MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

April 9, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, April 9, 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

Heather Dion, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Legislative Representative, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Robert Rudnick, Chief Deputy, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office

Michael McCormick, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office

Roy Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Douglas County School District

Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County

Tom Susich, Attorney, Douglas County School District

Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County

R. Warren Lutzow, Chief, Parole and Probation, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

 

Chairman James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 339.

 

SENATE BILL 339:  Provides for release of education record to certain persons under certain circumstances. (BDR 5-424)

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Legislative Representative, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, stated he was in support of S.B. 339.  Captain Nadeau said the bill was brought forth to address concerns involving investigation of juvenile crime.  Captain Nadeau introduced Robert Rudnick and Michael McCormick, who would be giving a description of the bill.  Captain Nadeau said S.B. 339 requires a two-thirds majority vote, and he asked about the rationale behind it. 

 

Robert Rudnick, Chief Deputy, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, stated he was in support of S.B. 339.  Mr. Rudnick said it is important for law enforcement officials to have access to directory information pertaining to students and parents in schools.  He said children’s first names are often the only information known to law enforcement, and it becomes a unique experience for investigators to access the information in a timely manner.  Mr. Rudnick said the information is important in serious and threatening situations, but also in less serious situations, and allows investigators to obtain the necessary information and continue with their investigation.

 

Michael McCormick, Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County District Attorney’s Office, remarked the measure is strongly supported by the district attorney’s office.  Continuing, Mr. McCormick said the measure is necessary and needed.  He indicated there have been problems in the past, and requested the full support of the committee to find a solution. 

 

Senator Care asked about the records of discipline, and what is contained within them.  Mr. Rudnick responded it is not necessarily the discipline aspect of the issue, rather the information to identify and/or continue an investigation of a youth.  Often the only information known is the first name of a student who may be involved in an investigation.  Law enforcement would like to see the ability to access the directory information so the investigation can be expeditiously initiated.

 

Senator Care remarked there was previous testimony of instances where law enforcement has found the proposed legislation necessary, and he stated he would like more information on specific instances.

 

Captain Nadeau gave an example, “a situation involves a student off-campus, who was involved in a fight, and only the first name of the student is given.”  He continued, “We go to the school, knowing only the first name of the individual, and are not allowed any other information.”  Captain Nadeau noted there is a federal statute, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERP), which dates back to the 1960s.  Captain Nadeau said schools, based on the FERP provision, cannot allow the release of the needed information.  Therefore, the investigation is lengthened by having to obtain a court order for the information, he added. 

 

Captain Nadeau directed attention to a provision within FERP, wherein states can pass a statute that allows access to the directory information, and then the schools can release the information.  He stressed this bill attempts to bring that provision in FERP into the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

 

Senator Care asked whether there is a distinction between records of discipline and personal information that may be deemed confidential.  He further queried, “If a student had a conversation with a counselor or the principal, unrelated to discipline, would that be contained in the records?”  Senator Care also asked who decides what the discipline record entails.  Captain Nadeau said schools have provisions relative to how they separate the information. 

 

Roy Casey, Assistant Superintendent, Douglas County School District, stated he could answer Senator Care’s question.  Mr. Casey said the parts of a student’s records that fall under the counselor/student privilege are not a part of the cumulative record.  Mr. Casey remarked the discipline file would contain any disciplinary action taken against a student.  Mr. Casey stated there had been cases in Douglas County in which situations have occurred over the weekend, and the sheriff’s office representative goes to the school needing information, but has only first names of the students.  Under FERP, the school district is not allowed to request the records of students without a court order, he added.  Mr. Casey acknowledged the Douglas County School District supports the legislation.  He also said other states have put forth similar legislation. 

 

Senator Care questioned what would happen if law enforcement obtained a record then realized there was an unrelated instance in the record.  He asked whether law enforcement would pursue an investigation. 

 

Captain Nadeau said, “I will go out on a limb and say we probably would not, if it was an incident that occurred on the school district property.”  However, he added, if the incident were serious, then there would be the possibility of an investigation.

 

Mr. Casey stated the Douglas County School District works closely with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office.  Mr. Casey said, “Anytime there is a grievance act of a student against board policy, the first we call is the sheriff’s office.”  He said he did not believe, within a discipline record, there would be a situation of a grievance without having a deputy brought into the situation. 

 

Senator McGinness asked about the records of discipline.  He commented the examples given had been strictly a need to put a last name with a first name to gain further information on the student.  Senator McGinness questioned, “If there was a record of discipline, are we talking about Johnny being habitually late to first period, or that Johnny was involved in a scuffle in the hall and could be related to something that happened separate from the school?”  Senator McGinness further questioned, “I am wondering why the records of discipline would be helpful.  If the offense was serious enough, then local law enforcement [would] be brought in because it would be their jurisdiction.” 

 

Scott Cook, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Douglas County, replied the wording of records of discipline is in the section referring to juvenile probation officers, particularly when doing investigations for the court.  Mr. Cook remarked if the probation office is handling a case, and the youth had admitted to a violent-type crime, having access to the records of discipline helps the probation officers structure a program to address the youth’s needs. 

 

Captain Nadeau stated similar legislation came up 2 years ago, but the deadline had passed and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office was unable to get the bill draft request in on time.  He said, although Douglas County came up with the legislation, the problem is not unique to Douglas County. 

 

Senator James referred to section 1 of S.B. 339, which has to do with a child who has committed a delinquent offense or is in need of supervision, and the right of a juvenile probation officer to get the child’s school records.  Senator James questioned the meaning of sections 4 and 5 of the bill, which deal with the release of truancy records.  He further stated, “There are substantial revisions of the law with respect to release of education records, without consent, to members of the advisory board, to review school attendance or a probation officer.”  Senator James continued and referred to section 5 of S.B. 339, pointing out, if a pupil is a habitual truant, then the pupil would be referred to the advisory board, with the parents consent.  Under section 5, subsection 2, paragraph (c), there is a revision that generally states, if the parent refuses to authorize the release, then the child can still be referred to the advisory panel, he added. 

 

Mr. Casey responded, currently legislation exists which allows each school district to form an advisory board for truancy.  Upon the third unexcused absence from school, a student is declared a habitual truant; then, after the fourth absence, the student is brought forward to the advisory board, he said.  Mr. Casey stated the advisory board needs parental permission to access records dealing with attendance.  Through the advisory board hearings the information regarding the child’s truancy, dates of absence and reasons why, can be shared in order to deal with the situation.  Juvenile probation officers use the records of truancy, said Mr. Casey.  He added he has never had a parent refuse the right to release the information to the advisory board. 

 

Mr. Casey said the legislation is seeking, in a situation of investigation, to give law enforcement the ability to obtain the full names of students and parents’ names. 

 

Senator James stated there are places within the bill that say, “Once the records are released, the person who receives them has to certify, in writing, to the school or the school board that the information will not be disclosed to any other person, except as otherwise provided by state law.”  Senator James asked whether the language in S.B. 339 would bring it into compliance with the FERP law. 

 

Mr. Casey replied the language would bring Nevada statutes into compliance with federal law.  Mr. Casey said section 4 had an amendment to it, which was provided to the committee (Exhibit C).  The amendment adds:

 

To a juvenile probation officer, law enforcement officer or district attorney who is conducting an investigation of truancy pursuant to Chapters 62 and 392 of NRS, a criminal investigation, a delinquency investigation, or an investigation in regard to declaring a person a ward of the court.

 

Mr. Casey said the amendment not only refers to truancy, but any investigation by the sheriff’s office. 

 

Senator James referred to the changes proposed (Exhibit C).  He asked how the changes would bring it into compliance with federal law. 

 

Mr. Casey responded, “It allows us to release pertinent registry information to the investigator, without going through the district attorney’s office.”

 

Tom Susich, Attorney, Douglas County School District, said the current situation is that certain information is categorized as directory information.  Mr. Susich stated the information is limited to those requesting it.  He remarked the way the FERP law is written, when the sheriff’s office requests the information, the school district is limited to what it can release. 

 

Mr. Susich asserted what the school district wants to do, and what the FERP law can provide, is create a state law that allows an exception for law enforcement officials.  Instead of law enforcement officials being forced to get court orders, the school district could provide the records to the law enforcement officials.  Mr. Susich said, “We believe the confidentially provision of the proposal protects parents from dissemination of the information.”

 

Senator Washington asked whether a parent would have to give permission prior to the retrieval of the information.  Mr. Susich responded through the current law a parent has to give permission for the release of information to law enforcement officials, except for what is called “directory information.”  He noted what the law does is permit the school district to release additional information to law enforcement, such as the address of the student, telephone number, and the names of the student’s parents.  Mr. Susich stated the proposed provisions would allow the release of additional information without the parent’s consent. 

 

Senator Washington clarified some information, currently, could be released without parental authorization.  Mr. Susich replied the information, currently, which could be released without parental consent, is directory information (name and picture of student).  Senator Washington asked about the truancy statutes, and what the language implies in section 4, subsection 3.  Mr. Susich
said the implication of section 4, subsection 3, is amended to include criminal investigations, and also investigations concerning whether the student should be a ward of the court. 

 

Senator Washington asserted the change of language could be “stepping over the bounds.”  Senator Washington gave the scenario of a child who was truant 3 days in a row, and, therefore, law enforcement would be able to request the records of the child with or without the permission of the parent, even if there was not a criminal investigation in progress.  He asked whether this was a correct assumption.

 

Mr. Susich stated, as the language is currently set forth, Senator Washington’s scenario would be correct.

 

Senator Porter inquired whether there had been any particular circumstances that promoted the need for the language.  Mr. Cook responded, from the point of view of a juvenile probation officer in regard to a traffic ticket, it is sometimes difficult to locate a student and school records could provide the information. 

 

Senator Porter replied to Mr. Cook’s scenario saying, “This must be far greater than a traffic ticket.”  Mr. Cook remarked, “I am describing a situation to you from the probation officer’s viewpoint.”

 

Mr. Rudnick said from a law enforcement perspective, with an ongoing investigation, the current language strictly prohibits the ability to investigate the situations, including violent crimes.  Currently, the only way to get the information released is through a court order; thus, law enforcement cannot proceed with the investigation in an expedited manner. 

 

Senator Wiener commented, “Looking again at section 4 (d), there is a provision that the person receiving the information shall certify that the information will not be disclosed by anyone except those provided by state law.”  Senator Wiener inquired if a disclosure occurs or arises for some reason, what the remedy would there be for such violation.  Mr. Susich said that is a legal question.  Nevada law provides if a provision prohibits a particular act and the act is violated, without a remedy, it becomes a misdemeanor. 

 

Senator James said the federal law requires confidentially of the education-related records.  He said he is concerned about doing “violence” to the way in which it has been implemented under Nevada law, as Nevada law must comply with federal law.  The notion the information must be related to a preadjudication issue and the reference to a delinquency investigation would exceed federal law, said Senator James.  Senator James further stated, “I need to be convinced we can do this without creating a problem.”  And one of the problems, he said, is that this bill would normally be heard by the Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. 

 

Senator Care commented section 1 of S.B. 339 empowers a juvenile probation officer to inspect the education records.  He added the proposed amendment under section 4 expands the way the records could be used, such as in a criminal investigation.  Senator Care remarked, “In Clark County we have school police, so when you start talking about law enforcement officers, school police are conducting investigations with the endorsement of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.”  

 

Captain Nadeau responded to Senator Care’s comment saying, “Yes, we do, [also] have school police in Washoe County, and they do conduct investigations on campus, within their limited jurisdiction.”

 

Senator Care inquired whether the school police have a duty to notify the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), and whether the investigations can be independent of each other.

 

Captain Nadeau said, under statutory powers, school police are Category Two police officers and have full peace officer authority on the school property. 

 

Senator Washington asked, “If we deleted the truancy aspect of the bill, would you agree to it?”  Mr. McCormick said the truancy aspect of the bill is not the problem.  He stated the committee counsel had addressed the truancy issue, and the provisions would not be in violation of FERP.

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, pointed out the bill is a matter of semantics.  The proposed amendment refers to criminal investigation.  The federal law allows an investigation of a delinquent act or a child in need of supervision, said Mr. Wilkinson.  He added, “I do not think the intention was that they obtain education records relating to crimes committed by adults.”  Mr. Wilkinson said the language in the bill would comply with federal law, which would allow the release of education records as long as it involved a juvenile in the juvenile justice system.

 

Senator Washington, noting the advisory board, asked whether it was out of the purview of the juvenile justice system.  Mr. Wilkinson replied truancy falls within the purview of the juvenile justice system.  He said truancy could not be excluded from the bill because a child in need of supervision is already an issue covered under Chapter 62 of NRS.

 

Senator Washington referred to section 5, subsection 2, paragraph (c), dealing with the advisory board.  Senator Washington asked Mr. Wilkinson whether the advisory board was a part of the education board and not the juvenile justice system.

 

Mr. Wilkinson responded Senator Washington was correct.  He cited the language of the federal statute, and said:

 

Federal Education Privacy Act would allow state and local officials or authorities to whom such information is specifically allowed to be reported or disclosed, pursuant to state statute adopted after November 19, 1974, if the allowed reporting concerns a juvenile justice system, and such system’s ability to effectively serve prior to adjudication of the student whose records are released.

 

Mr. Wilkinson remarked federal law allows a broad disclosure of education records, providing it is preadjudication.    

 

Ronald Pierini, Sheriff, Douglas County, said the issue discussed is a problem in Douglas County, but is also a problem in Las Vegas.  Mr. Pierini said it is very cumbersome for the investigators to do their jobs, as the school is very worried about liability issues and what it is allowed to release.  Also, he said the school’s interpretation of FERP may be different than the law enforcement official’s interpretation.  Sheriff Pierini said it is necessary for law enforcement to do its job, and urged the committee to help with the bill.  He directed attention to the violence of schools today.  Also, he said, what the bill proposed was similar to laws of Washington state and other states.  

 

Senator James appointed Senator Washington, Senator Wiener, and Senator Care to a subcommittee to address the issue. 

 

A memorandum (Exhibit D) was distributed by Mr. McCormick, written by Robert W. Teuton, Chief Deputy, District Attorney’s Office, Clark County, expressing Mr. Teuton’s support of S.B. 339. 

 

Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 339, and opened the hearing on S.B. 550. 

 

SENATE BILL 550:  Allows division of parole and probation of department of motor vehicles and public safety to contract with person to conduct presentence investigation. (BDR 14-1436)

 

R. Warren Lutzow, Chief, Parole and Probation, Division of Parole and Probation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, remarked he was in support of S.B. 550.  Mr. Lutzow said the Division of Parole of Probation is anticipating an experimental project allowing the presentence investigation to be loaned out to private contractors. 

 

Mr. Lutzow noted the proposed budget of the Division of Parole and Probation sets aside funds in order to attempt the privatization process.  He said the legal counsel at the attorney general’s office advised the division that NRS currently prohibit or limit the use of private individuals as contractors.  The counsel from the attorney general’s office constructed language that would enable the private sector to contract with the division to perform some of its functions, including the presentence investigation. 

 

Senator Care asked, should the legislation be approved, if there is concern some state employees would no longer be needed.  Mr. Lutzow replied there could be a reduction in the state workforce; however, in the upcoming biennium, privatization of the presentence investigation process is anticipated.  In that event, the division would move trained, sworn officers, into supervision of the offender population.  The offender population usually averages 114 individuals per caseload, he added. 

 

Senator Care commented he realizes the workload of the offender population program is often too much to handle.  Mr. Lutzow said Senator Care is correct.  He stated, “We have taken [employed] civilians that are state employees, and this is an extension of that.”  Mr. Lutzow added the authorized caseload for parole and probation officers is a ratio of 70 to 1. 

 

Senator Porter asked the identity of the contractors.  Mr. Lutzow replied there had been inquiries from the private sector, as well as former parole and probation officers from within and outside the state.  Mr. Lutzow noted a similar model to the one used by the state of Utah has been encompassed in S.B. 550.  The state of Utah only uses former law enforcement or parole and probation officers to perform the presentence investigation function, he said.

 

Senator Porter inquired whether former law enforcement officers utilize their specialized expertise in an actual business entity.  Mr. Lutzow answered the specialty is an actual business and Utah uses individual contractors.  Mr. Lutzow said Nevada has not narrowed it down, and might want to contract with a business.  However, he said, the division would control the qualifications of the employees within the business entity.

 

Senator James commented, section 4, subsection 11, of S.B. 550, says assistant parole and probation officers shall: “Supervise a person with whom the division of parole and probation . . . contracts.”  The language has been added, Senator James said, and the additional language would not have the effect of making the person a non-independent contractor, but rather an employee. 

 

Mr. Lutzow said he had not anticipated that problem, and wished to meet with the committee’s legal staff to find appropriate language to deal with Senator James’ concern. 

 

Senator James suggested the private contractor, having the same powers and duties as an employee of the division, should have precedence in other areas.  Mr. Lutzow said the division does not have a precedent for the particular aspect mentioned by Senator James.

 

Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 550, and opened the work session.

 

All of the amendments discussed in the work session are provided in the work session document for April 9, 2001 (Exhibit E).

 

SENATE BILL 88:  Provides for creation and foreclosure of liens for farm products.  (BDR 9-643)

 

Senator Care said he met with all interested parties who voiced their opinions.  He indicated all the amended language is contained in the work session document (Exhibit E).

 

Senator James accepted a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 88.

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 88.

 

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

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

 

Senator James indicated there were two proposed amendments to S.B. 171.  Both proposed amendments are described in the work session document (Exhibit E). 

 

Senator Titus said she supported the proposed amendments.  She stated, “I like to have the members vote, like Senator Care’s bill, that requires people to show up and have a majority.”  Senator Titus expressed concern that a casino project is more important than a prison or a hazardous landfill, and noted many things can have an impact on a neighborhood. 

 

Senator James clarified three-fourths majority of the members of the governing body would remain in the bill, and added, the three-fourths majority vote must be amended in the conflicts law. 

 

Mr. Wilkinson said the amendment could be made clearer by including the language, “not withstanding the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 281.581.”  Senator James agreed to the change in language. 

 

Senator McGinness asked whether there is a supermajority required in any other issue in the legislature, other than tax issues.  Senator James replied, under S.B. 171 there would be that requirement.  However, he said, if the supermajority is created then there is the possibility of never having anything pass.

 

Senator James said, “We are trending towards setting up professional boards, where people would not have outside employment.”  He added county commissioners and others will have conflicts arise, naturally, because they have part-time jobs.  Senator James stated the changes may be the right thing to do, but may also be before their time. 

 

Senator McGinness stated there might be the implication the bill is attempting to make it so an issue can never pass.  He added, “We are starting to take the roundabout way to defeat an issue; that troubles me somewhat.”  Senator McGinness said voting has always been done through a majority.

 

Senator James said, “Senator Rawson could have aimed (not putting words in his mouth) the legislation at the situation where there was a [proposed] casino in Spring Valley and several members of the county commission were not able to vote on it, and so it ended up passing by a three-fourths majority, but there were only four people voting.”  Senator James commented there was a lack of representation for the vote concerning Spring Valley.  However, Senator James acknowledged Senator McGinness’ concerns, if a board does not want something to pass, then a conflict of interest could be created. 

 

Senator Porter mentioned he was working with a similar issue in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.  He added, “The best interest of the committee was not being served because of the lack of members that attended, so it is a very serious concern.”

 

Senator James asked Senator Porter whether he would support the three‑fourths majority of the entire board, which would be an amendment of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, meaning whether or not the members were there, there still must be five members of the county commission to vote in favor of a project. 

 

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

 

Senator Porter said he recalled the discussions of Senator Care’s bill in the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.  There are issues now that require the three-fourths majority vote.

 

Senator Care said the bill that passed out of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs stemmed directly from what happened in Spring Valley.  He said he would be abstaining from the vote.  He did not remember S.B. 208 of the Sixty-Ninth Session decreasing the three-fourths vote, or it being a constitutional issue.

 

Senator James did not believe it was a constitutional issue, only an issue of legislative prerogative to decide if the requirement should be ratified, knowing under certain circumstances a project will not be built because of conflicts. 

 

Senator James moved on to the second proposed provision, the definition of property line.  He said, “It has to be 500 feet from a developed residential district.”  There would have to be a cutoff time for parceling, for example, at the time when the first dwelling is occupied within the developed residential district.

 

Mr. Wilkinson replied, “The way I would interpret it, as long as it is still their property, they would not meet the distance requirement.”

 

Senator James requested definition language for the change.  Mr. Wilkinson responded it is a matter of interpreting the language.  He said, ”Right now the date is the date that the petition is filed, [which indicates] where the property line is at the moment.”  Mr. Wilkinson remarked an individual would have to sell the property for it not to be their property line. 

 

Senator James requested the language be added.

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 171.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR CARE ABSTAINED FROM VOTING).

 

*****

 

Senator Porter added he believed S.B. 208 of the Sixty-Ninth Session was a good start to protect residents.  He said, “Every session we should look at making it stronger and strengthening the intent.” 

 

SENATE BILL 230:  Revises provisions relating to juveniles who violate parole. (BDR 16-575)

 

Senator Washington said he chaired the subcommittee on S.B. 230, S.B. 231, and S.B. 232, and he addressed the proposed amendments for the bills.

 

Senator James stated S.B. 230 must be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.  He also asked what safeguards for the child were in place for the temporary lockdown in adult jails (section 10, subsection 2).

 

Senator Washington responded the “division” had given the impression there would be safeguards, but it was only a temporary situation until they could be adjudicated to court.  He added, the child would not be housed with adults, but would be held within adult facilities. 

 

Senator James inquired how long the minor would be housed in the adult facility.  Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, answered the minor would be housed in the adult facility until the proceedings of adjudication took place.  She added, “This is much broader than parole and probation and would include individuals over 18 years of age to be held until a hearing.”

 

Senator James asked whether a safeguard would be put into the statute to ensure minors would not be commingled with the adult population.

 

Mr. Wilkinson said it is a clarifying amendment.  He stated, “The way I read NRS 62.170, this would already be allowed under the existing law.”  However, he added, judges often see it otherwise.  Mr. Wilkinson said individuals over 18 years of age would be intermingled with the adult population.  Federal law requires if the youth is under 18 years of age, the youth must be separated by sight and sound from the adult population.  Although, for those 18 years and older, there is no requirement, under current law, that they cannot be put into an adult jail. 

 

Senator James stated he was not comfortable with the idea.  He stated, “If they are over 18 years of age, but still under the jurisdiction of juvenile court, then they are there for a matter of juvenile justice.” 

 

Senator Washington said he believed the counties’ 18-year-olds under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts are separated from the adult population.

 

Senator James asked “Can we take [section 10] subsection 2 out, or, if it is left in, then clarify they [18-year-olds] need to be separated by sight and sound.”

 

Senator Washington said that would be acceptable. 

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B. 230 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 231:  Revises provisions relating to detention homes for temporary detention of children. (BDR 5-574)

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 231.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

 SENATE BILL 232:  Requires certain state and local agencies to assess whether children of racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately taken into custody, detained or referred to the system of juvenile justice. (BDR 5‑573)

 

Senator Washington referred to the work session document for proposed amendments to S.B. 232 (Exhibit E).

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND RE-REFER S.B. 232 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

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

 

Senator Porter requested his remarks be added to the record:

 

Tribal casinos under the new law in California could have, in the next 10 years, between 45,000 and 214,000 slot machines.  Currently, the strip has about 60,000 slot machines.  Also, a recent study . . . done by the City of Reno shows that the impact with the expansion of tribal gaming in California, on the I‑80 and Highway 50 corridors, could cost the state between $24,000 and $43 million dollars a year, plus a loss of 16,000 jobs.  We could talk about dollars and cents all you want, and the number of slot machines.  We are now looking at the actual hard count of lost jobs, potentially 16,000.  Currently, there are 43 Indian casinos in California.  They figure by the year 2010 there will be over a hundred, with an average of 2000 [slot machines] per casino.  I do support this bill and we need to find continuous ways to expand our gaming base in Nevada as it is expanding around us. 

 

Senator Care stated:

 

After the hearing, I had conversations on successive days with Faiss [Robert D. Faiss, Lobbyist], who testified on behalf of the Nevada Resort Association.  I have also talked to Dan Wade, who testified for the MGM Mirage.  The thrust of the conversations was, since they testified this would be good for Nevada, that the public should be entitled to know what goes on in the international gaming salons.  The Nevada Resort Association is willing to have the gaming control board submit to the committee, for the next legislative session, a summary, so we can determine whether the legislation accomplished its intent.  We all understood that the names of the players would not be identified, or the companies of origin.  I do not know what would be identified; we do not want to do anything to disclose the identities.  Nonetheless, there would be some record available to the public from the gaming control board. 

 

Senator James commented that the committee has the authority to request the information from the gaming control board. 

 

Senator Porter asked for clarification, “Although the public or a customer could not walk into the gaming areas, it is still regulated and filmed and all the information is available to the regulatory bodies, correct?”

 

Senator James responded that was correct.  He also said the chairman of the gaming control board, Dennis Neilander, testified in favor of the measure. 

 

SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 283.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 285:  Requires district attorney to provide certain information regarding performance of his duties pertaining to child support. (BDR 11‑1344)

 

Senator James said the issue should be dealt with in the interim.

 

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 285.

 

SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

SENATE BILL 474:  Revises provisions of Uniform Commercial Code governing secured transactions. (BDR 8-453)

 

Ms. Combs said the testimony concerning S.B. 474 was largely relative to technical changes.  She stated the amendment provided by Frank Daykin is located under tab C of the work session document (Exhibit E). 

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 474.

 

SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

There being no further business, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:42 a.m.

 

 

                                                                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Heather Dion,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

 

 

DATE: