MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

March 23, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, March 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

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Carolyn Allfree, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Cingular Wireless

James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, VoiceStream Wireless

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

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

Christopher J. W. Oswald, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association

Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Reno Police Department

James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender

Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 214.

 

SENATE BILL 214:  Creates rebuttable presumption of negligence when driver of motor vehicle or pedestrian uses mobile telephone at time of motor vehicle accident. (BDR 3-635)

 

Senator Terry Care, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7, testified concerning S.B. 214.  He said he is convinced the increased use of hand-held cellular telephones by automobile drivers has led to an increased risk of traffic accidents.  He cited a New England Journal of Medicine study, published in February 1997, which concluded the risk of being involved in an automobile accident is increased four-fold when the driver is using a hand-held cellular telephone.  An article published in the February 1998 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, as well as a Harvard Centers for Risk analysis, released in July 2000, and a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration study, released in 2000, also found increased risk for accident with hand-held cellular telephone use by drivers of motor vehicles, he said.

 

Senator Care said the studies he cited do not seem to find a distinction between using a hand-held cellular telephone and using a voice-activated cellular telephone while driving.  In most of the accidents involving the use of a cellular telephone, the vehicle operated by the cellular telephone user was the striking vehicle, he stated.  He acknowledged other activities also lead to accidents, and it is driver inattention that is the real culprit.

 

Senator Care said his original bill was an effort to decrease automobile accidents by making cellular telephone users more cautious.  He said, after drafting the bill, he faced much opposition from other legislators and, therefore, offered an amended version (Exhibit C).  The amended bill simply states, “It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon a highway without giving full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle,” he explained. 

 

Senator Care said he hopes this bill will give law enforcement the authority to cite somebody “for not only driving with coffee or disciplining the kids, but using a cell phone as well.”  Local municipalities already have ordinances for this purpose, but there is no statewide statute, he commented.

 

Julie Butler, Chief and Highway Safety Coordinator, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated the mission of her office is to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities and the amount of property damage occurring on Nevada’s roadways.  Cellular telephones have been shown to be distracting, in both anecdotal and scientific studies, she said.  Studies conducted by the University of Toronto, in 1997, indicate the risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone to be four times higher than the risk when not using a cellular telephone, she stated.

 

The larger issue, Ms. Butler continued, is one of distracted driving.  She said:

 

Data from our fatal analysis reporting system, in our Office of Traffic Safety, indicate that in 1997, of the 322 fatal crashes, 117 . . . were attributed to driver inattention, none to cell phones.  In 1998, of the 315 fatal crashes, 123 were attributed to driver inattention, none to cell phones.  In 1999, of the 307 fatal crashes, 157, or 51 percent, of those are attributed to driver inattention and only 3, which is less than 1 percent, to talking on a cell phone.

 

It is likely that distracted driving will get worse as the amount of electronic gadgetry in vehicles increases, Ms. Butler added.  The public is aware that talking on a cellular telephone while driving can cause a distraction, but the public is not willing to give it up, she stated, citing a 1997 study in Illinois by the Insurance Research Council which found 80 percent of cellular telephone owners saying they believe using a cellular telephone while driving is a distraction, and 61 percent saying they engage in the practice.  She added studies have shown little difference between use of a hands-free telephone and use of a hand-held one; studies indicate it is the conversation that causes the distraction.

 

Ms. Butler suggested a legislatively supported campaign targeting distracted driving, in general, might be a way to approach the problem, telling the driving
public the focus ought to be on the road, “not talking on the phone, changing the radio station, plunking in the CD [compact disc], reaching back to the kids, eating, having a pet in the car . . . ”

 

Senator Titus asked if driver education courses include anything on this subject.  “Doesn’t everybody have to take ‘driver’s ed’ now to get a license?” she asked.  Ms. Butler answered that it depends on the size of the county, and it is not mandatory everywhere.  Senator Titus suggested such a program be instituted.

 

Chairman James commented he was surprised to learn having a telephone hands-free did not make a difference.  Senator Porter mentioned he had heard Internet access can be installed in the dashboard of a car.  Chairman James responded he had heard of a law prohibiting installation of video monitors where the driver can view them.  Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, stated there is a law against installing a video monitor in the dashboard.  He noted exemptions are made for law enforcement and for recreational vehicles for the purpose of viewing a trailing vehicle.

 

Ms. Butler said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that car manufacturers are building these things into cars, so they are focusing on education and on making the accessories as ergonomically safe as possible.  Chairman James said he agrees there needs to be an educational and technological solution rather than a legislative solution to the problem.  However, he commented that Senator Care’s amendment is a good legislative solution.

 

Senator Porter inquired about the statistics Ms. Butler gave on accidents and causes.  He asked if people admit to being on a cellular telephone or being otherwise inattentive.  Ms. Butler replied that her office obtains its information from coroner’s reports and law enforcement reports.  It may be self-admission or the reporting officer’s observation, she said.  Senator Porter commented it could be assumed the numbers reported are low compared with what is actually happening.

 

Chairman James noted a preemption clause needs to be included in S.B. 214, preempting local governments from doing anything other than the intent of the bill.

 

Stephanie Tyler, Lobbyist, Cingular Wireless, stated Cingular Wireless supports S.B. 214, as amended.  The bill goes directly to a behavior and gives law enforcement the tools it needs, she said.

 

James T. Endres, Lobbyist, AT&T, stated AT&T supports S.B. 214, as amended.

 

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, VoiceStream Wireless, said VoiceStream supports S.B. 214 as amended, and stated this type of ordinance has worked well in southern Nevada, where she herself was cited for inattention to driving after she rear-ended another vehicle while looking down to dial her telephone.  She claimed she could have been doing any of a number of things to distract herself, and said she appreciates Senator Care’s amendment.

 

Chairman James said he was interested in hearing law enforcement’s perspective.  Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, expressed support for S.B. 214, as amended.  He said much of his agency’s jurisdiction fluctuates between city and county, and a state law will allow them to more easily administer similar ordinances already existing on a local level.  James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stated S.B. 214, as amended, will assist law enforcement in administering local ordinances and codes.

 

Mr. Wolff said S.B. 214, as amended, is good, but a “due care” law is already on the books, and law enforcement has used it for years.  Chairman James said the committee would look at the existing statute and see how it might be augmented.  He asked Mr. Wolff if the wording, “without giving full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle,” is the standard of care currently being applied.  He said, “Certainly you can do other things while you drive a car, legally . . . You can listen to the radio . . . it is not illegal to have a conversation . . . I do not want to create a standard of care that is inconsistent with the existing standard of care, whether it is a common law standard or a statutory standard.”

 

Mr. Wolff noted S.B. 214 imposed a civil penalty, and Chairman James responded the bill, as amended, would impose a criminal penalty and not a civil penalty.  Chairman James closed the hearing on S.B. 214.

 

Chairman James began the work session by opening the hearing on S.B. 20 and S.B. 172, concealed weapon legislation.  (Exhibit D is the work session document.)

 

SENATE BILL 20:  Revises provisions governing weapons. (BDR 15-12)

 

SENATE BILL 172:  Removes limitation on number of firearms for which permit to carry concealed firearm may be issued. (BDR 15-886)

 

Senator McGinness, chairman of the subcommittee considering S.B. 20 and S.B. 172, explained the language on reciprocity had been removed from S.B. 20 and new language added providing that a nonresident may obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in Nevada by meeting the same requirements as a resident of the state.  He said the amendment was proposed by Christopher J. W. Oswald, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America (NRA).  In addition, Senator McGinness explained an amendment to S.B. 172 removed the limitation on the number of firearms for which a CCW permit may be issued, and changed the effective date of the measure to July 2002.  He said the subcommittee recommends amend and do pass for both bills.

 

Senator Washington said there was an amendment requested by law enforcement to remove the provision that honorary badges be issued to retired peace officers, and he recommended that section 8 be deleted from S.B. 20.  Chairman James asked why law enforcement wanted the provision removed.  Mr. Nadeau responded, saying law enforcement believes the provision removes an important discretionary power from the appointing authority.  He noted under current state law, if an officer retires after 10 years, the appointing authority gives the retiring officer a form of identification providing authority to carry a gun off duty as a retired police officer.  He said there may be instances where it is not appropriate to issue a badge allowing the retired officer to represent law enforcement, and the discretionary power should not be taken from the appointing authority.

 

Mr. Olsen concurred with Mr. Nadeau.  He stated at times an officer has left after 10 years “under a significant cloud or just prior to conviction of a felony,” and they would not want to be forced to give that officer a badge.  All members of the subcommittee agreed the provision should be deleted from S.B. 20.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 20.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Titus said she wanted to be very clear about what is being proposed in the amendments to S.B. 20, and restated the provision that a nonresident may apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Nevada by meeting all the requirements that a resident must meet.  She asked if there had been discussion on changing the renewal requirement from 5 years to 3 years.  Senator McGinness said the subcommittee did not discuss the issue.  Senator Titus asked Mr. Olsen to comment on it, and Mr. Olsen said law enforcement was initially opposed to S.B. 20 because of the difficulty in tracking activities of individuals outside Nevada during the 5-year period between issuance of a CCW and application for renewal.  He said law enforcement would be more comfortable with 3 years.  Senator Titus said she thinks that is wise.  She said, “It is a privilege for a person who is out of state to get . . . [a] permit, anyway.  And, to check up on them every 3 years [is not] unreasonable.”  She said she would support a motion if an amendment were added to change the permit period from 5 years to 3 years.

 

Chairman James asked Senator McGinness and Senator Washington if they objected to such an amendment, and Senator Washington said he did not see a difference between 3 years and 5 years.  Senator Titus said she thinks the Assembly would be more receptive to 3 years.

 

Mr. Oswald said when the NRA and gun owners in Nevada negotiated with law enforcement, they agreed to keeping the provisions of current law and opening the availability to nonresidents.  He said the CCW law has worked well so far and law-abiding citizens have demonstrated they are responsible.  “So,” he said, “ . . . let us make this one small change on the residency requirement . . . without monkeying with the rest of the law.”

 

Chairman James said Senator Titus’s motion would be taken up as a separate motion, and asked for a vote on the pending motion.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 20 TO PROVIDE THE PERMIT FOR CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON BE CHANGED FROM 5 YEARS TO 3 YEARS.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman James asked Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Olsen if there were any circumstances under which a Nevada resident who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon might have a periodic review more frequently than 5 years.  Mr. Nadeau said a law enforcement officer who issues a permit would be aware of a problem or violation within his jurisdiction, and it would lend itself to closer scrutiny.  Mr. Olsen agreed and added the repository system being developed for Nevada can have the capability of notifying law enforcement in one jurisdiction of a violation in another jurisdiction within the state.

 

Mr. Oswald emphasized they are talking about law-abiding citizens who go through the trouble of complying with the permit process, and he said he thought there was something in the law that required them to surrender their permit if they committed a violation.  Chairman James observed that “3 years is a pretty long time,” and asked Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, if he had found the provision in the law to which Mr. Oswald referred.  Mr. Wilkinson said he could find no such provision, but the law does require an individual applying for renewal of a permit to sign a sworn statement attesting to his or her current eligibility to receive the permit.

 

Senator Titus stressed, again, this is a new privilege being given to people from out of state.  She said:

 

They have not had this before; if they are getting it now, that is something special . . . You heard law enforcement say that you can check on people who live here in the state.  And I know you
always hear the argument we are talking about law-abiding citizens carrying guns.  Well, many of the people who are involved in these recent shootings were law-abiding citizens until they shot the people . . . I think that, because we do not have that close scrutiny of the people outside the state, that three years for a review or a renewal of that permit, which is a special privilege, is not an unreasonable time.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James requested a motion on S.B. 172.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 172.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 36.

 

SENATE BILL 36:  Changes standard of proof in proceeding for forfeiture of property. (BDR 14-14)

 

Chairman James explained the amendments proposed in the work session document (Exhibit D).  One is to make the effective date of the bill October 1, 2001, to clarify the provisions do not apply to any assets seized prior to that date, he said.  The second item relates to the disbursement of proceeds, he said, and would provide that 70 percent of the net proceeds in excess of $100,000 be distributed quarterly to the school district of the county in which the assets were seized.  The $100,000 minimum was set because several counties stated they seize barely $100,000 in assets.  The money is to be used by the school districts and accounted for as specified in Exhibit D.

 

Senator Porter said he would like to broaden the provisions for use of the funds from “textbooks and computer hardware and software” to include “books,” not just textbooks, and let the districts make the determination.  He said many students in the lower grades are having difficulty learning to read and do not even own a book.

 

Senator Washington requested the language of S.B. 36 be further expanded to specifically include charter schools.  Senator Titus pointed out charter schools are part of the school district and already included.  Senator Washington said a school district does not necessarily have to include charter schools in the distribution of books or computers.  He said including the language would make it clear they have the opportunity to ask for and receive the materials.  Chairman James responded, saying distribution of the materials is at the discretion of the district, anyway, and would include charter schools.  He said he was in agreement with amending the bill to include books other than textbooks.  Senator Porter said he appreciated the amendment and would like special emphasis placed on at-risk students.

 

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, said S.B. 36 had created much concern in the law enforcement community, but the amendments proposed are reasonable and law enforcement is able to support them.  He said the law enforcement programs of counties whose forfeitures never rise to the $100,000 figure are protected.

 

Chairman James noted in the 1996-1997 fiscal year, Clark County’s net proceeds were $1.4 million, translating to $1 million for the schools; in 1998‑1999, net proceeds were $1 million, providing $785,000 for the schools.  He said the amount is based on net proceeds to ensure law enforcement will still have adequate funds to carry out its obligations.  He noted reporting to the legislature will reveal how much benefit the schools receive.

 

Mr. Nadeau said a basic concern was with the rural entities and their continued budget cuts.  The $100,000 minimum established will allow them to use their forfeiture proceeds to purchase needed specialized equipment, he said.  Mr. Olsen stated southern Nevada law enforcement communities support the proposed amendments to S.B. 36 and “they are actually quite happy that it is going to go to help the kids.”

 

Nile D. Carson Jr., Lobbyist, Reno Police Department, apologized for not having been available to participate in the workshops on S.B. 36.  He said he appreciated the hard work of everyone involved in formulating the legislation.

 

James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, spoke in support of S.B. 36, as amended, and said he thinks it achieves much good for everyone, results in a fair standard for forfeitures, and derives benefit for both law enforcement and schools.  John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, concurred with Mr. Jackson and expressed his support of S.B. 36, as amended.  Chairman James commented criminal justice and education go hand in hand.  Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated she wanted to thank, on the record, the committee for its work and members of the law enforcement community for their good-faith gesture to help education.

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 36.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Care stated he opposes the amendment changing the effective date, but would vote for the bill.  Chairman James explained an effective date was included because, although he thought a court would decide the bill did not apply to assets already seized, since it would require the interpretation of two different statutes, with two different standards, there was discussion and concern it could be retroactive, so he wanted to make it “abundantly clear” that was not the intention.  He said, “This is not a bill about anybody or any case; this is a bill about changing a standard that goes prospectively and is not going to get bogged down in any kind of baloney about specific cases.”

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 193.

 

SENATE BILL 193:  Makes various changes concerning department of prisons. (BDR 16-311)

 

Chairman James said the only amendment to S.B. 193 is to merge the training requirements included in S.B. 76 into the bill.

 

SENATE BILL 76:  Requires correctional officers employed by department of prisons to complete program for facility training. (BDR 16-796)

 

Chairman James reported the Department of Prisons and the Nevada Corrections Association have agreed on the change and the language in Exhibit D.  He said the amendment making July 1, 2001, the effective date for S.B. 193 is proposed, since most of the programs are already under way and there is virtually no fiscal impact from the bill.

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 193.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman James observed that it was necessary to amend S.B. 193 and re-refer to the Senate Committee on Finance in order to utilize the position of mental health director and revise the position to cover the duties outlined in the bill.

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON S.B. 193.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B 193 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 76.

 

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 234.

 

SENATE BILL 234:  Revises provisions governing statements of victims of crimes at sentencing hearings. (BDR 14-1079)

 

Chairman James stated there are no amendments proposed to S.B. 234.

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 234.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 241.

 

SENATE BILL 241:  Revises provisions relating to certification panels that must determine whether certain prisoners who are eligible for parole constitute menace to health, safety or morals of others. (BDR 16-435)

 

Chairman James stated S.B. 241 was audited by the Audit Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, which provided amendments brought to the committee by Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District.  An additional amendment was proposed by Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources, and Rex Reed, Medical Administrator, Department of Prisons.  He noted all are set forth in the work session document (Exhibit D).

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 241.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 286.

 

SENATE BILL 286:  Revises provisions relating to certain committees that review issues pertaining to criminal justice. (BDR 14-774)

 

Chairman James said the proposal on statutory legislative committees was reviewed in some detail.  Senate Bill 286 would create a legislative committee on criminal justice and would combine the committees on sentencing, community notification, and prison industries.  The proposed amendment would add a separate task force relating to criminal justice and a legislative committee on juvenile justice, he said.  He added this committee would have the ability to form subcommittees, on an ad hoc basis, as it deems necessary.  Chairman James said, as the sponsor, he has accepted this amendment and the other amendments outlined in the work session document (Exhibit D).

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 286.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Titus noted one of the amendments proposed would eliminate the Advisory Board for the Nevada Task Force for Technological Crime, and she asked if it is folded into the new committee.  Chairman James answered it is, and the part-time position in the attorney general’s office would be eliminated.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 229.

 

SENATE BILL 229:  Eliminates advisory commission on sentencing. (BDR 14‑340)

 

Chairman James asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone, since the advisory commission was eliminated in S.B. 286.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 229.

 

SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 262:  Creates legislative committee on juvenile justice. (BDR 17‑572)

 

No action was taken on S.B. 262.

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 282.

 

SENATE BILL 282:  Removes certain limitations on amount of compensation that may be provided for loss of earnings and support and for funeral expenses of certain victims of crime. (BDR 16-539)

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 282.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on S.B. 335.

 

SENATE BILL 335:  Enacts provisions pertaining to problem gambling. (BDR 41‑1105)

 

Chairman James stated he has agreed to the proposed amendments to S.B. 335, described in Exhibit D.

 

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, pointed out the need to add an amendment to S.B. 335 providing spending from the revolving account be reported back to the Legislature.  Senator Titus asked who currently sits on the Gaming Policy Committee.  Chairman James answered two members of the Legislature (he and Bernard Anderson, Assemblyman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 13), who are appointed by the Governor, a member of the gaming industry representing nonrestricted licensees, a member of the gaming industry representing restricted licensees, the chairman of the State Gaming Control Board, the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and a member of tribal gaming sit on the Gaming Policy Committee.  “Since gaming is represented,” Senator Titus said, “ . . . I do not really see any reason to add a representative of the NRA . . . I do not think we need to add that membership; I would strike that amendment.”  Chairman James agreed to strike the amendment adding a representative of the NRA.

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 335.

 

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Bill Draft Request (BDR) 14-1304.

 

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 14-1304:  Provides public with access to information on Internet concerning certain offenders.  (Later introduced as Senate Bill 479.)

 

Chairman James explained BDR 14-1304 was proposed by Senator Washington and relates to public information on the Internet concerning sex offenders.

 

SENATOR PORTER MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 14-1304.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Carolyn Allfree,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE: