises regarding the person who has a legitimate conflict of interest and is unable to vote under the ethics rules. Under those circumstances, a petition could not pass, he said. Senator Rawson agreed it
would need to be dealt with so something would not be thrown out on a technicality. Regarding the requirement of a three-fourths vote of the entire membership of a governing body in section 1, subsection 7, paragraph (b), Chairman James said:

It is the ethics statute that says, if a person does not vote because they [sic] have a conflict, they [sic] are not considered, for purposes of calculating the number of people required to pass . . . So, if one person abstains on a 7-member board, it does not matter, because it is still a 4-person quorum; but if 2 persons abstain . . . under the ethics rules you now have a 5-member board and you only need 3 . . . So, if we did make this change . . . [it] is at odds with what is specifically set forth in the ethics statute, which is that you take this member who has abstained and you remove them [sic] from the calculus for purposes of determining what a quorum is, and for purposes of determining what action by the board is . . . I suppose if we went ahead and enacted this . . . there would be a conflict between the general ethics law and this more specific law governing gaming; and, under rules of statutory construction, the court would say this applies when it is a gaming application . . . There still would be an ambiguity, however.

Senator Rawson commented there should be as much consistency as possible in the law, and it would be good to set a state policy that supercedes all.

Senator Care said the bill he and Assemblyman Parks (Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41) cosponsored, S.B. 329, provides for any public body, appointed or elected, to take any kind of action, a majority vote of the members of that body is required, and an abstention counts as a no vote.

SENATE BILL 329: Prohibits certain public bodies from taking action by vote without affirmative vote of majority of entire public body. (BDR 19-640)

Senator Care said the bill had 112 sections, because 110 sections had necessary changes to other statutes the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) found containing the words “a quorum shall consist of.” He said, “The thrust of the testimony . . . is, if you are elected or appointed to a public office, you have to show up and you have to vote.” Chairman James added, “Of course, there is an affirmative obligation to abstain if you have a conflict, in which case, then, it just becomes a no vote because you can not vote affirmatively.” Senator Care said he is going to look into amending the ethics law to provide, if an official stays away from a meeting for the purpose of avoiding voting, it ought to be considered malfeasance. Senator Rawson said it is important to realize this is a complicated issue. There are different kinds of conflicts, he said. There may be a conflict where there may be a pecuniary interest, and there are conflicts simply through association, and it may be, when it is necessary for a quorum, a person would declare the conflict and vote anyway, as long as there is not a personal pecuniary interest, he suggested. Chairman James pointed out that is what the law currently says.

Senator Titus, referring to S.B. 329, remarked:

Don’t forget, this legislature cannot pass anything without an absolute majority of the members. So, if members are not there or members are abstaining, it still takes 11 senators to pass anything. And, I do not know why the standard should be any different for any elected body.

Chairman James said he agreed but, unfortunately, the ethics law says they are not counted for the purposes of a quorum.

Senator McGinness asked if the new standards for distance proposed in S.B. 171 would affect any applications or properties currently considering gaming operations. Chairman James answered, the bill applies, in section 2, specifically, to applications filed on or after the effective date, and any application filed prior to the effective date is under the existing law. He stated this proposed law would not apply to any pending applications.

Senator Care noted Senate Bill 208 of the Sixty-Ninth Session “kicked in” when a review panel reversed the location of a neighborhood casino.

SENATE BILL 208 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Revises provisions governing gaming licenses. (BDR 41-192)

Senator Rawson stated S.B. 171 did not attempt to replace S.B. 208 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, but is a simple refinement.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, said the city council passed a resolution indicating its support of any legislation prohibiting such neighborhood casinos. But, he said, there are some problems with the bill, one being the power one person would have over the decision-making process. He said they feel it is a bad policy precedent to set, because it invites abuse and could, in fact, take some of the decision-making out of local hands. He gave an example of property which seems to be an industrial site and is separated from a residential neighborhood by freeways and railroad tracks, but could be precluded from consideration as a casino site because it does not meet the distance requirements. The city council or county commission would be precluded from exercising discretion by the provisions in the bill, Mr. Musgrove noted.

Mark H. Fiorentino, Lobbyist, Boyd Gaming Corporation, said many of the issues he wanted to discuss had already been touched upon. He said he has no objection to the intent of S.B. 171 or to the distance requirements, he said, but he has some concerns there may be unintended consequences to the requirement that the member representing the geographical area in which the proposed establishment is located must vote in favor of the petition in order for it to pass. He suggested the requirement may be unconstitutional and violate the one-person one-vote rule. Chairman James said that is an interesting point, and they will look into it. He closed the hearing on S.B. 171.

Senator James said Senate Bill 87, under consideration by this committee, is in conflict with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 107, and a conflict amendment is needed with regard to NRS 200.485.

SENATE BILL 87: Provides that court may order that psychological evaluation and necessary counseling be provided to child affected by battery which constitutes domestic violence. (BDR 15-854)

ASSEMBLY BILL 107: Clarifies that person convicted of battery constituting domestic violence within 7 years before or after principal offense has committed prior offense for purposes of determining penalty. (BDR 15‑481)

SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR A CONFLICT AMENDMENT TO S.B. 87.

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:36 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carolyn Allfree,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: